Why do some people say Ali was at his 1970s best in the Fight of the Century?

What technical improvements did you see in FOTC?

 

He picked his shots a bit better, was stronger more economical with his movements, had better power and better shot selection.

I hate to use this as well but he clinched more effectively.

I also feel in the 70s he fought such a range of styles his ring IQ and experience improved massively.

When you move less and punch less you have to change things up slightly to stay on top of your game and that's exactly what Ali did.

I know there's a school of thought that without the exile he'd have cleaned out the division from top to bottom. And I think to a large part that's true, but I think he still loses first time out to Frazier.

Norton, we saw in the 2nd fight which is probably the most fluid Ali looked in the 70s that he could outbox him with speed and movement so its fair to say he'd have beaten Norton in his younger days.

But ultimately from say 64 to 75 Ali was an absolute legendary talent. Sure his style changed over the years, but I believe that compensated for the lack of athleticism and still kept him on top of his game.

 

Most of what you say here isn't about technique.

And "moved more economically"? Do you mean staying on the ropes and shipping punishment as he did in FOTC? Almost getting KO'd. Not an improvement in technique, I'd say, just declined legs.

Clinching can be seen as a form of technique, but he actually wasn't allowed to clinch much in FOTC, and when did his clinching let him down in his championship run in the 60's?

I also disagree with everything else, if we're talking FOTC, but those are my objections that concerns any improved technique.

The main adjustment was that he clinched more and thereby won less convicingly (compare Chuvalo 1 and 2). In FOTC he wasn't allowed to clinch much so he substituted movement for shipping punishment on the ropes.

Any "massive" increases in ring IQ are pure fantasy. Folley lauded his ring savvy already in 1967. Said he fought like he had had 100 fights, that he could write the book on boxing. There were no massive increases of anything. Certainly not during the two fights he had had in four years prior to FOTC.

 

In Manilla, I do actually agree that he boxed in a more fundamentally sound way. But those adjustments weren't visible yet in FOTC.

 

To answer the TS: Only to give Frazier more credit for his win (that deserves massive credit as it is).

Well, you could make the argument that it was the best version of him in the 70's, since that brutal war likely took something out of him. Not sure about that, though. He looked quite rusty against Bonavena, and six months of preparation isn't much if you're coming back from a 3,5 years lay-off.

 

The people who use the second bout as evidence that a better prepared Ali would have beat Frazier in the FOTC fail to realise that the fighter they are comparing him with was not the fighter he faced in the first bout.

For starters Frazier was battered that much in the FOTC he spent weeks in hospital after the bout almost killed him.

Secondly Frazier had also been beaten senseless by Foreman, taking huge shots that would have rendered lots of fighters unconscious.

And lastly a point that is overlooked, say Ali did get in a few more bouts before facing Frazier for the first time, he would still be facing a fresh Frazier who he didn't believe was good enough to challenge him.

You don't really know how good your opponent is until you face him, that element of surprise topped off by Frazier's legendary determination would only show it's face when Ali was in the ring with him.

 

But it is technique because he had to make what he had work for him. Utilising your attributes is one of the things he was very best at imo. Well his attributes, not yours lol.

I said ring IQ and experience. He had to face a huge variety of styles and was able to adapt and overcome each and every one of them, well until he declined so much that he was no longer able to compensate.

 

If we're talking FOTC, I don't see how he utilised any new attributes. He stayed at the ropes because his legs wouldn't let him move. not by clever choice. And while his punching at times was very sharp, that was nothing new either.

I don't think either ever increased "massively". Yes, throughout his career he would gain more experience, as anyone, but he was a very experienced 29 fights before the exile. Folley's evaluation is testimony to that.

There's no comparison with Hopkins after 29 fight, for example. Ali had a superb amateur pedigree and was very well guided by Dundee through the pros.

And, again, we are talking FOTC here. The 18 combined rounds against Quarry and Bonavena were good preparation, but they were about trying to get back the instincts and generalship he had had before they lay-off, not inducing any massive increases to that.

 

It's not about clever choice, it's about the process of being able to adapt your style and still be at the top of your game.

Also I think he gets nowhere near enough credit for the two wins before Frazier. He stopped two top 5 HW fighters, that alone puts him above most guys who came after him let alone anything else.

 

But what was the adaption? Being forced to the ropes and losing the fight there?

 

No he lost to Frazier, but the technique worked against Foreman for example.

 

Same position, not really same technique. Nor tactic. In FOTC it came naturally from fatigue rather than choice, and he wasn't really covering up. Actually he often stood with his hands at his sides, and that was how he was caught in the 11th - the turning point of the fight.

In Zaire and Manilla he was much more covered up when he stood against the ropes. And in Manilla he wasn't as squared up either.

And the rope-a-dope was something he had practiced since the 60's, it wasn't really anything new. He tried it on for a bit early on against Chuvalo, but then started moving again. It was always a back-up plan for him, he just didn't need it when his legs were still at their best.

 

The reason people say "Ali was at his 1970s best in FOTC" is usually in response to all the Ali nuthuggers who make a big deal out of Ali being "rusty" in, or "rushed" into, the FOTC.

For argument's sake, I'd say Ali was more or less at his "1970s best".
I can't think of more than two of three other occasions (at most) in the 1970s when you could even start to really argue that he proved himself better.
The Foreman fight, Norton 2 maybe.

 

The truth is we will never know how much better he would have been in 1970 without the lay-off.

What we do know however is up to that point he had not met a fighter like Frazier, how do you prepare for somebody like that?

He still beat Frazier half to death and put in a great performance, Frazier did even more and deserved to take the title.