Why do people assume Muhammad Ali was past his peak after his exile?

Question

Why do people automatically assume that Muhammad Ali was past his peak after he was stripped of his title by the government at age 25? It doesn't seem fair to Ali to pass such a judgment. Ali was still only 28 when he came back and fought Jerry Quarry in 1970. 28/29 is peak years for any athlete. Maybe Ali wasn't quite as fast, but he was still rusty since he hadn't boxed in 3 1/2 years due to his forced layoff.

I dunno, it doesn't seem fair to say Ali's prime ended when he was only 25 years of age. I say he still was at his peak for a few years afterwards (1970-1971, maybe up until the Foreman bout) Maybe he wasn't quite as fast, but he was also bigger and stronger and had more muscle to carry. His defence was alot better as well.

I understand Ali was out of action for 3 1/2 years. But he was still young and in his peak years when he came back in 1970. Maybe Ali lost some peak years (1968-1969) but that doesn't mean he had lost all of them, he still had a few left. I also agree with the comment about it being a natural progression for Ali not to dance as much. Even when he fought Zora Folley he wasn't dancing as much and fighting more flat footed. Yet Ali showed in the Quarry fight 3 1/2 years later that he could still dance.

Maybe Ali was inactive, but all he needed was a few tune up fights to shake off the rust. I think the fact that he cut down on the dancing was not because the idleness.

As for the fact he should have naturally grown into his peak years, rather than be barred and then re-instated during them, Ali was still at his peak non-the-less, and I'm saying that the basic assumption that he was past his peak, though still in his peak years, doesn't make sense, and isn't all that accurate or fair.

The fact that Ali became more developed physically after the exile shouldn't be used as a detriment. To say he wasn't as sharp and had more weight to carry isn't a good assumption, because although Ali changed physically since before the layoff, he was stronger and more built. In short Ali was a well toned boxer before the layoff, but he was a more developed physical specimen afterwards. All boxers change and Ali was no exception. Unlike some people I don't think he changed for the worse. If you were to really state a time when he passed his peak, you should say after the Foreman fight or Manilla in 75'.

Answer 1

What is a "prime" really, you know? As years go by, things change. Was he REALLY slower, or did he just knock off the shuffle crap? This brings up one of my favorite quotes that I use. "If you see the world one way at 20, and view it the same at 50, you just wasted 30 years." Guess who actually said that? LOL!!! Muhammad Ali. True story. Perhaps he really didn't "slow down", but rather, had a new style. Maybe he knew he was fast enough and wanted to save gas for the later rounds? When was George Foreman's "prime"? Sure, he was faster as a youth, but smarter when older. When you speak of the human body, the mind is part of that body. If speed slows, but the brain learns how to work around that, is that REALLY "past your prime"? I think not. A "prime" is hard to define, and no, I do not think Ali was past his until years after his return.

Answer 2

personally, i think the reason why ali was generally considered "past his prime" was bec, before his exile, he was unbeatable, vitually unhittable, and, esp after the williams fight, a unique force of nature that no one could figure out. his style was unorthodox and no one knew how long he would/could reign. had he not been exiled, he probably would have fought frazier earlier and beat him soundly; jimmy ellis would never have claimed any piece of the crown - thus never allowing frazier to become a champ, setting up the fight of the century between two undefeated champons; and he probably would've fought foreman earlier and totally demolished him, before he gained momentum, all of which would have radically changed the boxing landscape in the 1970's

after his exile, he was a different fighter. he could not dance a whole fight, his reflexes were slower, his accuracy and timing were a little off, and he had to pace himself more to go a full fifteen. plus he was growing, carrying more weight, and not able to take weight off as easily as before. this is all natural as one gets older.

