The flaws in Ali's game

Not bad... but I think that Ali would have been far, far better off had he been able to do what Moore and Duran and Hopkins et al., did, ie. emphasize technique and trap-setting and minimize punishments by relying on sound defense instead of reflexes with age. None of the above guys are suffering now. They all fought to ages beyond Ali and got hit far less. That's no accident. It's because they were superior technicians.

Ali was horrendously punished in Frazier I and III. He took alot of punishment from Foreman (how many times did you see him, weave under an inevitably wide hook and angle out in Zaire?) and from Shavers and from Norton. In fact, I'll go further, had Ali had a solid foundation in fundamentals -particularly defense, he might have been spared his present condition to some degree. We may not all be out here praising his heroic will and lion heart because he would not have been forced to rely on such intangibles...

 

If your giving me your take on who would be the favourite against the 67 Ali and prime Frazier, lets say the Frazier of 1968-70, Ali would still have held the title. How does the 1971 fight hold any weight? It clearly doesn't hold any weight whatsoever in who's favourite for the fight. It would great if we could look into the future, but that can't be done my friend.

 

You're not following my line of reasoning....

We have no time machine. But we do have history. Frazier beat Ali when first they met. I believe that he demonstrated a style that exploited Ali's stylistic flaws. I believe that -based on what I saw and what I know and what I theorize- 1971 Frazier would have beaten 1967 Ali.

 

FOTC, I've already agreed about, but in Manilla Ali didn't get hit with as many clean punches as in FOTC, it was more the terrible attrition. I don't see how Ali could avoid such a war of attrition, since Frazier just refused to succumb to his punches. I don't care who you are, either you KO that Frazier or you go to hell with him.

As for Zaire, the punches Ali took was down to his tactics, not his technique. Quite the contrary, if it wasn't for his superb blocking of punches and his ability to almost always keep the balance in order to get leverage on his counter punches Ali would be much worse off in this fight. This I see as one fight where Ali's technical ability really helped him, even if he of course needed his heart and durability as well.

When it comes to Shavers, he was able too land often enough on skilled defensive fighters as Bugner, Young and even Holmes. That he landed his fair on the wreck that Ali was then is hardly surprising considering this. The tragedy is that Ali's chin was in so much better condition than his reflexes and timing. Another problem was that the snap in his punches were completely gone, so Shavers just walked through them on several occassions to land his own, much more potent, artillery.

 

Come on! You're dangerously close trolling right now. First off all, Cooper was a genuine contender when Ali met him, hardly a journeyman. And to use the Wepner "knock down"... this is turning silly.

I'll agree that Banks was a journeyman, but Ali was still green and got right up and wiped the floor with him.

 

When you said favoured, over here that would interpreted on who would be favourite to win. Which can be done without predicting who you think would win yourself.

I explained myself with this and you never picked up on it. You know exactly what I meant below.

"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"

Thats how I interpreted your Frazier could be favoured over the 67 Ali. Now your actually meaning Frazier would win.

Whats it to be?

Frazier being the favourite before the first bell rings without the 71 fight holding any weight or your actual prediction that Frazier won win the fight?. Two seperate things.

What I initially quoted you on below wasnt exactly your prediction for the fight.

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

 

Ali is iconic and it's hard to consider how Ali may have been a better fighter -particularly in the 70s- had he demonstrated command of the fundamentals. I'll push Bundini Brown aside and proclaim into any microphone that had Ali demonstrated a better command of the fundamentals it would not have necessarily deleteriously affected his style but it would have improved his game and his health.

I am not sure that you are acknowledging that it is possible that Ali's game could have been better. Mendoza reminds us of who knocked down Ali... among them are Banks, Cooper, and Frazier... these are the clean knockdowns... and they all knocked him down with the same shot.
Guess which one. For a hint, see avatar.
Guess why.

 

I wrote this several posts ago and have already indicated to you that I mean "us", or "anyone" "today": ........"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 would be one of those people.

 

Stonehands. You will give ground on nothing. Nothing. You have shifted your tune throughout your posts. You don't ever concede anything whatsoever. You're wrong.

"However, I'd assert that a prime Frazier could be favored to defeat even a 1967 Ali -the first time"

The first post I quoted you on above. What you have said here is that Frazier could be favored to win against Ali. You aren't saying he's your pick to win the fight in their primes. If someone asked me yesterday who knows nothing about politics "Who's favored to win between Obama and McCain?" lets say I say McCain (he isnt). But it doesn't mean that I'm picking McCain to win. You're saying "Frazier could be favored against the 1967 Ali" That means your saying Frazier would be the favourite for the fight, not your pick to win. Lets look at your next post.

