If these two mammoth forces of boxing were to collide just a few years after their first bout, when Foreman began really perfecting his technique, how would it have gone?
In my opinion, the fact that almost everyone chose Formen is no coincidence. If Ali had a smaller name, we would consider his victory a coincidence. Just like we consider Martin's win over Liston or Ross Purritta's win over Wlad. But apart from the stylistic mismatch, I think that George was stronger than Ali in the 1970s. And although it would never have been an easy fight, I think that if it weren't for Zaire, he would also have won in 1973, 74, 75 and in every subsequent year if he had the chance.
Young George would never have beaten pre-Manila, maybe even up to 1976 Ali, because not only was he unarmed in the mental matchup between the two which can be as significant as the physical matchup, Ali was simply better, in my opinion he’s the GOAT. The reason people are picking against him is he came out of Manila damaged and continued to decline.
I haven’t changed my mind from the last time this was asked. Quick, pre-Manila rematch, Ali wins and maybe even more convincingly. After Manila, maybe through 1976, I still think he wins on his wits because I don’t know if young George’s head ever really improved. 1977 and afterward, he can’t keep George’s power at bay.
Ali was one foot in the garbage disposal by 77/78, but he still would beat Foreman via the Jimmy Young Rule.
The likely outcome depends on timing, of course. Post Zaire and pre Manila, my guess is Foreman would attempt to pace himself and work off the jab more at range. At this stage Ali had enough to outbox George at range in a slower paced fight, though Foreman would almost certainly last longer and possibly/probably last the distance, losing on points.
I think the young Ali from 1967 could have beaten any version of Foreman. But after 1971, Ali wins 1 out of 10 fights and it would be best if it was in strange circumstances. The pressure on Foreman was incredible. And it burns like nothing else. It was a mental failure. I don't know how you can not see it. Ali came for another fight of his life, George for another easy execution. Sonny Liston approached Ali in the same way, Mike Tyson approached Douglas and Holyfield, Lennox Lewis approached Rahman and Wlad Klitschko approached Ross Puritti. The heat is a hindrance for everyone, but for the hyper-energy-hungry GF style it's much worse than for the ultra-frugal Ali style, and the pressure of a crowd of thousands shouting for your rival to kill you doesn't really help. Everyone saw how George felt in Zaire. He locked himself in his room and prayed to be home. Ali was at home. For me, this fight took place in terrible circumstances for Georg, who, admittedly, never reached the physical and mental peak he had before Zaire.
Prior to Manila Ali wins pretty easily--too much ring savvy and skill for George. After Manila it gets progressively tougher for him. 50-50 in 1976 and the odds dip further from there IMHO.
Foreman never had the straight punching, hand speed, defensive elusiveness or stamina to defeat an ATG who never lost his ability to take George's best punch. That ring in Kinshasa was a mere 16 feet, and loose ropes should've slowed down Ali's rights off the ropes. Instead, it looked as if Muhammad was actually sling shooting them off. Post Manila, Ali looked perfectly fine for Richard Dunn at 220. Don't be suckered in by Cosell's dramatic narrative that "He'd never be the same fighter again!" What actually downgraded Muhammad was the Inoki farce, which resulted in one of Ali's legs almost being amputated, then there was no coming back from the neurological damage Shavers inflicted on him. Larry Holmes has now stated on camera what I've been posting for a decade and a half, that it was actually Earnie who ruined Ali, that Shavers was his true Manila. George has emphasized that he was no match for Muhammad in center ring when they faced each other flat footed and the footage supports this. Incidentally, Earnie fought a brilliant fight against Ali, paced himself wonderfully, and had the prior experience of having punched himself out multiple times (specifically against Stander and Lyle), along with entering the tenth round against quality opposition, even decisioning the vastly more experienced Rondon, Tiger Wlliams on network television and veteran Henry Clark. He knew his limits. Even then, he almost went down in the final 20 seconds against Ali. 1970's Foreman couldn't pace himself after Peralta II, and Ali had a massive psychological advantage over him after Kinshasa. We've seen the undue caution Norton blew his rubber match with the GOAT on. (Ken needed three more rounds like the five he won decisively on all cards.) George was eliminated in eight rounds, was ready to go after six rounds, and knew it. Foreman's not knocking him out, and not winning a decision. At some point, he may think he had Ali like he thought he had Jimmy Young, then either punch himself out going for the kill, or blow an opportunity by failing to do so. After Kinshasa, in his own mind, George knew he could not knock Muhammad Ali out. That's all there is to it.
I mostly agree, but I don't think Foreman would last 14, it would be too much. Referee stops the fight when Foreman has slowed down and exhausted himself to the point of getting battered all over the ring. I'm not sure he'd even make it that far. The beginning of that fight would be hugely interesting.
