Ali the greatest? An element in the equation?

The past prime wins do count for something, a lot imo, but he's nowhere near as past it as some others were when they were taking on other prime greats, he was more relevant when he took on Foreman than say Holmes vs Tyson, that's to his credit though.

He's number one at the weight imo. Anyway, i'm out now, hope you're not trolling son, haha.

 

It's true what you say. Although Ali's victory is the greatest one out of all those you've mentioned,Muhammad was far less past his prime than the other past prime greats were at these respective times.

 

Although Ali was never again the same athlete that he was prior to his exile, it should also be noted that hiatus spared him over three and a half years of wear and tear. Muhammad had been active going into Kinshasa, and his 12 round wins over Norton and Frazier were perfect competitive preparation for Foreman. He was still only 32.

Holmes was rusty and 38, Louis was 37, and with a tumor impaired left shoulder, while Tyson was 16 years past his original ascension to the title.

 

I'd compare Ali-Foreman to

Louis-Walcott
Holmes-Spinks? Arguably Holmes-Cooney (Holmes was 32 then)
Tyson-Holyfield

 

Aside from Holmes-Cooney, I agree. Holmes peaked late and has according to posters here named the Cooney win as his best perfomance. Ali, on the other hand, has said that he was past his prime when he beat Foreman and that the younger version of himself would have won easier.

In all honesty, though, neither Louis, Holmes or Tyson was as well prepared for the above fights as Ali was for Foreman. The rematches would probably be fairer in that regard.

 

This isn't at all surprising, as Ali had a very early start, while Holmes began at a relatively late age. (Ali dethroned Liston when he was 22. Larry didn't even make his professional debut until he was 24.)

 

No, it isn't surprising. It was the same with Lewis.

 

That tumor did not affect his boxing at all. He admitted so. Had it been painful, he would have never thrown his left jab so often with such authority.

 

agree here

 

Granted, it's entirely possible this is revisionist history. I don't go by what he said, but as you pointed out, he did utilize it, and actually complained that he had to think consciously about throwing his right instead. Experts at the time observed that the major obvious change in Joe's boxing was that he was no longer combining his punches.

 

i agree with the earlier posts that while his win over foreman was impressive, his descent was not quite at the those other levels. it's been posted before but for a brilliant analysis on ali's post-exile abilities, check on cus in ali's 1970 camp; breaks down exactly what the champ lost in those years

 

Of course his past prime wins count for something. Without them he would really only be a 1 time world champion and he wouldn't have all those glorious wins over his belt, his wins against Lyle, Spinks, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, etc.
Although he would still have a great resume.
Foreman was also great past his prime, as he defeated many good contenders :good

 

No, I don't think they're equitable. However, Marciano's win over Louis is underrated. Joe had a very active 1951. He dropped Savold for the count, and was coming off back to back ten round decisions over Marciano stablemate Brion, and Bivins. Louis was as well prepared for Rocky as he could have been. Considering the fact that this was a fully evolved Marciano, complete with lethal left hook, Joe actually didn't do that badly. This wasn't like Tyson-Holmes or Holmes-Ali. Still Louis was far more ring worn, and considerably older than Ali when Marciano retired him.

Tyson-Holmes, I think, equates reasonably with Tyson-Lewis, and it might be argued that Tyson was more degraded for Lennox than Louis was for Rocky.

After Foreman, Ali went on to have a stellar 1975, despite less disciplined training and weight control. (Incidentally, Pachilles, you listed the results of Ali-Foreman and Lewis-Tyson as TKOs, when in fact they were clean KOs.