The Ali who beat Liston vs the Ali who beat Foreman. Both had their advantages and disadvantages. For example, the older version of Ali had more experience and could likely take a better punch while the younger version was quicker on his feet. Which version of Ali would you pick to prevail?
The one that beat Liston to me is the best version. Much better stamina, faster, defense (punch stats prove it). That Ali is the best HW boxer to walk this earth imo.
The older Ali might possibly have knocked the younger down. But the younger would have found him way too slow. Young Ali by unanimous decision, and even with a possible knockdown it's average six points ahead on the cards. Young Ali would have kept away, faster and more accurate than even Shavers I Holmes. Had older Ali tried the rope-a-dope, this would have been a monumental snooze-fest imo.
The older Ali still was very fast. I don't think he'd have been "too slow", perhaps just a little slower than his younger version. But I think that the older Ali hit harder and was more durable.
I like the Ali from a year or two later a little better than the '64 model. I agree, thought that '64 trumps '74.
Absolutely, still at his physical peak, but more experience & methods for excelling in '66-'67. The younger ali was only a little faster of hand, but much faster on his feet. And had better endurance, coul throw a lot & dance for 15 rounds. It would be enough to beat a '74 Ali.
I think that the 1964 edition of Muhammad Ali would have out boxed and outpointed a post prime edition of Muhammad Ali from 1974. The footwork and speed would have been too much. This one would go to the judges cards, as veteran Ali was durable, and had more experience. 1964 version by unanimous decision in an early chess match.
The older Ali wins. He'd know exactly what young Ali was going to throw before he's even thought it..
I really don't know. You can argue for both, but I'd lean slightly towards the younger version if forced to pick, but it doesn't go without saying.