THE fight of Ali's you would point to....

Who is attacking any one? I was highlighting one of the inconsistencies to the way you rate fighters.

The comparison is clearly acceptable, and objectivity shouldn't be brought up if you're going to be so dismissive just because you like fighters in black and white.

 

I'll still go with the Floyd Patterson I fight in November 1965.

Floyd was still a very good fighter, and 'super motivated'.

At 30 years-old, and riding a very good winning streak, he not only was a
Top Contender, he had 90% of the boxing world backing him, including all of Las Vegas.

The 6' 0" 194 lb. Floyd, had
a) Fast hands
b) Power
c) Motivation
d) Skill
e) Good cornermen

Though there was some concern about his 'back', he was 'primed' and ready
to do battle for 15-Rounds.

After '11' one-sided rounds, and a battering, Floyd was behind on the 'scorecards'
* 10-1-0
* 9-2-0
* 8-2-1

And the only rounds he won, were the rounds that the Champion 'let' him win.

 

No, it isn't. Willard was 37, had been inactive for three years and was by all acounts badly underestimating Dempsey. He also looks very slow and uncertain in the opening exchanges, and doesn't show a semblance of defensive know-how throughout the fight.

Williams at least knew exactly what he was up against (even though there are accounts of him being terrified and not wanting to leave the dressing room before the fight) and showed fast hands the times he tried to lay a glove on Ali. Looking at how ripped he was, he probably had gotten himself into as good shape as he could at that time.

But I agree that Williams isn't the best example due to his condition. The fights against Terrel, Patterson or Liston would be better.

 

Agreed I was always amazed by Ali's handspeed against London and also Mildenberger too actually - plus I'd like to throw out another controversial one - but to me I was very impressed with Ali in the Norton II fight he looked in absolutely amazing shape for one, his opponent was extremely competetive and in the first half of the fight he was amazing and his movement was just amazing!! And at the time he also was forced to also show his unbeleivable chin and heart - that fight for me was one of his very best I think it showed all his amazing qualities all rolled into one fight against an opponent who really wanted to have him for breakfast and who genuinely believed he would - this and the Foreman fight are my favourite Ali wins

 

They were better fighters to start with and not 37. For example, nobody take the Fitz that Johnson beat as a great scalp.

Williams also had some victories after Ali, I think.

EDIT: Had a good amount of them. Actually beat HW challenger Terry Daniels six years after losing to Ali. The very fight after Daniels title challenge. Man that was some horrendous challenger. Joe...:-(

 

That calls for so much speculation seeing how little footage there is.

But, Williams past-Ali record is actually better than Willard's post Dempsey. Laughable that Terry Daniels might have been as a challenger for the HW title, the fact that Williams beat him six years after losing to Ali is a bit impressive all things considered.

I'll leave at this, since this really is an excurson from the thread. We both agree that Williams wasn't much of a challenge. Let's agree to disagree on the rest.

 

Muhammad Ali was at his least beatable against Williams, Terrell and Folley (nov '66. feb '67, apr. '67). Those were his peak fights.

 

Duran just barely beat Sugar the first fight, so I don't think that Montreal is a good gauge.

Its very hard to pick just one fight of Ali's.
I'll just go with the Rumble in the Jungle.
As Ali said "The stage is set for me to be ranked as the Greatest of all times! Aint no way they can have excuses after this! I've got em cornered! I've got the world cornered!..."*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5o-yxwBJuk[/ame]





*Or Terrell or Williams fights

 

Donnie Fleeman

You knew right there, that many of Cassius Clay's fights were going to 'fixed'.