When was Ali at his h2h peak?

They didn't even have testing back then. Olympians were on the juice since the 60s.

Being a HOF doesn't matter when discussing H2H ability across time periods separated by 40 years.

 

1963 to 1967....peak period! He became a punching bag in the 1970's...didn't have the quick reflexes any more...couldn't pull away from the head shots like he once did...took unnecessary punishment in the 70's because he couldn't get out of the way anymore! People now say..."Oh...wow...what a chin he had!" Yeah,...wonderful...look how he ended up! From the time I first saw him against Liston in Miami in Feb.1964 until Trevor Berbick in 1981....how the mighty had fallen!

 

People can argue that the opponents were better in the 1970s (or had more difficult styles for Ali). And honestly, that's probably true although Liston, Patterson & Co weren't that bad either.
On the other hand, one can argue that he can only fight the opponents of his era which is undeniably true as well.
In general, you can't prove when Ali was at his peak.
So, it's up to peoples’ personal impressions.
In my youth I saw a large multi-part documentary about the life of Muhammad Ali (which I rewatched a few years ago) with almost all his available fights (many of them complete).
Both times I was a bit disappointed with Ali after his ban. I just missed his incredible speed and his outstanding footwork in his bouts.
That's why the Ali from the mid-sixties is the best for me.

Many people also love the Thrilla in Manila (1975). I'm not such a big fan of that. Of course, I like exciting and close ring battles. Anyway, it's not that exciting anymore when you have watched it already and the result is known. Now it's a bit too brutal for my taste (not so in my early twenties).
I tend to prefer interesting styles and tactics, outstanding skills (like 60s Ali) etc., still next to alternating knockdown brawls ala Foreman-Lyle.

 

I don't think anyone Ali beat should make a top 10 heavyweight list. A lot of them seem to be more highly regarded based on sharing an era with Ali. Some could reasonably be ranked in the 11-20 range.

People frequently bash dominant champions based on supposedly weak opposition like Marciano and Jeffries.

 

Brian London. The Ali of 66-67 could have beat anyone except probably FOTC Frazier. I think prime Holmes, Louis, Holyfield, and possibly 1992 Bowe and Steward/Lewis would have been his toughest opponents though. Even Liston and Tyson would have been stopped imo.

And yes, I know London had major problems with fear during that fight...it's just like the Williams fight in a way. It's not the opponent as much as the way Ali was fighting.

 

generally the top 10 is for guys who dominated their eras

Frazier, Foreman, etc didn't dominate an era. That's objective and not open to interpretation. Ranking them in the top 10 seems to be based on speculation as to how they would do in other eras

Not ranking them in the top 10 is reasonable. Liston is the only one with a real case but his resume lacks depth and he may have been slipping by the time he fought Ali.

Here is a reasonable top 10 list in no particular order without anyone Ali beat
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Joe Louis
Wladimir Klitschko
Lennox Lewis
Jack Johnson
Evander Holyfield
Mike Tyson
Rocky Marciano
James Jeffries

 

Povetkin's probably better than anyone Liston beat, why couldn't he get past a faded Liston?

 

My friend...no offense, but if Foreman and Frazier DON'T make the top 10 I would consider such a list both laughable and completely dismissable.

 

Neither were the best of their own time. You generally don't crack the top 10 if you can't even be the best of your own era.
Moreover, there are eras since then I would pick to better the heavyweights of that day partially due to the massive size gap and PEDs. Frazier, Foreman also benefited from fighters in the former USSR not being allowed to turn pro

 

1. Povetkin got caught thereby verifying that he actually did it. There’s never been any proof that Ali did nor any talk of it that I know of.

2. H2H ability is purely speculative whereas solid achievements aren’t. None of Povetkins wins were against men who achieved greatness in their OWN era and in truth even Povetkin himself never reached anything beyond alphabet status.

 

Even though I don't agree with your argument, I can see some logic there. In the first two sentences.

 

what made the era of Ali, Foreman and Frazier so great is you had highly talented fighters who regularly fought each other and each having their own unique accomplishments. Case in point, this era hasn’t seen a solid dominant champion since Klit lost the title six years ago at the age of thirty nine. Another point, there were times when Ali defended his title 4-5 times in a single year. Can we even get TWO defenses within twelve months out of these current guys ?