The flaws in Ali's game

Favoured by whom, you? I reckon if Ali fought Frazier in his prime he'd be favoured by the odds makers. And also if they met in 68/69 or even the 1971 Frazier facing the 1967 Ali.

I'm denying the possiblity that Frazier could be favoured against a prime Ali who officially holds the title and hadn't been stripped.

When you use the words "could be favoured" I assume you mean before a bell rings rather than an outright prediction of the result?

 

Obviously Ali's lack of fundementals were a positive as they worked for him when at his peak. It's still a weakness, but a weakness that can't be knocked. The man was winning and dominating the oppostion. A successful formula. Yeah, speed, timing, rhythm, etc, compensated for his lack of fundementals. You can hardly call his 'lack of fundementals' a weakness if they weren't exploited. His lack of fundementals are packed together with his speed, timing, ring generalship, etc. His lack of fundementals made him the fighter he was at his peak.

Whatever. I could say his successful formula was because of his flaws as the flaws were part of the package.

The flaws were always there. And I'm not saying Futch was a liar. He obviously seen them when being a close observer of Ali during the 60's. He seen Ali pulling out of range with his chin in the air and the hands down. I'm saying the flaws were always flaws even though nobody made him pay. But the flaws can't be knocked when they are working. Thats essentially what his flaws were doing looking back with hindsight. Ali's hands down style made opponents unsure when to commit themselves and most of the time they hung back. His whole style was unorthodox. Opponents seen a wide open target, tried to capatalize, then got countered to death. Ali's flawed style was something many opponents hadn't seen before. He was doing things that weren't the norm. Fighters couldn't build up any kind of sustained rhythm against him or land effective blows regularly. Why? Because of his style. Flawed style might I add. :good

 

Okay, this is how you see it, but it is not a retort to my assertions and it didn't answer the questions posed.

Again, your point that Ali won the rematches discounts the fact that those rematches took place after 1971, when Frazier's high energy style slowed down marketedly and after Foreman destroyed him. I am well aware that Ali had faded after his exile and continued to fade at a quick rate throughout the 70s. Both styles were destined to fade as youth and vigor dissipated, but I am asserting that prime Frazier's style was the foil for Ali's style. In addition, I do not and would not assert that Ali would lose a rematch... becuase I don't think he would.

You seem to hold that Ali "underestimated" Frazier. Ali was facing an undefeated champion who by all accounts was hellish to fight. Ali was trying to take back his title. I doubt that he slacked in training and he sure as hell didn't look it.

 

Considering Frazier-Ali I, and considering Frazier's style and assets, a person could favor Frazier over 1967 Ali. It would not, in other words, be unreasonable.

 

I agree. Calling it "unreasonable" would be going to far. As you said, Frazier would always be a bad match-up for Ali stylewise, as would Norton.

 

There is nothing obvious about it. Fundamentals are a cornerstone of boxing. To argue that it is a positive to lack fundamentals simply makes no sense.

So it's a weakness AND a positive? A positive weakness? I think that is an oxymoron.

Robbi, you're a solid poster and I read all of your posts that I see. But you're in contortions here.

And I could say that the sky is falling.

Ali was successful despite his flaws! Not because of his flaws!!

Okay, you fleshed it out a bit here, but I tend to doubt -seriously doubt, magnificently doubt, that those flaws would not have meant unconsciousness but for his speed and reflexes. You yourself confirm this when you admit that Ali began to pay for these flaws in his 30s. If they were assets, he wouldn't have. Ali got away with these bad habits and was able to indulge in them because of speed.

Ali was not exactly an Emanuel Augustus in there. Futch observed that he tended to do the same things... he was fairly predictable and more limited than he appeared. His game revolved around these --speed, reflexes, timing, distance negotiation, rythym, mobility, and a superior outside/straight punching capability. Superior athleticism. Superior athletes can afford to flout the fundamentals, but they do so at their own risk and this risk eventually becomes painfully real for the vast majority of fighters who flout fundamentals.

 

Ali-Frazier I is irrelevant. I'll explain why. When you say Frazier could be 'favoured' if they fought in their primes, then it's as if we going back in time without the first fight taking place.

You make it sound like saying Frazier would be the favourite going into the fight among the vast majority of people, not actually you're prediction on the fight. You're looking at it from the outside rather than exclusively on your own.

"Either way, I asserted that prime Frazier could be favored against 1967 Ali. Denying even that possibility is unwise"

It's like Jones-Calzaghe happening this week. Calzaghe is favoured over Jones. Thats what I'd say to anyone who asked me about the fight. Although I think Jones will win. Thats how I interpret your 'favoured' meaning of Frazier over Ali. If thats the case, I disagree.

Mind I'm in the UK, your in then US. Different lingo on explaining things. That might be the problem.

