Was Ali really considered old for Foreman fight?

Not so much far fetched, but while there were definite signs of Parkinson's in 1980, it was less of an issue than the fact he hadn't set foot in a gym and ballooned to nearly 300 lbs in the years after his last fight with Spinks in 1978. Two years of ring rust, no tune-up fight, then the nail in the coffin: his quack doc prescribing thyroid medication for a non-existent condition. Ali took it to lose the excess weight, but it screwed up his endocrine system - during the fight, his body was overheating but he was barely sweating. Another side effect was fatigue; Ali said himself, he was more tired than he should have been after one round.

Even if he was in shape, in the years after Foreman he had several more wars in the ring - Frazier, Norton again, Shavers. While there were some easy fights in there as well, I think the accumulated wear and tear would have caught up with him regardless.

 

It's been pretty well covered in previous posts why Ali was considered past it when he fought Foreman. I'll just add that, prior to the nineties, if you were a boxer approaching your mid-30s you were considered old. For example, the Foreman - ****ey fight was billed as "Two Geezers at Caesars" when Gerry ****ey was all of 33 (George was 41).

 

Very very few thought Ali would win this bout. Some thought he could get seriously injured. Main points were:

Ali's age and Foreman in his prime.
Ali being in life and death struggles with two men George blitzkrieged in less that four rounds in total.
Ali's inability to move for 15 rounds so he could stay away from Foremans power.
Foremans aura of complete invincibility.

 

Ali wasn't really considered old. He was 32 and had 3 plus years off in the late '60s.

It was more a case of casual fans and the press hyping Foreman off the Frazier beat down. People were like, "Frazier beat Ali and Foreman destroyed Frazier, so............"

Styles make fights and Ali had the style to beat Foreman, whereas Frazier didn't.

 

Ali was absolutely considered over the hill. A hwt at his age in 1974 was considered at the very end of their career.

 

Very good point .u look at the norton and shavers fights in 76 & 77 and Ali still seemed as good as 71-74 but he had slown down a bit.

The decline during 78 was exponential. He looked different,fought different,talked different

Blame the weight gain,wear and tear catching up etc but theres no doubt the vast majority of it was the parkinsons.

I beleive free of it ,and if ali had stayed in shape and hungry and active in 79/80 by beating a few weak foes...a holmes fight in 80 would have seen the same Ali as in 76 v norton and that guy beats holmes on points

 

Ali had slowed up considerably between 1974 and '77. Manilla was the turning point.

Even if the great man had stayed healthy and parkinsons free,beating Holmes in the late seventies or early eighties would have been a no no. The Ali of '74 would have narrowly beaten him,imo but anytime after '75 - No chance.

If he had n't have had parkinsons and had n't so stupidly taken that thyrolar drug,he'd have still lost to Holmes in 1980 but would have given him a far more competitive fight.

In this scenario,I believe that Muhammad would have had enough left in the tank to edge Trevor Berbick,though.

 

I do miss tne days when the average age of the P4P top ten in The Ring was mid 20s. Look at the top few P4P fighters in 90: Chavez 28, Whitaker 26, Tyson 24, Holyfield 27, Moorer 23, Chiquita Gonzalez mid 20s, Nunn 26, Brown 26, Hill 26. Even McCallum was only 34. Boxing is meant to be a young man's game. You don't want to be a boring old git, harping on about how much better fighters were 'in my day'. But, you can't help but feel that the reason Floyd and Pac Man are still so dominant in their mid to late 30s is not because they are such exceptional fighters but that the talent pool now is not deep enough for them to drown in (bit of purple rose for Area 53 there).

 

or they have better vitamins now allowing them to benefit from their experience without physical decline.?

 

Good point.

 

There was a significant minority who picked Ali, including Willie Pep amongst others.

 

The key footnote is that age and mileage are two sides of the same coin. Many great fighter's who faded in their thirties had had torrid careers. Today you have heavyweight's like Luis Ortiz who, while pushing thirty-seven, is only in his sixth year as a pro and has done little else but hand out beatings.

When Ali fought Foreman, apart from being thirty-two, he had taken an absolute battering against Joe Frazier.

 

Yes I suppose that, and fighting less often and with heavier gloves, there's better conditions for the fighters' bodies. You're right. But I still can't help but feel that a deeper pool of top class 20 somethings would make it less likely that so many of the highest ranked fighters of recent years would have been in their mid to late 30s or even early to mid 40s.