So most of Ali best wins were past his prime?

Because we have eyes. It's clear to see on film. Not to mention his career post-lay off was longer than his career at world-level pre-layoff. There is no question when comparing his performances on film that the '66/67 version of Ali is the greatest one captured.

 

Hm, just playing a bit here but could it be that Ali looked better pre-fay off because his opposition was inferior? :think

 

Because he said he was clearly, his lifelong trainer said he was clearly, fighters who fought him pre and post layoff said he was clearly, concensus opinion from viewing the films of his fights pre and post layoff leans universally in this direction probably by a 99% advantage...

also he went unbeaten 29-0 with 23 KO's (12 of which came inside 4 rounds) - not to mention most of them being round-predicted (5 were count outs, rest stoppages 4 of which came about via cuts) - statistically the young Clay/Ali on average brought about stoppages by the 5 round.

whereas, by contrast 20 of his 32 post lay off fights went either the 12 or 15 round distance - only 3 of the 32 post layoff fights ended inside 5 rounds. Not to mention all his 5 career defeats also came in the post layoff 'second coming'. And he was also dropped a couple of times both times by singularly thrown shots (but to be fair the 2 knockdowns suffered pre layoff also came from singularly thrown shots)

Probably 90% of people (not to mention atheletes) will admit they were far better physically in their early twenties compared to their early 30's

Best fight pre-layoff: vs Clevelend Williams

Best fight post layoff: IMO vs Norton II and Foreman

 

The post Liston era that Ali dominated was not as strong as the Frazier, Foreman, Quarry, Shavers era IMO.

Williams had been shot; Folley had been around 10 years; Cooper, London, Mildenberger were all B+ fighters, Patterson old, plus his psyche had been broken by Liston.

Terrell and Chuvalo might have been the most competitive challengers because Liston never challenged again.

 

Probably was stronger and developed more ruggedness out of necessity ie had to take more because he was no longer quick enough to avoid it like he had been when he was younger but that doesn't make him better all round - it's like Holyfield, pre-Bowe Holyfield was continually criticised for having no strength and not being able to take a punch and not being able to hurt guys and being a bit boring (!!!) - from the first Bowe fight to the present day Holyfield is now renowned for his strength and his legendary ability to take punishment and then comeback from the brink and his ability to battle it out in the trenches with the big big boys at heavyweight and is generally viewed as having been responsible for some of the most exciting fights in recent memory at heavyweight - but he was clearly at his best as an athelete and a fighter post Bowe - similarly to Ali a much better fighter when he was younger - but again his best opponents came in the latter stages of his career.

PS - Brian London was more like a F- level fighter - the british boxing board wouldn't sanction him - he was a bum in England let alone on the world stage - that one was a total mismatch - and Patterson was stricken with a bad back - that one was another one which shouldn't have been allowed to have taken place :good

 

In what way are the two statements contradictory ?

 

Half of the people dismissing this thread are probably members of the "Ability is speculation, only achievements matter" crowd.

 

I think his 60s comp is a tad underrated. For 1 I think Liston is likley better than Foreman/Frazier. Patterson was 30 on a comeback with wins over Machen and Chuvalo, he'd beat Cooper, Bonavena and arguably beat Quary/Ellis years after this. The question mark is Patterson's back injury.

Terrell was a rangy super HW with wins over Machen, Folley, Williams, Foster, Chuvalo and Jones. The thing is he never did anything after Ali but I wonder if that defeat broke him

I also don't buy Williams/Folley were quite as far past it as is made out

Having said all that Ali's technical weaknesses were always going to catch up with him sooner or later, would they have been exposed anyway or was it the reactions/speed/stamina he lost, who knows

 

Ability wise, he was better before.
but he beat better opponents in the 70s

 

Geese criminy man,,,the C. Williams and Zora Folley bouts were Ali at his zenith, as sharp of strikes as you can find from any heavy,,,ever. He could have danced every miniute of 15 rounds at this point and throw in the Ali shuffle for boot,,,just no comparison to the Ali of later or former years.

 

Williams? He was declared clinically dead just 2 years prior! He was lucky to be alive, let along return to the ring. He was shot literally and figuratively. Take a look at the Ali fight...all his speed reflexes aggresiveness is GONE. he was a walking punching bag.


Folley was still a good fighter in 1967, but clearly past it. He was a slick boxer who relied on his reflexes for sharp countering and a elegant left jab. He lost some of that by 1967 at age 34.

 

Thank you.

Ali may have been better before his exile, but he fought far better opposition in his second career. Pre-exile he was beating a bunch of guys who were either broken by Liston or rightfully too scared to fight Liston.

 

Ali showed his best form against Williams and Terrell. He was more complete and less visibly flawed than he had been before, and quicker and more consistent on his toes than he would be after his layoff.

I do believe his legacy shouldn't be based on a form he showed only briefly, and speculation about how long he would've held it or what success it would've brought him. However, even without rating him based on speculation, he still has an argument for being the best HW ever, just based on the career that he actually had.