The fallacy of Ali's "prime"

The post being missed is not that he defeated larger scalps in his second career but that he was able to do so with his B game ... he fought and defeated Frazier, Foreman , Norton ( questionably) , Bugner, Quarry, Lyle, Shavers, Ellis and the rest with his default style, his Ray Leonard / Montreal version because that's what was left ... no one knew for sure what pre-exile's chin was like because he was so rarely hit .. he was a phenom like a prime Whitaker or a Mayweather, one of those who may have not been the most exciting but performed at a much higher level and that was all about his speed and reflexes, speed and reflexes that were greatly diminished by the three and one half years of inactivity. In his second career he won with still very good hand speed, his size, strength and chin but got hit way to often, too too much punishment and suffered horribly because of it ..

 

A very true post. Your content is exactly what I tried to point out. I saw Muhammad Ali defend his title live on television back when his fights were televised live on television on Saturday afternoons, usually on ABC's Wide World Of Sports with Howard Cosell commentating. Those that disagree with posts like ours do not pay close attention to the peak skills of Ali, they choose to favor the past his peak Ali who was very vulnerable in his second career getting mauled by Joe Frazier on March 8 1971, after having two fights in 43 months, and looking very vulnerable against Oscar Bonavena right before battling Frazier. Many who might disagree with us posters typically saw Ali fight on You Tube, like I said, I saw all the pre fight buildup prior to Ali's title defenses after he defeated Sonny Liston. I remember all the pre fight ballyhoo that went on before Ali defended his title against Henry Cooper on May 21 1966. the media was wondering if Cooper would score another knockdown as he had on June 18 1963. Ali fought very cautious, wary of Cooper's big left hook until that exchange in round 6 when during that exchange, Ali tore open Henry's eyebrow with that choppy right hand, which costs Cooper 14 sutures as Ali and Henry were covered in blood from Henry's lacerated eyebrow. I remember Cooper protesting the stoppage, there was no knockdown in this rematch by Cooper. Not fighting for 43 months, not sparring because you are busy lecturing on the college circuit because your boxing license was suspended, needing to pay your attorney's fees and feed your family. And also stressing out because you may eventually land in prison for 5 years is stressful. Your mind and body are not going to be the same as before. But as I believe, Different Strokes For Different Folks, I don't expect others to believe as I believe. But I do respect Ali for standing up to what he believed, much respect to the man.

 

You said his talent had faded. This time you say it’s his skills. Which is it?

 

It was his skills, my mistake.

 

Ali was the quintessential reflex fighter. Those lost years really hurt.

 

So Richard says it’s his skills that eroded, & you say it’s his talent. If I were a cynic I’d suggest the exaggeration over how much Ali lost in exile has created confusion over exactly what it was he even lost at all.

 

You try to be away from a sport like boxing for 43 months at age 25, at your peak, not prime because we never saw Muhammad Ali in his prime, that prime again was taken away from him in 1967 because of his refusal to submit to the mandatory military draft. Maybe you are the one that is exaggerating, looking for a bout of words, I am not biting. I do not know your exact age but I saw pretty much of Ali's career pre exile and post exile, the pre exile version of Ali was better in my opinion. The second career was too dramatic, I don't care for drama, don't care for soap operas. But I do care for boxing skills, as I said, been watching pro boxing since 1965, I did not depend on You Tube like most youngsters do these days. Do I care what others think of my opinion? frankly no. Nor Am I going to try to make someone believe as I do. I am not a troll to force my beliefs on others, that is for immature children, we are men on this site, not trolls or children.

 

I agree he lost some ability during his exile. That is not in dispute. What I challenge is that the Ali industry has exaggerated the detriment to extraordinary, ludicrous levels. Anybody can watch the FotC & see a fighter with absolutely magnificent hand & foot speed, co-ordination, & endurance. As good as 1967? No. Wildly, dramatically worse? The closeness of the fight & manner Ali acquitted himself as the loser answers the question.

He didn’t make excuses for the loss. His fans ought to stop.

 

Maybe our friend believes elite athletes are like wine who improve with age and dormancy.

 

Again, I have already said Ali lost some ability during exile. I simply refuse to play along with the game that is designed only to enhance his legend & diminish threats to it like Frazier.

Foreman was out ten years & made no excuses. Hell, Ali didn’t make excuses, either. But the Ali industry compulsively must, apparently.

 

Frazier always being a tough out and post exile Muhammad Ali being a diminished fighter aren't mutually exclusive.

 

This seems very much like a straw man to me. Who has denied that Ali still was a hell of a fighter for FOTC? What people are saying is that he lost a step, which you agree with, but no one is denying as far as I've seen that he still was extremely good. If anyone has said he was "wildly, dramatically worse" I sure as hell has missed it.

 

I see it nearly every day, in every post on the matter. Don’t know who you’re conversing with, or which documentaries you’re watching.

 

In every post on the matter? Show me one post on this forum that says something to the effect that FOTC Ali was wildly, dramatically worse than the 1967 version.

 

And "the Ali industry"..? ****, can we have one new poster here without an adolescent, hipster attitude that they see through "the mainstream narrative". Just one.