Terrell is a good one too. Terrell was actually a damn good HW, Ali looked untouchable and indeed, very mean spirited.
The 'only' reason Cleveland Williams got the 'Title Fight' with Muhammad Ali, was because Muhammad was trying to help out Cleveland 'financially'. Based upon his 1966 fights, Cleveland did not 'technically deserve' a fight for the Heavyweight Championship.
I have never agreed with those who point to the Williams fight as his best performence. Why do you need to pick a fight where the opponent was in that state, when he had so many good performences against live opponents around that time?
There was actually a time after his layoff and defeat by Frazier that Ali got really sharp again. He was fighting regular and he was getting back close to his old form. I think the night he beat Quarry the second time was about as good as Ive ever seen him. He was so..fast that night. Ali`s hands were a blur. Check the films. Quarry might not have been the toughest opponent he faced but he was much better than a shot Cleveland Williams or a Mildenberger.:tong
Easily,,,,,,,, November 1971 Versus,,,,,,,,Buster Mathis Absolutely pathetic,,,,,,,,,a total embarrassment for boxing. It would be like Sandy Koufax coming out to pitch a Nationally Televised Baseball game, and pitching under-handed.
Norton III for politics. Too much by too many people invested themselves into Alis affairs to have him lose that fight to Norton. He's was already putting fear into the sport's hierchy with the retirement talk. He looked untouchable against Terrell and Zora Folley.
The comparison is beyond preposterous. Willard had been inactive, but he was still verry much a live challenger. He might have beaten anybody around except Dempsey that day. Also, if somebody uses completely unrelated threads to launch attacks on a given fighter, it is usualy a sign that they are not particularly objective.