a prime ali in the 70's.

Wouldn't the whole dynamics of the Foreman fight changed if this was the 60s Ali?

Foreman would have gone into the fight as the underdog rather than the overwhelming favourite and there would definitely have been no rope-a-dope used by Ali. With Ali on his toes and probably hands down as well, would this have actually given Foreman more of a chance?

 

I so agree, his legs are what made his whole style work and what set the prime Ali apart from all the other greats.

 

Ali's great 60's defenses against Patterson, Cooper, London, and Folley...the toughest cruiserweights of all time, certainly mean that he would have dominated any fighter in any era, even on other planets or the bottom of the sea. His ability to handle any style is almost supernatural:

TKO12 Frankenstein's Monster -stopped on cuts
W15 Creature From The Black Lagoon
DQ3- Dracula (biting)
KO 5 The Mummy - broke his hand early
KO 9 Mr. Hyde - black bottle controversy
The Wolfman Trilogy - lost the first fight during full moon (L15), but still sent Wolfman to hospital; dominated in rematches (KO 1; KO 3) during rest of the month.

The man simply never lost a fight. He was robbed blind against Frazier, and Ken Norton cheated by breaking his jaw. Leon Spinks' s record was deceiving. The Holmes fight was one of the most premature stoppages I've ever seen. Marcellus Wallace made him throw the fight with Berbick; "if you feel a little sting, that's just pride ****ing with you." 61-0

 

Funny, but they were not CWs then, & you cherry picked, did not mention Chuvalo or Terrell. Liston & others,all bigger. In fact like Louis he did very well against the bigger guys.
Yes some worship Ali absent reason. Like other legends.
Yet he was at his best & a somewhat different fighter & skill set in the '60's, & it is not unreasonable to see continued dominance during the exile.

 

What a bunch of trash

 

Chuvalo was a tough punching bag who lost to a whole bunch of guys you never heard of. Tirrell was tall, but spindly and frail. Ali beat Liston fair and square the first time, but the second fight is a NC in my opinion.

 

6 of one/half a dozen of the other, When was Ali's prime Liston? or FOTC, if you say Williams-Foley then I will say poor opposition and things got togher when the opposition got tougher -Bonavena-Frazier, Ali did not look spectacular over the strong but very limited Chuvalo

 

Chuvalo didn't lose to a whole bunch of guys on the way up before Ali, he did lose to a few pretty decent fighters in Canada and to Patterson in the Rings fight of the year. Terrell wasn't frail and we don't know what kind of a fight he would have given against Ali if not thumbed in the first round. Ali didn't impress me in that bout at all.

 

Interesting take on all of those. I also wasn't much impressed of Ali's win over George who though slow of foot often put him on the ropes for barrages of body punches. The only thing I'd like to highlight is Ali's legs are what made his style as a heavyweight work and in his comeback they were simply not there until Frazier 2. Bonnavena didn't move any faster then Williams, etc. but Ali was a flat footed boxer for the time which was a whole different dynamic.

 

Angelo Dundee always claimed we never got to see the best version of Ali. Maintaining that the Ali who resumed after the enforced break couldn't do things the earlier Ali could.

 

Frazier was prime and fit in the FOTC but slipped much thereafter. Ali had the footwork prior to the 3 years off but the class and style of fighter level also went up. Ali had no problem with the big men but the little guys like Jones Bonavena and Frazier troubled him and pressure fighters like Norton,Frazier

 

I don't think so either. His overall level of opposition was a lot tougher in the 70s, which is a big reason why he wasn't so dominant.

Probably had a lot more to do with the fact that Williams was a shell who had a bullet in his back, whereas Frazier, Foreman and Norton were in their primes and a much bigger threat.