The flaws in Ali's game

Well at his peak he really didn't need to do it?

 

He did need to do it as I previously mentioned on the post you quoted.

However, it was exposed during his post exile years in the ring. When he slowed down and fighters got inside thats when he struggled inside. It was clearly a flaw then.

 

As Frazier did when he took on unranked Terry Daniels and Ron Stander?

 

Evangelista was not a strong challenger I said that ,he had stopped Rodriguez who a year later went the distance with Holmes,but as I said he was European level ,in fact he was Champion.If you thinkAli's fights as Cham[pion the second time around were boring ,thats your prerogative ,but I don't see how you can knock his overall opposition.According to you he beats the top contenders ,well that's what he's suppossed to do,he takes on a ranked contender who is not top flight and its a big deal ,the guy got his ranking by bribery.Seems Ali is in a no win situation with you.Not really much point in continuing in this vein.I mentioned Snipes to illustrate Evangelista was perhaps a little better than you intimated ,but you knew that ,just chose to say otherwise.You have a tendency to hector rather than debate.

 

Still, though, apart from Frazier in FOTC he never really got beat up on the inside. Norton was more of mid-range fighter. The rights he took from Shavers came from the outside. Young stayed on the outside. And in Manilla he held his own quite well on the inside considering whom he was facing.

 

The question is, in what fights did Ali's "flaws" cost him? I would say FOTC, but can't think of too many else.

 

i cosign this....i love ali like every one else and i look up to him..but this is the reason for his downfall and unfortunate physical condition in his old age

 

You're torturing logic.

You say that "Ali's lack of fundamentals was a positive" because he didn't pay for it. In other words, a weakness isn't a weakness if it isn't exploited. This is faulty. You also say that "You can only knock something if it's not successful". This is shading the issue. Ali had demon speed, timing, rythym, will, size, reach, etc. that worked well enough to compensate for the relatively weak fundamentals he had.

In brief, I would counter your argument by asserting that Ali's successful formula was effective despite his flaws -Not "because of them."

Ali fought 27 men through his prime (let's agree that Zora was the last fight where he was in his physical prime -1967). You are essentially saying Eddie Futch was wrong when he observed that Ali had fundamental flaws, and instead argue that 'those flaws were not flaws because no one made him pay for it.' Ali didn't fight Frazier or Norton or another fighter who may have been able to exploit these flaws. Perhaps the 29th opponent would have been Frazier... and Frazier's style was well-designed to exploit precisely those fundamental flaws that you deny were weaknesses -low hands, a right that dropped with the jab, a defense reliant on reflexes, discomfort on the inside...

Foreman had more fundamental flaws than Ali. Foreman had 40 fights when he stepped in against Ali and was roughly the same age that Ali was when Ali fought Zora. Foreman used a different set of athletic variables to emerge victorious... might this mean that Foreman's technical flaws were part of his successful formula...? Was Foreman's "lack of basic fundamentals" a part of his successful formula?
The answer must be no.

And there are a legions of examples of fighters with flaws -technical or otherwise- who found success because their assets compensated for their flaws/bad habits/weaknesses. But no trainer would assert that these were part of the "successful formula"!

 

True. But I don't think it's acknowledged enough that Ali rectified these flaws to a high degree in Manilla. Otherwise, Frazier would have been 2-1 against him...

His performance in Manilla was much more mature in many ways than the one in FOTC IMO. And he did show some good infighting there as well, although this of course wasn't where he should compete with Frazier.

 

I know. Disgraceful.

 

...and you have a tendency to change the subject if it means one more bite on the **** of Ali. I said those fights were boring. Then you harped on about ratings. :huh

 

You are an insultimg ***** aren't you? I wonder if you are as mouthy face to face , or are you just a macho man behind a computer screen. Numpties like you have plenty of yap when there is distance between them and there target,go **** yourself, you minge.

 

Mouthy face-to-face too. :good

 

Watching Ali, I intepret his inability to fight on the inside and the substituting of chronic use of holding behind the head as a STYLISTIC FLAW and a lack of well-rounded competence as an all-round boxer/fighter ......... BUT seeing as he got away with it to an extent that it actually proved a USEFUL TOOL in many of his fights, I cant really call it a real flaw, just a aesthetic/stylistic drawback.
Frankly, it many fights it just pisses me off so much I give up caring about the scoring. It baffles me why he was rarely - if ever ?! - warned or penalized for it.
A great, great fighter, no question. Just that one thing taints my overall respect for his total skillset.