How does Frazier, Norton and Foreman do against a 1966-1967 Ali

I think that post exile Ali was about 2x as tough as pre exile Ali, even if he was slower.

 

Curiously and stylistically foreman does much better against a 60s Ali and liston would much better against 70s Ali. Foreman did cut the ring much better than sonny and liston would not have the problems of the speed with a 70s Ali

 

Any way ali wins the most of times, foreman is my idol but Ali is that great,the only time i pick foreman to Ali is post 1974

 

Ali bomaye

 

FOTC Frazier beats any Verizon of Ali.
Joe makes any needed adjustments and wins.
Foreman doesnt have the ring IQ at the time to win. Norton's footwork would most likely be his downfall as a younger Ali can move around him better but still has trouble with that style. Just because hes younger doesnt guarantee him a win though.

 

I'd say it's consistent with how you look at prime vs post prime version of any fighter.

The inconsistency is with people like you who claim that a fighter that lost part of his physical gifts magically transforms in other ways to become a better fighter in total. Is there any other fighter you see in such a light? Did Louis come back as a better fighter after WWII? Did Tyson after prison? Dempsey after his inactivity? Anyone else - or is it just Ali?

Personally, I think none of the above was quite the same fighter again. Thinking that the same applied to Ali is just being consistent, not producing an "idealized" version of Ali.

 

I see more of a case of detractors wanting to speculate pre-exile Ali was weaker simply because he didn't have to prove he could take it. Just because he didn't take it doesn't mean he couldn't. He didn't miraculously get tough and take a better punch from 67 as Mac makes obvious.

 

Actually yes.

Hopkins transformed into a different, though no less effective, fighter in his old age through changing his style.

Corrie Sanders was a stringbean, highly mobile, boxing heavyweight with a great gas tank in his youth. He was sometimes chinny, though, or prone to being caught out. His older version was much more plodding, but he hit exponentially harder and there's no way the young version of Sanders would have taken the barrage of punches the older version took from Vitali without going down - imo.

 

You didn't answer about Dempsey, Louis and Tyson - who also all had lay-offs.

Anyhow, I'd certainly argue that the Hopkins that lost to Jermaine Taylor was less effective than the one who beat Johnson and Trinidad.

Hopkins had a long physical prime due to coming into the sport late and being fanatic about his training and overall lifestyle. After his prime he preserved quite a bit of his effectiveness by evolving his style, like Duran did in his 30's, but just like Duran he wasn't as good a fighter anymore. The Hopkins of the late 90's wouldn't have lost twice to Taylor imo.

Ali, on his part, didn't change his style until he won the title back from Foreman. In the early 70's he was still a stick and mover, just not quite as good at it as he'd been in the 60's.

I can't say much about Sanders other than the version who lost to Vitaly would have lost to a great many fighters. A 2-3 round gas tank will rarely take you far.

 

Yeah, had Ali kept active, I'm sure he'd be a bit stronger at 29 than he was at 25. But his muscles wasted away for 3,5 years and then he only had 6 months to get them back as much as possible Before FOTC. Surely this can't add up to him becoming stronger. I just don't see it.

And against Foreman, when he had been back for four years, he was just about four lbs heavier than against, say, Terrell. So, yes, a bit stronger perhaps, but probably only marginally so more or less.

And, as Ali himself said, the younger version wouldn't need to stand against the ropes against Foreman. He'd just stick and move him.

 

That version of Ali:
Ali UD over Frazier.
Ali UD over Norton.
Ali TKO11 over Foreman.
Just my two cents.

 

You losses your 2 cents