"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'll say it again. And i'm tying this together with your first quoted post. Ali-Frazier I holds no water, none, when it comes to who would be the favourite for the fight. It's only relevant on your pick on the winner. As I have said previously, you can only look back and come to the conclusion who would be favored up until what they had done prior to when they are matched. It's like Hagler and Leonard in 82. Who would have been favored if they met then?. Hagler as he was in his prime and a natural at the weight. Why would the result of the fight in 1987 have any bearing on who's favored 5 years previously? Again, only when giving your pick on the winner can the 87 fight be used and looked upon. Now look at your next post.


"We have no time machine. But we do have history. Frazier beat Ali when first they met. I believe that he demonstrated a style that exploited Ali's stylistic flaws. I believe that -based on what I saw and what I know and what I theorize- 1971 Frazier would have beaten 1967 Ali"

You're actually saying now that Frazier would have beaten Ali. Not "could" as you said at the very first post I have quoted you on at the top of this message. Two entire different subjects anyway. The 'could' was regarding Frazier being favored over Ali. Now, later on you're saying he would have beaten him. These are two seperate issues anyway, the last post above and the first one I quoted you. Clearly and easily sepearted. Not the same thing.

Just look at your first post at the top, then your very last one. Not the same at all.

Me saying who I think would be favored and actually making a prediction are two sepearte things altogether. Like left and right, and black and white. And over these posts you have tried to convince me you're banging on about the same matter, when you clearly aren't.

 

Not here, no. I find your argument faulty and have not changed my opinion on it since the last debate we had about this topic. As per Frazier's prospects against Ali earlier, well, what we have there is a failure to communicate...

-"Clarified" is not "shifting".

-I have conceded points -to JT, to Meta, to McGrain, among others. I don't do it easily if that is what you're asking for and the reason is because I don't just type away casually... I think, perhaps too much, about how to frame an argument and I craft posts carefully as you yourself have recognized. Therefore I don't concede often because what I post has usually been pondered and reflected on... that's not hard to understand. My mind is as open as a 40 acre field, but it doesn't mean I'm going to change it on a whim or as a favor.

-What am I wrong about ...?

It could also mean what I said it meant in a later post that I offered to clarify the original assertion for you:

"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"

You are veering off the road here. You began this exhange with questions about what I meant by "could be favored". I answered it. You have some inexplicable problem with accepting the answer, which is simply my opinion that one could favor Frazier against 1967 Ali considering Frazier's defeat of Ali in 1971.I believe that one could favor Holyfield over 1988 Tyson and it would not be unreasonable considering what happened in 1996. What is the problem?

...it is simple semantics. I began with the less assertive notion that a person could reasonably choose a 1971 Frazier to defeat a 1967 Ali. I then offered my own views on the matter (which I have stated before in previous threads) that I myself would favor Frazier over Ali in a first bout. So what?

I see no inconsistency or foul play or confusion in my asserting that reasonable people could favor Frazier in a hypothetical match-up and then expressing agreement with that.

That being said, I remain perplexed about how Ali's "...style was a positive because it was flawed..."

 

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

This is where the problem lies. You interpretation of that is different to mines and every other human I have heard or read in print on that particular phrase. What you clarified later, still means different to the above. You aren't saying that you would favour Frazier to win above. You're simply saying he would be favored going into the fight. You're saying Frazier "could be favored" and not "I'd favour Frazier to beat Ali" which would have been clearer and tied-in and made sense with your later post which you referred to to as being clarified.

I have been on the planet for 31 years. I read newspapers, listen to radio sport shows, etc. And never heard an individual once saying a football team or tennis player being 'favored' the way you phrased it is their own prediction on the outcome.

I have gave countless examples. Jones and Calzaghe and Obama and McCain.

 

Anyway Stonehands, nice little friendly bit of sparring. Hope you're doing well my friend. Cheers for the compliments on me as a 'solid' poster. I'm not too bad huh. You aint too bad yourself. One of the finest around. Just keep your hands up at all times, throw right hand leads, counter, and keep that jab pumping.

 

Yeah, I do. And yes he was suceptible to the left hook, but he improved very much on that after FOTC. How many more similar left hooks was an older, slower Ali hit by?

That's the rub. I don't think that people acknowledge enough that Ali improved on his flaws when he longer had the speed to get away with them. FOTC taught him quite a lot, I think.