I've tried finding a thread on this many times, but no result. What version of Ali would do the best h2h against any heavyweight? While I do agree he would lose to some, a big possibility is the likes of Lennox Lewis. Many people say 65'-67' but to be frank I don't think h2h of all time he wouldn't do well as he lacked experience in wars, as a peak 70s Ali had been in many wars and his fight IQ was much more evolved, just my 2 cents. What is your peak h2h Ali?
I think you have to say the 65-67 version because the speed and fluidity is the advantage over the much larger HWs that came in later decades.
Muhammad Ali's absolute peak was 1964-1967, he looked at his very best in those years, all his physical gifts were in display, speed, stamina, reflexes, and footwork, did not hit the canvas during his first title reign or suffer any damage. Again you can only fight the opponents that are available in your era, not opponents from the future or past. In his second title reign he was much too vulnerable and out of shape, did not care to train as before.
Why should anyone have to engage in wars to be great, keep it simple is better, the goal is to win, keep the drama out of the ring, it is not a soap opera
Even though Ali beat his best opponents in the 70’s I still concur with those who are pinning his prime in the mid sixties. Muhammad’s greatest assets were his speed and stamina which in his twenties he was able to keep up for 15 rounds when necessary. The seventies version saw a slightly slower Ali using the ropes, taking more shots, holding behind the neck and struggling with lesser opponents that he otherwise might not have several years earlier. His colossal victory over George Foreman in Zaire in 74 was obviously an exceptional display of what an aging Ali was still capable of. But I wouldn’t extrapolate that win across his overall greatness of that entire decade.
And Likewise Ali would look like the great Zeus against chambers, Firtha, Takem, Duhaupass, Chagaev and an old Chris Byrd.
I have to concur with your opinion, why go through the agony of struggling against opponents that you could have beaten with your physical gifts, that is too dramatic, kind of like a soap opera. In Muhammad Ali's second title reign, too much of the Rope A Dope, it became too tedious to watch, it also contributed to Neurological damage, it also benefited Ali's critics.
It worked great as a relatively new phenomenon against George, but he struggled against guys like Lyle (who wouldn't buy it). I got the feeling he could have stopped Lyle earlier if he hadn't been so concerned with applying his "new and improved" style with the RAD and high-held gloves. When he dropped the misplaced techniques, he knocked the crap out of him.
That title was earned.. Muhammad Ali was the best of a division for a very long time and defeated greats who now reside in most people’s top 10, despite his prime being interrupted by a 3 year layoff. He was also the divisions first three time champion. I doubt that there’s a single opponent on Povetkins win list who would make the HOF with the possible exception of MAYBE Chris Byrd who was beyond finished when they met. Furthermore Ali accomplished what he did without the assistance of PEDs which Alexander employed from time to time. As for Klitschko beating Ali, it’s not impossible but regardless Povetkin didn’t beat him either.. it’s the other stuff that separates them and not hypothetical fights that will never happen.
