1965-67. Saying he looked worse because he fought better opposition in the 90s isn't a good argument because even when he fought a few mediocre opponents in the 70s he didn't look near as refined, as slippery or quick in the in 70s as he did against Liston or anybody else in that 65-67 pre-exile time frame
Watch Ali fight Floyd Patterson in the 60s compared to fighting Patterson in the 70s. Ali from 65 was better than 70s Ali. It's clear as day This content is protected This content is protected Look at that footspeed at 6:23 on the second video !
I agree completely with your premise. I should mention, though, that Ali kind of gave Patterson that rematch as a financial favor, and out of guilt for the way the first fight went. Patterson was really suffering for that second fight, and not just from financial matters.
That makes it even worse because Ali looked slower, sloppier and significantly less defensively sound against a declined Floyd Patterson
I actually disagree, Ali stated in a interview he started training late because his iron was to low and had to take tablets and barely made the stretch to feel good and conditioned, I think this is a solid version of Ali but h2h of all time somebody takes him into deep waters it will be all wrong for Ali.
No but enough call Ali the GOAT or H2H#1 for there to be something in it. I think the burden of proof lies with you to put forward a counter argument stronger than 'Povetkin would look godly against Ali's 60s opponents' when he looked perfectly mortal against the inactive tubs of lard masquerading as heavyweights of his day. There's a lot of people you need to convince, Bum, and you're starting behind the line as your arguments will be tainted, rightly or wrongly, with the feeling that you have a prejudice against older eras, along with a blind faith in modern fighters, that clouds your judgment.
Muhammad Ali's critics must have enjoyed the 1970's, as Ali took beatings, even suffered a fractured jaw in 1973, thanks to Ken Norton. Sure he got decked by Henry Cooper in 1963, bottom line no one remembers what Ali did to Cooper in 1966, at least Ali got up from a knockdown unlike a certain heavyweight champion who fumbled, looking for his mouthpiece.
I am not a long term denizen of Classic Boxing. Convicing "fans" in this section is pointless since most of them are quite dumb and they are wearing opaque glasses.
Bumnard won't listen, no matter how much his argument gets dismantled. Povetkin went hell and back with Marco Huck who isn't much bigger at all than heavyweights from the 60s yet he's going to look like "a god" against Ali's opposition LOL ridiculous. You can't make this up
You are just making the rules up as you go along to fuel that anti 70's heavyweight obsession. I've barely ever seen a top 10 heavyweight list that didn't contain the likes of Frazier and Foreman and possibly Liston. You fail to mention Foreman came back and won the lineal heavyweight championship more than 2 decades, i said TWO DECADES after he first won it. But yeah just fob it off and stay in that blissful anti 70's ignorance. I'm sure you will find some way to fob it off into the pits of insignificance. Joe Frazier dominated his era for 5 years and Tyson dominated his for 4 so there's that. Wlad never beat his most dominant challenger so i'm not sure what he's doing at #4. Holyfield "dominated" for 2 years before being comfortably beaten by Bowe in a 3 fight series with a loss to Moorer in the middle. His best after this was a 4 fight streak before being outdone by Lewis. Where did your own rules go to? where is the domination of his own era????? Ah that's right he's not from the 70's. Liston beat a shyteload of contenders from 58-63 punctuated two one round obliteration's of the champion of his day. He's in the mix and certainly not impossible to place in the ten. By your ideal a guys like Salvador Sanchez and Pedroza who didn't dominate truly dominate their era and have big clouds hanging over them. Pep, a guy most rate #1 feather ever (those who don't invariably have him #2) perhaps isn't even a top 10 featherweight after all. Oops. Better still, Archie Moore, who lost all 3 to Ezzard Charles might not be top #10 yet most have him #1 or #1. Oops. It's ridiculously clouded around the 30's and 40's where guys not only fought all the time but took on fellow top fighters on a consistent basis and therefore racked up some losses. Maybe almost all of those great fighters might be struggling for top 10 rankings. Ridiculous.
I have both Foreman and Frazier in my Top 10. What I do agree with is the 70's era of heavyweights can be a bit overrated. You have people saying things like Ron Lyle wouldn't fold against Mike Tyson so Lyle automatically wins, or Earnie Shavers didn't KO Ali so Mike Tyson wouldn't be able to do it, or that George Foreman broke bones and crushed skulls...**** like that. What the 70's did do right was pitting these guys against one another. Not one fight didn't get made, they all got made and the fans all won. Tremendous, but that's where the 80's fell off. I love the 70's heavies and think it's up there with the greatest eras, but the guys Ali faced get put on a pedestal simply because they fought Ali. Honestly, the most talented era was the 80's. The 90's get a bit overrated as well and I do have the 30's up there highly.
We did see it, what your referring to is his potential peak. Had he not been banned he probably would have gotten even better but we don't know. When he was at his best is debatable i guees and thats what his prime is referring to and thats what we have to work with
The Muhammad Ali vs Floyd Patterson title defense on Nov 22 1965, was the first fight I ever saw live on Closed Circuit Television with my Dad and Uncle. I started watching boxing from then on.
