The fallacy of Ali's "prime"

Ali would have been 25-28 years old from 67-70. He still had the great foot and hand speed just prior to his exile but he also was more filled out physically and packed a harder punch. I honestly think he would have been virtually unbeatable had he been able to continue fighting during this period! And as much as I love Smokin Joe I don't even think an FOTC trained and conditioned Frazier could have beaten Ali during this timeframe had he been able to continue his career and stay in condition--(which I have no doubts he would have.)

Ali was still an absolutely formidable opponent when he fought Frazier in 71' but he couldn't sustain the hand and foot speed that he had pre-exile over 15 rounds. In that fight he spent a lot more time on the ropes and clinching--that's when Joe was really able to lay heavy lumber on him with those crunching body shots. I don't think Frazier would have been able to do that facing Ali in 1967-70 with his career continuing uninterrupted.

 

Absolutely not. If Ali's style relied on high energy output, then what was Tyson's relying on ? His entire style relied on erratic movement and explosiveness to close the distance, and his square stance made him rely almost exclusively on his reflexes to avoid punches, whereas a more sideways stance has a built-in defence ingrained in it. We already saw the best of Tyson, maybe he could have added a few layers to his game had Cus stayed alive for a few more years, but the real Tyson would have never regained his mid to late 80's form, regardless if he had gone to prison or not. He was not built for longevity.

As far as Ali goes, he was just 25 years old when he was exiled, he had a good 3-5 years of development left in him. He was planning on fighting Bovanena in May and Spencer in July of 1967, and he still would have had room for 2 more fights to close out the year. That's 5 fights a year, just as many as he had in 1966. he could have had a good extra 15 fights after Folley by the time 1970 hit. Having so many fights and being active practically guarantees gaining more experience, Ali could have added some more layers to his arsenal, had he been allowed to fight. Add the fact that he was still physically growing stronger, and he would have been both a stronger, smarter and more experienced fighter by the time his physical gifts would start abandoning him.

 

Ali=overrated

 

I rank Joe Louis as my number one all time Heavyweight, with Muhammad Ali at a close second. Had Muhammad been allowed to continue his career, he might be my number one today. I will never know for sure, but I suspect he might have become my number one.

 

Disagree with your assesment Ali suffered far more than Tyson due to the enforced break

 

Unbelievable

 

Top Post!

 

And 67-70 Ali really wouldn’t have fought any great opposition like in the 70s. So moot point yeah he beats everyone during that period. He doesn’t beat Liston in the 2nd fight if it’s not fixed. Which I know was earlier. And he doesn’t beat Foreman in a rematch. And he doesn’t beat a prime Holmes. Holmes could take any version of Ali. I could see Mike Weaver dropping Ali not winning but knocking him down. Ali is a top 5 I will say that but not the greatest just my opinion

 

Bold. And I mostly agree.

The casuals pointing to the Williams fight as some sort of unbeatable version of Ali always gets me. We all look great against heavybags.

Peak Ali was in the early 70's. He beat a prime Frazier and a prime Norton and a prime Foreman. He had to change his approach to do so.

 

Oh boy you are so wrong he would have probably fought Frazier earlier without the ban

 

When people love a fighter they characterize any struggles said fighter has at 30ish as the fighter not being in their "prime". They put said prime on a pedestal and any performances that don't live up to that must be because that isn't the same fighter. Whereas a fighter they are impartial towards would never get that deference. Another example is Tyson.

Obviously fighters decline as they age I am in no way implying Ali didn't noticeably decline by his last few title fights. But thats not what we're talking about. Ali came back from his exile when he was 28 years old and lost to Frazier at 29. Tyson got out of prison at 29 and lost to Holyfield at 30. But because they weren't as dominant as they remember people chalk it up to them not being as good opposed to their opponents getting better. A fighters age is a fact if a fighter is old that is a fair and objective standard that can be applied to anyone. Even if we disagree on what that means. But I don't think anyone generally believes fighters are declining as they turn 30.

Now theres exceptions to this. One is mileage. Ali fought about 550 rounds which is a lot by todays standards. But well under 200 of those came before the exile. Another is results and if a fighter goes on a losing streak. In this case the exile would be a valid explanation for a bizzare dropoff. But Ali went something like 30-2 in the next decade against arguably the best SOS any HWs ever had.

 

FOTC Frazier from March 8, 1971 would have been a problem for any heavyweight champion that night because he was not going to loose...especially for prime Ali of 1963 to 1967.

 

The leg mobility was the most stamina expensive practice - exile or not.

I think it would’ve been the first attribute to see a downturn - and somewhat earlier than the rest of Ali’s arsenal.

That slight downturn could possibly have occurred during the exile years - but not as appreciably as it did due to the exile.

I don’t know that Ali would’ve necessarily improved from 67 to 70.

However, we would’ve still seen a broader application of his skills and also perhaps seen yet to be revealed features borne out from more varied opposition presenting different challenges.

Even when post prime and not ideally match fit, we saw what a 71, absolute prime Frazier brought out in Ali. Joe was the ultimate stress test.

Also, adaptability (which Ali had in spades) is an evergreen property - directly related to ring IQ.

Adaptability extends the duration of a fighters most viable years but it’s an attribute that I wouldn’t necessarily confuse with a fighter still being in and around his actual prime.

Though, to muddy the waters a bit, accrual of ring smarts can increase and improve a fighter over a greater number of years in the game - and we know old Foreman, though well past his generally perceived prime, did fight with a better head than young Foreman.

I think Tyson’s prime longevity was always going to be shorter given his style in whole terms and an interruption to that prime would’ve likely seen a more appreciable reduction in his prime effectiveness overall.

But all attributes can be weighted in their own right and, despite all else he had in his favour, Ali’s leg mobility was extremely important to Ali for keeping out of harms way - so loss of same was still a big deal post exile, with Ali having to absorb so much more punishment than he did in the 60s.

That simply served to introduce a new or at least hitherto dormant feature to Ali’s game - incredible durability.

Just one last thing to consider is that fighters with a shorter prime longevities are not generally as well rounded as fighters who can hang at that the top of their game for that much longer.

Point being, it’s not as if shorter primes are always necessarily abstract and isolated from the calculation of the overall prime qualities of a fighter in the first instance.

 

Ali missed some of his prime, certainly. But to say we never saw him at his peak is pure soundbyte bait. Anyone see him 65-67? He was 23-25. I don’t know too many Champions who were 25, had been Champ for three years, made nine defenses of their title, & who were 29-0 who weren’t in their prime.