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

No, luf, I can't agree with that.

Nobody is at the top of his game for 11 years.
He was elite for 11 years, perhaps, but the top of his game, at least that part of his game that we got to see, was 65-67.

As I ( and others ) have pointed out, we probably never got to see what the 'top of his game' looked like.

That said, we can never know the truth of this issue with certainty. Our takes are by necessity, speculative.

 

That case could certainly be made. It was also a great, great win.

 

The way I view boxing, generally speaking, is a guy might have a short peak window where he looks absolutely on fire, like Pacquiao in 2009 for example, but they will tend to have a prime period of their career where they perform at an incredibly high level and there isn't a significant drop off in net ability.

A period of time where if they're beaten you wouldn't feel comfortable saying "yeah but they only lost because they were pre/post their best.

This is one of the things that I think makes Ali so special. Maybe I've exposed my own bias somewhat in over rating Ali on this thread, but being able to maintain such a high level for so long is amazing imo.

I know boxers have that one performance that tends to stand out above the others, and a peak where they look unbeatable, but for me a prime is a period of time like I detailed above.

But each to their own.

 

This is the crux of the whole issue and the thread starter’s point..

 

No it isn't. We have gone off somewhat on a tangent, but the TS is saying in the 70s, Ali became a better fighter than he was in 1970.

 

His point was that he disagreed with peoples claim that he was at his best in 1970.

 

Hope you are well in these trying times my auld friend. If you get a chance have a (several) Guinness(es) and oysters in the Carlingford Arms for me. Cheers

 

Stay safe, lad !

 

He's saying during the 70s, he doesn't think FOTC was the best of Ali.

 

He was the best in the World, but not on topof his game. For just about every fighter the decline of physical attributes has a bigger impact than increased experience - and this was also the case for a fighter that relied more on his physical attributes than most others. If you for some reason doubts this, you should at least believe the man himself when he said as much.

This shouldd be a non issue, and only is an issue to make it seem like Frazier beat a prime version.

Yes, you have mentioned clinching which I then numerous times have pointed out that could do well already in the 60's, as evidenced against Liston and Chuvalo. You haven't replied to this, but just kept repeating the same line.

You have also claimed his lack of mobility as some kind of evolution. I have askd you how you mean in regards to FOTC, where it was more a matter of standing against the ropes and losing the fight because his leegs wouldn't carry him than employing a tactic. You haven't replied to this either, but just kept repeating the same line.

The questions I have asked are basically these:

1. In what way did he utilise clinching effectively in FOTC in a manner that he never did in the 60's?

2. In what way was standing against the ropes in FOTC and almost getting KO'd a technical and tactical improvement that paid dividends?

3. Why don't you acccept what Ali himself said - that the 60's version of him would have beaten Foreman easier by moving?

 

As I've said to another poster, maybe it is true that I rate Ali higher than most, maybe that's why I see him as being at the top of his game much longer than you do.

As a rule I rarely believe what boxers say.

We clearly both can see the same fights of Ali. We just interpret the level of his performances differently.

That's the nature of a subjective sport.

 

Well yes, I have a hard time interpretating a fighter standing against the ropes and soaking up punishment because he's to tired to move or properly fight back as any sort of improvement, so we do differ there.

 

Like I said, I probably rate Ali higher than most which is why I credit him with having a longer prime than most others do.

 

Yes that’s what I was alluding to.

 

You just confused matters by bringing up the 60s.