Yeah, but his very best weight is generally thought to be at 212. But you're right that the size difference wasn't that big.
he faced a peak frazier after a long lay-off after being undefeated in the 60s and this loss was in the 70s. bonavena fight is the key to knowing frazier beating ali was not as great as one thinks. i don't think anyone would pick schemeling to beat frazier. norton i give. ali was not in best of shape and had a broken jaw but norton was always his kryptonite - 2 counter fighters cancelling each other out.
I don't. Yes, but he could be said to be closer to his prime in his loss than Ali was for both of his. Well, we've been over this. I think that the fact that Ali lost much more competively in the first place counts for just as much. Don't see why it wouldn't. It's the lay-off that accounts for this. Otherwise Ali's prime would probably have stretched into the early 70's. It wouldn't really be fair to say that he entered his prime before the age of 22 (the age Louis was when Schemling beat him), and then it ended with the lay-off. This means that comparisons between Louis' Ali's respective primes won't be as straight forward as we would like, but it is what we have to work with. In any case, during these years Ali didn't have one opponent that gave him as much trouble as Connn gave Louis, and he probably wasn't as troubled by anyone as Louis was by Godoy, Farr and Pastor either. So that gives us a bit of a margin. Louis was also floored numerous times during his prime, something Ali wasn't.
Ali by miles. Loads of posters I really respect have it close or to Louis. I think it's a silly mistake if i'm honest with you.
:blah It's boring if everyone had Ali as #1. And Louis' overall punching ability impresses me more than whatever Ali did.