the thing is, no one knows how much greater his legacy would have been had he not been exiled. he will always be considered great, but it's staggering to consider how much greater his legacy would've been. of course, as a consequence, the 70's would've been much less dramatic. his 70's fights were awesome, because he was slower and had to adapt to age and slowing reflexes. had he not lost a step or two, none of those fights: vs frazier, norton, foreman, quarry would've been nearly as dramatic or action packed...you might say the exile humanized him, made him possible to be beat which made him dig deeper to pull out certain victories that would've been much easier had he not been exiled. plus he emphatically answered the question of whether he could take a punch and whether he had guts in the 70's. in the 60's, there were no really great challenges for him bec he was so far ahead of everyone else. so, in many ways, the exile was the defining moment of his career bec it separated the two phases of his career

conventionally, boxers age, physically, much faster than many other athletes, bec of the toll taken on the body. even though a fighter, like everyone else, gains wisdom as he gets older, many older fighters can see openings and opportuniities but ,physically, can't take advantage of them. the mid/late 20's is when a fighter grows into himself and "peaks." ali essentially re-started his career at an age where he should have naturally grown into his peak, this is what ppl are talking about, essentially...understand? hope this helps to clarify a little bit.

Answer 3

Excellent question. I do believe he was slightly past his peak, but not as much as people make it out to be. Everyone claims that he would "dance circles" around the guys who troubled him, like Frazier and Norton. What they don't realize is that Frazier's herky jerky style was perfect against Ali. And Frazier is a lot faster than he is given credit for. He would have no problem catching up to and hitting Ali. Just an example, Ali tried to dance in Round 5 of their first fight, and Frazier got right up on his toes, trapped Ali on the ropes, and caught him with some good shots. Frazier even landed some good jabs.

Guys like Chuvalo and Mildenberger managed to land shots against prime Ali, of course ATG's would be able to. Personally, I would pick a 1970-71 Joe Frazier to beat any version of Ali. Ali would not take as much punishment if he moved more, but he definitely wouldn't dish out as much either.

ATG's are called that for a reason. Casual boxing fans usually automatically call Ali the greatest, and they laugh when somebody says that Louis/Johnson/Marciano/Dempsey/etc could beat Ali. It's just silly.

Answer 4

Honestly I don't think Ali lost as much as people think. I think it was a natural progression for him to not dance as much. Check out his fight with Zora Folley He danced around for the first few rounds then he stopped and started to be a little more flat.

I agree that Joe Frazier was not ready before 1968 to beat ali but no one barring George foreman could have beaten Joe frazier in 1970.

Answer 5

You can watch the Folley fight and the Williams fight. Then watch his fights after he came back. One fight to check out is the Blin fight. Blin was hitting Ali throughout the fight but Ali eventually knocked him out. Folley and Williams plod around the ring trying to hit Ali and they can't do it. Blin is the same type of fighter and he is landing shots on Ali. He had to learn how to fight differently because he had lost some mobility. He didn't take the over hand left that Frazier hit him with as much because he knew that was a weakness and he consciously avoided getting hit with that punch as you can see in his next two fights with Frazier. Ali took too much punishment from Frazier and Norton that he would not have taken 4 or 5 years earlier. They just would not have hit him that much. The fight that brought Ali back to the championship, fittingly, against a Liston type fighter in Foreman, gave Ali all the redemption he needed. To take the punishment to his arms and body that he took from Foreman and then to knock Foreman out solidified for me that Ali was the greatest boxer I had ever seen. When he was young he could control fights with his movement. When he came back from the lay off he had to adapt and learn to be defensive to shots he would get hit with. Then when he fought Foreman his will control that fight from round one. Foreman looked like an amateur against Ali.

Answer 6

Panther covered it well. I'll quote Angelo Dundee. "We'll never know how great he could have been. Those 3 1/2 years that were taken away from him would have been his best. It's a shame we never got to see him at his peak." That's from a man whose chief concern was making sure Ali was ready to fight. Dundee had a lot more impact on Ali than most people think, inside the ropes.

Answer 7

He wasnt past his prime the people at that time had never see a ALI he was the Greatest, they were living the time we havre the hindsight which is always 20 20 he WAS NOT PAST HIS PRIME as we see

Answer 8

the time period. although he was working out and sparring, it's a big differance from the actual fight..rust played a part. muhammad ali is one of the greatest men who has ever lived and i rank him along with mlk. why mlk was and educated man ali was not and he still made his point and had a positive effect on people...he is the greatest!

Answer 9

he was past his peak because unlike "Rocky" who is an actor, real life ways heavy on a boxer, and your career peaks fast

Answer 10

HE WASN'T PAST HIS PEAK/PRIME, BUT THAT ILLEGAL BANISHMENT DID COST HIM HIS BEST/PEAK YEARS.