 

Ali made mistakes HOWEVER saying he lacked foundamentals ignores his stylistic strengths. He used body movement and footwork to avoid shots instead of blocking/parrying, this was an amazing skill but simply takes too much energy to do effectively past prime but in his prime he was very very effective and when concentrating it was hard to lay a glove on him. Ali and Roy Jones

Also as I mentioned prior, holding your glvoes low allows you to quick fire your shots and be less linear

Backing up i straight lines and leaning back to avoid shots is a stylistic weakness that can be exploited BUT it is far less of a problem but when combined with fleet footed movement

 

Why would you say "I make it sound like..."? I explained to you precisely what I meant. I'm not sure why this is so complicated. I made an assertion that is obviously my opinion and then explained what I meant. Here's another thing -if I said "Frazier would be favored" then you would have a point because then I'd clearly be making assumptions about the masses. As it was, I didn't, and either way, I explained what I meant.

Frazier-Ali is not irrelevant. I see that and make inferences. You see Jones vs. Tarver and make inferences about how Jones would handle Tarver 3 years earlier. So what. It's what we do all day on a forum like this.

 

Stonehands. I'm not going to quote everything just for the sake of it. I think you get my end of the stick after reading my last few posts on the topic. I'm sure I have cleared up some areas and we are close to singing off the same sheet to a certain extent. Certainly when it comes to understanding each other.

"So it's a weakness AND a positive?"

I'm not trying to confuse you further. But yes, a weakness and a positive. His style was a positive because it was flawed combined with his speed and athleticism. You can't have one without the other when it comes to Ali in his prime. Everything he done was co-ordinated around his flaws and reflexes, speed, etc. The weaknesses were always there because he lacked the basics. He was a risk taker and was vulverable. If Ali was beaten two or three times in his prime and continually got smacked around the ring, then the flaws are exposed. Then it's worth knocking them and being critical. But the flaws were part of him when at his best, thats why I'm on the positive side of things rather than negative.

I'm not expecting you to open the gym doors tommorow and say to all your fighters "lets start fighting like Ali guys, this is the way forward from now on"

Ali's style was risky and dangerous, not for the vast majority of fighters.

I'll put a bet on with you that if a fighter did train within your gym walls. A fighter who was comfortable with his style. Lets say he was 'Ali like' and his moves and style had become that of 'habit' over a few years, you'd not try to change things to the fundementals. Especially if he was exceptional.

 

You may want to take the time to read previous posts and the complete post before elaborating on points that have already been discussed or acknowledged at length.

...Although you will find nothing in them concurring with your opinion about the value of holding your gloves low. Since when is the fastest way from point "A" to point "B" not a straight line? Would you have suggested to Chavez that he "hold his hands low" to be "less linear" so that his shots would be faster?

 

I would say, though, that there are few fights, if any, that would have turned out differently for Ali if his fundamentals had been "sounder".

FOTC - possibly. As you pointed out Ali did drop his right too often and got punished for it. Frazier would be hell for him anyway, though, and Ali didn't make these mistakes to the same degree in their subsequent fights.

Norton I - Not as much as FOTC, I would say. Norton utilised his jab and footwork very well, to an extent that he would make life extremely difficult for any boxer without the power to seriously discourage him.

Young - Not really. His speed would be a problem for anyone with seriously depleted speed, timing and reflexes. Considering the terrible shape Ali was in, I actually think he did quite well against such a slickster.

Shavers - The line here is usually that only Ali's chin and heart saved him here. Fair enough. But even a prime Holmes might very well have 2 KO losses against Shavers if not for HIS heart and chin. Limited as Shavers was, he was quite adept at finding the mark with that right. He did after all KO both Young and Bugner with it (and nearly KO'd Holmes and Ali), amongst countless others.

Holmes, Berbick - Ali was too shot here to put up any true resistance, no matter his fundamentals.

 

I most certainly would insist on them learning the fundamentals because the fundamentals enhance their safety. Boxing isn't oil painting, my friend. It can be life and death. There are excellent reasons why you don't want your charge pulling straight back or dropping his hands or leaving his chin up. In the wake of Ali particularly, thousands of African-American novices emulate him and you know what happens to those guys Robbi? They get hurt.

It is enough to say that Ali was an exception in that he flouted certain tried-and-true skillsets and was great anyway, but it is going way to far to say that those bad habits were actually assets.

Another thing. I think that Angelo Dundee is overrated. And there's a difference between accepting that your charge will not or cannot adopt certain safer habits in the ring on the one hand and turning the boxing world upside down on the other ("Hey, Ali's hands are low and he pulls straight back and he has little to no inside game and he neglects body punches--- ain't that wonderful?")...

 

But, still he was tagged less than most. And which journeymen tagged him? Sonny Banks?