So most of Ali best wins were past his prime?

Yes. The best version of Muhammad Ali I ever saw was the 1966-1967 version, but most of his best scalps came after that.

 

Well said.

 

Apart from Liston,Muhammad's most FAMOUS and legacy enhancing wins were after his layoff. These wins taking place between 1970-75. Anything after Manila was superfluous and meaningless.

 

Obviously Ali was in his physical prime before his lay-off, but boxing is more than just being at your peak physically. It can be argued that a lot of the intangibles that made Ali great didn't appear until after the exile-chin, mental toughness, will to win. There is a counter argument that Ali only needed to develop these attributes as he couldn't physically move the way he could in his earlier career. It's interesting to try and imagine what would have happened had Ali continued to fight. Who knows his legend might be more enhanced due to his lay-off rather than diminished.


I actually think the pre-exile version is more vulnerable to certain fighters than his older self....an example of this is Tyson who I think would have a better chance against a 66 Ali.

Out of curiousity if both versions of Ali fought each other who do you all think would have prevailed?

 

Ali said the younger version would win. I'm inclined to take his word for it.

 

He came off the floor to stop both Banks and Cooper shortly after being knocked down. He turned the tide when in trouble against Jones and went one round blind against the perhaps most feared fighter ever. You wouldn't call that mental toughness and will to win?

 

The 1967 version would beat all his other selves. I'd take his 1974 self to beat the Cassius Clay of '64 though. This thread is getting surreal..!!!

 

His mental toughness and will to win were overlooked for a very long time. Behind that pretty face there was one tough dude...!!

 

It's funny how many use the Banks, Jones and Cooper fights to argue Ali not being that great, but the fights are very quickly forgotten when talking about his ability to face adversity even at that age. What actually happened after the knock downs seems to be of no interest at all for some reason.

 

The thread makes a couple of interesting points but I look at it like this. If the 65/66/67 Ali meets a prime Frazier, Foreman or Norton then who do you pick? I think he dominates all three.

Ali was grease lightening in his prime and had slipped by at least 25% by 1970. It's tragic we didn't see a 68/69 version, without lay off damage, it would have been beautiful!

 

Yep, foreman wouldn't of had him on the ropes like that,
And I don't think Norton would give him HALF of the problems that he gave him in his prime. 66' Ali has more then enough power to take out Norton I think. His hand speed would make the difference as would his movement. Norton wouldn't of stood a chance.
Frazier i think still gives him problems but Ali takes it.

 

It comes down to narrow mindedness,I think. Some people get a stereotyped image of somebody,and it sticks.

 

If we'd have seen a version of Ali like this,we would have had to stop insulting him with words like GREAT or MIRACULOUS....!

 

Frazier and Norton would still have been tough opponents for a 1966/67 Ali. Their fights would have been similar to Muhammad's second fights with each,but with some more daylight between them.