I don't have time to reply to the rest of your post now, but I'll reply to this briefly. That's actually a more interesting question than it initially seems, IMO. There's near universal agreement that 70s Ali -- especially later 70s Ali -- doesn't display the athleticism, coordination, grace, and fluidity of 60s Ali. Ali started from a very high point. One wonders how much of even the early decline in athleticism had Parkinsons as a contributing factor. For myself, I always thought there were moments in the 70s where he looks weirdly uncoordinated compared to his 60s version. I get that he was older. But Tyson (for example) could still pull it together and look like his old self for short stretches during his second career. Something to think about.
Actually, I had a little bit of time. Remember the context of my initial comment? I was replying to the circular way that people sometimes prove fighters' abilities: "Norton beat Ali, so Norton was great. And Ali beat Norton, so Ali was great. And Shavers beat Norton, so Shavers must have been an incredible contender. And Quarry beat Shavers, so that makes Quarry amazing too..." etc. I pointed out that the same game can be played in reverse, if you start with a negative evaluation of a fighter. So let's take your reply about Frazier as a starting point: "Did it stop [Frazier] from beating everyone he faced not named Ali or Foreman?" No, it didn't. And that's why the same game can be run: "Frazier was a man with partial blindness in one eye, generally considered a medically undesirable condition in boxing. Yet Frazier beat everyone not named Ali and Foreman in the 70s. So those guys must have been unimpressive. And he beat Ali once, so Ali must not have been good, either. And since Ali and Foreman's greatness rests so much on beating Frazier and the guys Frazier also beat, Ali and Foreman must not have been good..." Etc. You often see this kind of reasoning when people talk about how some terrible-looking contender managed to compete in [insert era here]; ergo the era sucked. In both cases, the circle is a closed loop that fails to take all of the data into consideration. That was my point.
LOL, you had me there JT. I had to check, RACQ ad, is that right? I’d not seen it before. Hahaha. In my defence, all I can say is:- This content is protected
But that isn't entierly how it works though. One example is Quarry. He had a great resume outside of Shavers, in fact Shavers isn't even his best win. That is just how boxing resumes work. Beat decent names your a good name, beat good names, your a great name, so on and so on. you beat the levels you're the better level.
Who beat whom is one factor to consider, yes. But once you start making cross era comparisons, things go off the rails a bit.
Don’t you worry JT, more than a few things get past…I just cover it well . Now if you had said “Not happy, Jan!”, I would’ve got that - but it wouldn’t have fit the context as yours did. LOL. Remember Rocky and Lucky Gattellari? Given Joe was half blind and basically had one arm, I’m surprised they didn’t call him “Lucky” Joe Frazier instead of “Smoking”. Yes, an unashamed rip off of the old, 3 legged, blind in one eye lost dog joke.
It was never 100% confirmed but not too long prior to the first Ali fight he was said to be working 29 hours days down mill. Not exactly the best preparation.
Their's also a near universal agreement that his loss in athleticism, speed, coordination, is because a 3 and a half year exile and absolutely NOTHING to do with Parkinson's. He very rarely took any punishment in his first career that would've given him severe brain damage. It's also VERY rare for someone his age at the time to develop Parkinson's even if you believe it's in his genetics. Could you point to me where he looks "weirdly uncoordinated" on film pre-manilla to the point it effects his performance? Preferably, specifically in bouts against Frazier and Foreman since they're the ones being disparaged for losing to an Ali with Parkinson's.
MacFoster hit Ali at will? That's either trolling or delusional. He landed some in one of the rounds where Ali stood right in front of him and clowned, but over 15 MacFoster didn't have much joy. Bonavena more in that case, but in no way shape or form did he hit Ali at will. And you scoring that fight for Bonavena just goes to show your wild bias. Or that you're trolling.
One can make a case for Fury without going completely bonkers. Just like one can make a case for Louis as greater than Ali. Then you will actually be taken seriously as well. But some posters don't see that road apparently.
Watch the fight, someone like Foster shouldn’t be hitting the “defensive wizard” he wasn’t clowning either. The Bonavena scoring was a joke but he hit Ali way too much for it to be anything but a knock against him.