I just have 2 say that Norton's 2 performances in rematches w/ Ali proved that he did not need hypnosis to defeat Ali. Moving on, I do recognize that Ali's overall speed, footwork, etc. did decline from '67 to the time he returned. However, I do not like the idea spread that Ali was now a level below the Ali of the 60s. Ali was still the fastest flashiest heavy in the world, and had too much success from '70 to '75 to be considered washed-up or even post-prime. I know most think that's simply not true, and I respect the idea that Ali peaked in the 60s. For the most part I think that's true. But I do not agree entirely.
But Ali was very vulnerable in the 1970's. The Muhammad Ali from 1964-1967 did not lay on the ropes, he used great foot work, speed, reflexes, and stamina. He could move for 15 rounds. The Rope A Dope was created because he could no longer move for 3 minutes a round anymore. I watched his title fights from the first Floyd Patterson on. A first title reign Ali would have danced circles around Ken Norton without missing a beat. As you are entitled to your opinion, people wanted to see him vulnerable. That vulnerability contributed to his later neurological issues. Ali did not look the same anymore. If you think about it, Norton had trouble with a trimmed downed 212 ln Ali on Sept 10 1973, as Ali moved. What do you think would have happened to Ken Norton against a youthful in shape Muhammad Ali in 1967? Also I read an article in a 1973 boxing magazine, Ken Norton did say that he went to a Therapist for hypnosis, I would not make that up for any fighter, even Eddie Futch confirmed that.
1) I do realize that Ali was defnitely more vulnerable, but I do not hold that against him much. 2) Because of the clash of styles, I would never have Ali dancing circles around Norton. 3) I didn't think that u made up the thing about Norton getting hypnotized. I've heard it before too.
I respect your opinion but Ali danced around him on Sept 10 1973, that is why Norton lost, imagine Ali in 1967, I personally do not think that Ken Norton would trouble Ali as he would never be in range to be hit, too much speed , footwork and stamina. Watching Ali in the 1970's was like waiting for the other shoe to drop, too many controversial wins, I prefer him in his first title reign, 1964-1967, no waiting for doom to happen, I do not care for drama, I do not watch even soap operas. Watching him fight in his first title reign was like watching a thing of beauty, he was too fast for his opponents, hardly ever got hit as champion.
Conn fought a lot of times inside Louis artilerly. He didn't have reach advantage, so he didn't actually box behind his jab like Ali usually did. His defense was also much different than what Ali usually used. If you think that there is only one way to fight with using lateral movement, then you are wrong.
Anyone can be beaten by some, a better question is are the odds that someone would win at a certain time? I agree that Ali was clearly best in the mid-late '60's. However great he was for the first half of the '70's. His speed, especially of foot & movement skills, stamina, work-rate & energy were unparalleled. He did not need to clinch much, nor rest in spots.
Lennox Lewis is the only heavyweight imo that 100% beats ali due to his power and reach. Possibly holyfield, possibly bowe, possibly holmes. Mike tyson i feel would whoop ali but start gassing during the 6th after constantly pressuring him and then ali just edges on points from there
I did not say that...what I said was ...if you watch Louis struggling with Conn ,it’s hard to envision him beating a prime Ali .....if you think he’d have an easier fight with Ali ,than he did with Conn I would love to hear why
I don't necessarily say that he'd have easier time with Ali, but he knocked out Conn - it's not like it was a lucky decision. Conn gave Louis different problems than Ali would. I don't know if Louis would have beaten Ali, but I don't see Conn fight as relevant here. I could just say that I can't see Ali beating Louis after first Frazier fight because Louis was better than Frazier.
Probably dempsey and louis Tunney and ah1930s taught johnson would be slight favorites... Walcott might take at least one of three in a trilogy Perhaps
I don’t think anyone beats 64-67 Ali, as posters have said previously Ali only lost FOTC to Frazier because having nearly 4 years out and only two fights in 43 months, as far as Norton is concerned Ali didn’t fight Norton until his 43rd fight and being a pro fighter for 13 years, that’s 43 fights and 43 training camps, the fact that Ali managed to lose and win wafer thin margins against a class fighter in his prime(Norton) with one of the greatest strategist trainers in the opposite corner(FUTCH) working against him (which wouldn’t have worked in 64-67 because of Ali foot, jab speed and lateral movement, is amazing considering how far past prime 1973 is compared to 1967 is. Just to put it into a little perspective Joshua would have to have another 19 fights and camps and fury another 12 fights and camps to get to there 43rd fight do people really think we will be calling them peak or prime when they get to that point, or even winning or losing wafer thin margins with prime ATG fighters at that stage in there career probably not.
Always felt that a trained Greg Page, who had some attributes Ali did not have, could have give a prime Ali fits, but the chances of him beating prime Ali are really slim to none.
