Which Muhammad Ali peformance was better?

williams wasn't shot 3 months before the fight. his performance v williams was his best.

 

Try two years. He was shot in 1964. Still, in essence you're right. Williams was only a shell when he met Ali. London was at least a healthy specimen.

 

Some great articles in Sports Illustrated December 5, 1966 about the
Muhammad Ali vs. Cleveland Willams Heavyweight Championship Fight.

More than just injuries bothering Cleveland Williams.
Money issues from his former manager, and legal papers filed, garnishing his
fight purse.

Besides his physical liabilities, his mental attitude was not in that fight.
He fought like a zombie, and just went through the motions.

At 33 years of age, he had just $14.73 to his name, 6-weeks before the fight.
The guy was working on a farm in Texas, for $1.00 / Hour.
He had a .357 magnum bullet in his abdomen, and only one kidney. And
weak muscles in his leg, as a result of the gunshot wound.

Though Muhammad Ali was at his physical peak, his performance was against
a shell of once dangerous fighter.

His bout with Muhammad Ali in the Houston Astrodome was later called 'The Massacre'.

 

There is little question regarding the fact that he was a poor version of himself ... it is often over looked because he still was an impressive physical specimen ... in reality he was one of the 1060's Ali's poorest title opponents, right up there w London ... makes sense ...

 

Sorry, i forgot the timing of the shooting.
I see you were correct out the date, he took a 17months layoff after the Sep '64 Billy Daniels fight, so his recovery period must have fell in there.

Regardless, the .357 bullet almost killed him, & he had to build up all his muscle again from being a skinny dying man.

 

Still, the fight did exceptionally well in the Houston Astrodome,,,

35,460 attended. The largest indoor crowd for a fight.
Muhammad Ali pulled in a nice $222,927 just from the 'live gate' alone.
50% of the gross.

ABC-TV paid $75,000 for the broadcast rights (broadcast on Television 2-weeks later).

A no-harm no-foul fight. As many believed that Muhammad Ali gave Cleveland Williams
a Title shot to help him get out of debt.
If compassion was part of this, to help out a fellow fighter, than it was a good cause
bout.

In his 4-comeback bouts, Cleveland Williams did struggle in 3 of them,
W KO 1 vs Ben Black
(Before knocking out Ben Black, Williams was staggered badly from the first punch Ben Black landed. Out on his feet, Williams landed a wild and desperate left hook that floored Black.
Black got up, and nailed a wide open Williams with a right hand that
staggered him and left him defenseless, forcing the referee to give Williams a
standing 8-count, which saved him.
Black, while attacking a hurt Williams, left himself wide open, and Williams nailed him with a home-run left hook that knocked out Ben Black. One of the wildest 1st Rounds ever.)

 

It was a lot longer than 3 months mate

 

I'd say Ali vs Williams. Anytime you can drop a man, damaged or not, while you are moving BACKWARDS that says alot about yourself.

 

Ali's best career win was the Thrilla in Manila. That fight forced him to dig the deepest. Should have retired right there.

Pre-exile his best win was Liston I.

Patterson had severe back trouble against Ali in their 1965, not that he had much chance anyway.

 

And it's a kind of underrated in technical and tactical terms. Ali perfomed beautifully without much legs to rely on.

 

The fight against Cleveland Williams.A Hint of what could've been.

 

Ali was approaching his all-time best come Williams who, as you said, had a bullet in him. London? Simply a tomato can that any contender could have feasted on. You're basically asking which piece of dead-meat was Ali more impressive against...does anyone care? Next thread....