Muhammad Ali before the layoff

Both Ali and Frazier had fights 3 to 3-1/2 months before the FOTC.

Frazier might have taken on Patterson on April, and after giving Floyd a bad beating, could have been even more powerful against Ali in the Summer. Frazier was at his peak too.

 

No, I don't. And only one who haven't seen any of his fights pre exile could argue such nonsense.

 

Actually, I've seen all of Ali's fights, you presumptuous dip****. Now, if it's so obvious, you should be able to point out to me the discernable difference between this:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC8a-6NrB6s[/ame]

and this:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJUzl0aFHZw[/ame]


Notice that I've been charitable enough to pick what's recognised as Ali's BEST performance pre-layoff against his very first fight post-layoff (where ring rust is to be expected). I could easily have picked out footage of, say, a plodding George Chuvalo charging Ali to the ropes and getting in shitloads of body shots, or Ali struggling to out-maneouvre quasi-Eurobum Karl Mildenberger. But I didn't. No excuses then.

I'm not saying that '70 Ali was exactly the same as '67 Ali. Obviously, things change. (Read my original post.) This myth that Ali was a shadow of his former self and would have licked Frazier if he'd fought him 3 years before etc. is what I'm attacking.

 

Okay, I had an argument like this with Sweet Pea so we'll just agree to disagree.

 

If you think Alis' jab improved after the lay-off then you have watched all of his fights to no avail. If you actually think he looked better in any way in the first fight against Quarry than he did against Williams then you know nothing about boxing and should stay in General.

 

Works for me. But you really should stay out of arguments concerning Ali, because you only embarass yourself.

 

Sure thing man, I just wish you wouldn't strengthen my argument before you say things like that. Have you seen any others posts on this thread. You may want to check them out.

 

Okay this is the problem I have with the classic forum, everyone here is so inflexible and unwilling to discuss "The Invincibles" that whenever anyone says anything controversial, many just write them off without doing any research. This guy actually posted video strengthening his(and my) argument and you just dismiss it. Ridiculous.

 

Remember that this is a forum guys. Everyone here has boxed before and is entitled to his own opinion. I personally believe that '67 Ali isn't as mentally tough as the later version(along with the stylistic differences) and he thusly wouldn't be able to handle Frazier's pressure and would get clubbed into submission. :yep

 

Thing is. It has been done to death.

I know you think you're original, but so many have made so much out of every fight where Ali lost a round or two. "Bob Foster outjabbed Ali", "Lyle would have beaten Ali had the ref not needlessly stepped in", "Futch were wrong to stop Frazier in Manilla - Frazier would have won otherwise", "Mildenberger and Folley gave Ali terrible trouble", "Chuvalo beat Ali's body into mince meat" etc etc.

And you just have to watch the films to see how terrific Ali's jab was pre-exile. He defeated Patterson with it all by itself largely. To call it "flicking" is about as enligthened as calling Tyson an arm puncher. And to believe you improve anything by being inactive for 3,5 years then having 6 months of training... Come on!

As for Ali Frazier prime for prime: Ali beat Frazier 2 times out of 3 while being older on all occassions. The burden of proof is really on the one favouring Frazier here.

 

When did I say this?

When did I say this?

 

In the FOTC, both fighters were in the best condition they were ever in in any of their fights with each-other. Frazier won. That says something.

 

It could well be so (I'm not 100% of it, though), but the same thing can be said for Schemling-Louis. You have Schmeling as the better man in a prime for prime match-up?

 

I seem to forget who said what. If you didn't say it, just ignore my comment.