I think Fists of Fury is correct in his description of "Prime" or "Peak" but whatever the case I think Ali would've been in his "Prime" or at his best in the late 60's, particularly the years he wasn't allowed to box by the government. what i don't buy into is the idea that the Ali who came back in the early 70's was nowhere near his best 60's self. Ali was still a fantastic fighter up until...or after Manila. A tad slower? Sure. Legs not the same? Of course. But he was still the most mobile HW out there with the fastest hands to boot. What HW title fight bests the 1st fight with Frazier as far as non stop action (I mean title fights after that one)? Ali was pretty close to being prime as I see it. Otherwise he wouldn't have put up the fight against Frazier that he did. That version of Frazier was a human threshing machine. Anything short of the Ali that showed up that night wouldn't have heard the final bell. But I think that an Ali of '68 or 69 shades him.
Ali was entering his prime in 1966 and 1967 before the exile. He was developing a good right hand that he kayoed Williams and Folley with.
I think the majority of guys here say 1967- and i concur we are all right:yep.. It's a good feeling in a weird.way knowing the greatest heavyweight that ever boxed was at his peak the year you were born... It's still a travesty that uncle Sam being the ******* he is stole Ali's greatest years, i.seriously doubt anyone.would.have beaten him, from 67-70-, no.****ing way...
67- :good.... You can make an argument for 71, he was only 28-29, only i think he was a tad quicker 4-5 years earlier... 1976- ummmm No, he had too many wars and too much wear and tear by then, he was an old 34...
and he had far more stamina in 67 and he had the legs. Ali showed rust in the fotc. He was visibly tired after the 6th round, and though he put together some flurries of punches after that round, he was unable to keep the pace he had set in the first third of the fight.
In 1967 he beat Terrell W15 and Folley KO7. In 1972 he beat Mac Foster W15, George Chuvalo (again) W12, Jerry Quarry (again) KO7, Al Lewis KO11, Floyd Patterson (again) KO7, and Bob Foster KO8. In 1974 he beat Joe Frazier W12 and George Foreman KO8. On paper it's 1974. For real, it's probably 1965-1967. It's not who he was beating but how he looked doing it. In 1965 he had the "Phantom Punch" fight with Liston (KO1) and a 12th round stoppage win over Floyd Patterson. In 1966 he beat George Chuvalo W15, Henry Cooper in a rematch (KO6), Brian London KO3, Karl Mildenberger KO12, and Cleveland Williams KO3. In 1967 it was Terrell and Folley. 1965-67 Ali vs. 1972-1974 Ali, who you got? Man, I don't know now. It's true that Ali was slower as he got older, but he was smarter. He had been tested and knew what he was made of. He'd been knocked down a few times and gotten up, he went to war with an at his very best Frazier, he had his jaw broke and still almost won vs. Norton... he had avenged both of these losses. He had slayed the unbeatable monster George Foreman. I'll take the older Ali H2H. It might not be pretty, but he'd find a way to win.
I think part of this thread shows the evolution of a fighter such that "prime" is hard to pick. In the mid 60's Ali was faster and physically in better shape, but in the early 70's he could use his ring smarts and experience to perhaps win fights he may not have won with only physical skills. This applies to Lewis and Duran among many others as well. They essentially substitute one set of skills (physical) for the other (experience). Duran himself has always maintained him best fight was against Barkley, yet few would consider that to Duran's "prime." But what is prime if it's not the best performance you've even put in the ring regardless of age?
1966-1967. He was physically as good as ever, had developed his skills against all styles, & looked the best overall. Yes, '72-'74 post exile a bit better than in FOTC. I have a thread on another forum saying Joe Lewis was at his peak in '42. I think the absolute best tends to be when a fighter is at or very near his physical peak, + has more experience to learn how to handle various styles & challenges. Louis faced many of these after the Schmelling match up (& was a few lbs/ heavier), so head to head I would take him then, even if he was so motivated & effective against that one guy in '38. But in the next few years he faced excellent movers & big guys & swarmers... Which must have improved him.
H 2 H the older Ali would have a chance vs. himself-if allowed a lot of the holding & pulling he sometimes resorted to. But the younger Ali still had plenty of experience against all styles, & was significantly faster of foot & better endurance to dance a whole fight. Someone like Norton would not have won more than around 1/3 of rounds, though might last the distance. He already could handle the best sluggers & I think would beat the best Frazier too.
Joe Frazier would destroy Ken Norton. This fight should end within 5 rounds.The big left hook would be the equalizer. Guys that could hit intimidated Norton. Norton had an unorthodox cross arm style but he did not have a good chin. Norton was extremely vulnerable to big punchers. George Foreman, Earnie Shavers and Gerry Cooney, all big punchers, flattened him. Foreman in two rounds, Cooney and Shavers in the first.