In 1967 Muhammad was at his very best - as we all know. A more evenly balanced thread would be Zaire Ali v the 1964 Cassius Clay who fought Sonny Liston the first time. Cassius was just as fast as his 1967 self but not quite as polished.
Quite an even one. One Ali on his way to his prime and the other just off it over the other side of the mountain.
1974 split decision. 1964 Ali would start off like he did against Liston with excessive footmovement and headmovement. 74's right hand lead and relative lack of footspeed would allow him to plant and land counters, despite me thinking that 64's jab would be too quick for 74 to spend too much time trying to read. 1974 was rougher in the clinch and smarter in how he manipulated the head. 1964 would look flashier and have the more eye-catching combinations but I think the smarts, toughness and experience of 1974 might just do the trick. I also wouldn't be surprised if 64 jabs 74's head off too.
I think it's pretty simple a prime Ali in mid to late 60s was winning fights based on amazing athletic ability, speed, movement. Ali in 74 was having to rely on his durability and boxing IQ. And whilst both of those attributes are good obviously, i think the fact that Ali was slowing down and was having to ship way more punishment. Shows that Ali in the mid to late 60s was the far better fighter.
Any iteration of Ali up to and including Manila Ali whups Foreman and Liston. They would just go about it differently.
Muhammad Ali once said in his later years, the only one who could beat Muhammad Ali was Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali)
Everything here is correct Richard. Except the bit about 74 Ali not having stamina. A year later, in 75, he demonstrated top level stamina against Joe Frazier in Manila. But yes, 67 Ali wins by a near shutout...just too fast.