When did 70's ali look closest to his prime?

I am not trolling. I am going by what is verifiable via results and not what looks pretty to some on film. The fact remains that Ali proved his greatest worth in the 70's Those were his prime results… and because I am result focussed in my assessments, I deem that his prime.

Sorry if I can't make this basic logic any more accessible.

 

That's the one I would pick, too.

 

I have heard Dundee say that the post exile Ali would have beaten the pre exile Ali.

 

I really isn't basic logic. Basic logic is that anyone who thoroughly cleans out an era (which is what Ali did in the 60's) have done what he can. It might well be argued that 60's Ali is one of only two HW:s who did so without racking up a defeat on the way. But even in his first 29 fights I believe he beat more ranked opponents than Marciano did in 49. He also had a higher KO ratio. And he beat and ATG who was considered at the peak of his powers on the way. There is nothing more to be asked of that portion of his career.

Basic logic is also that if he every other athlete is deemed to lose ability through long inactivity (which they are) this will also apply to someone who to a large degree relied on speed and stamina. Even more so if opponents, trainers, doctors and the person himself said it did. And if he had his only defaeats after that lay-off.

This is as cut and dry as anything we discuss on this forum. It's really so simple it's beyond basic logic. If you can't grasp this, you're deeply biased or deeply stupid or a troll. So, if you're not a troll - which one is it?

 

This question does not involve comparing Ali to Marciano but Ali to Ali. I don't really know where you intend to go with this line of reasoning.

Boxers are not ball players. And let's not overplay Ali's age. He was a whopping 28 years old when he started his comeback. Many heavies make their debut at that age today.

Yes, it is very cut and dry. His prime accomplishments, his victories against his best opponents, occurred during the second stage of his career… what should thusly be known as his prime.

If one is more a fan of pretty physiques and fancy footwork, I would agree he was primed in the 1960's. If one prefers boxing, it is the 1970's. And it is provable and verifiable. Cut and dry, as you say.

 

What's provable and verifiable is that his record in the 60's was better - with zero losses and wins over someone that was at least as good as anyone he beat in the 70's. And that Ali - like everybody else - lost something to a long lay-off. As testified by himself, his trainer, his doctor and his opponents.

What's also provable and verifiable is that you still haven't answered me if you consider Louis post WWII, when he had his best wins (Walcott), the best version of him, or Dempsey post inactivity (Sharkey) or Tyson post Rooney (Ruddock) the best versions of them.

And, of course FOTC Ali can't be the best version of him, since he was years away from his best win in the 70's (Foreman). So, by your reasoning the Ali that beat Frazier in the rematch was better than FOTC Ali, since he was closer to his win over Foreman. Ali's best wins in the 70's was all in 1974, so that must be the best version of him, by your reasoning.

 

This absolutely false. How about we put to a poll if beating an old and quite possibly in the tank Liston, Patterson, Terrell, Foley, Chuvalo and London outperforms beating Frazier (x2), Foreman, Quarry (x2), Norton, Ellis, Mac Foster and Lyle?

He had losses because the division was much more competitive. No reasonable observer can argue with that.

Louis is not Ali, Ali is not Louis… is not Tyson… is not Dempsey. And Louis was 34 when he beat Walcott. Dempsey 32 when he beat Sharkey. Ali was 28 when he came back, 31 when he beat Frazier, 32 when he beat Foreman. Different circumstances, different fighters. That is a horribly tenuous and intellectually devoid line of argumentation.

Those are his two greatest wins. You do the math.

Look, boxing is not football or basketball or any other "ball game"… It is also not athletics wherein one's marks set a standard of ability. In boxing, it is who you beat. And the best that Ali beat was in the 1970's. His prime performances.

 

Good link, thanks Bokaj. You made a bunch of discerning posts, & even when '70's Ali beat better competition, he just did not have the nearly the same overall abilities.

Ali showed his intelligence in all these parts of the interview.

 

Are you suggesting that there was something dubious about these fights??????

 

Norton was nothing more than a contender among others. His rep is mostly about beating Ali. An older Patterson than Ali beat bested Ellis (but was robbed), Bonavena and had two very close fights with Quarry. So there's nothing much in it. MacFoster and Mathis etc were contenders, but nothing very special as such. Just like Jones and Folley etc. And Ellis was Ali's sparring partner in the 60's.

And it's you calling Liston old, no one did at the time. That's pure hindsight

There was no Frazier. I give that you that. But he didn't beat the best version of Frazier. And you can't beat what's not there to face.

All in all he managed in the 60's what he didn't in the 70's: cleaning out the division with no losses. He also did better against opponents he'd meet again in the 70's. Something they themselves have testified to. This is what matters Not that he won (and lost) against an opponent that wasn't there for him to face before the exile.

But your one and only argument has been that he beat the better opposition in the 70's. This has for you overridden the common logic that you lose something to a lay-off - which in Ali's case has been thoroughly verified. But when applied to other fighters the only thing you can say is that they were not Ali?

That is among the most stupid arguments I've seen here and I've seen a lot. If the quality of opposition beat is the only thing that matters, that must be true for everyone - not just one fighter.

But all of a sudden age becomes a factor for you (even though long inactivity somehow isn't). And the fact that "they were not Ali" whatever that means.

A long inactivity wasn't enough for you, Ali's own words weren't, his opponents words weren't, his trainer's and his doctor's words weren't. Nothing could destabilize your extremely singular logic that the only thing that means something is when he had his best wins. Well, except a year a year or two in age and the fact that "they were not Ali", obviously. Stupid beyond comprehension really.

But you and I both know that you don't really believe your inane (and inconsistently applied) argument. You can only beat what's in front of you, and sometimes your best opponent comes along when you're not longer at your best for reasons of age, inactivity or whatever but you still manage to beat him. For example the case with Lewis when he beat Vitaly.

I don't quite agree that this is the case for Ali, since I think there's a definite argument to be made that Liston was the best he beat at the time he beat him. A toss-up between him and Foreman, really. But of the three best opponents he beat, two were in the 70's. That's true, but doesn't mean more than that Louis happened upon his best opponent when past his prime. Or that Lewis wasn't at his best when he met Vitaly. Only more impressive that they got the job done.

What does mean something is that Ali lost some speed, stamina and probably also a bit of his agility to the lay-off. Which is something a lay-off will do to a speedster. And this is also verified by film, by himself, by his trainer, by his doctor and by the opponents he met before and after (yeah, I'm also tired of having to repeat this :yep).

It is as simple as that. And this will be the last I say about it.

 

Game Set Match Bokaj.

Though no need to assume anyone is trolling because they do not share the same perspectives or insights as you, or bring up the prospect of stupidity.

Otherwise your logic is airtight.