BoxRec

dempseyfire wrote:So did Ali vs Lyle, Bugner II, and Wepner look much better than he did in Norton III, Shavers and Dunn?

I didn't say that Ali was great in every fight up to Manila, only that Manila was the last great version of Ali. Big difference. But, yes, the Ali of the Lyle fight and Bugner rematches was better than the Ali of the 3rd Norton fight and the Shavers fight, no question. Against Wepner it would be hard to tell what his physical potential was, as he was out of shape and obviously just cruising. You don't contend Ali was 100% fit and motivated against Wepner do you?

Too big and tough for Walcott? That's absurd. When was Joe 'out-toughned'? And he had a perfect style for getting inside on bigger fighters with his foot and head slips/movement.

Are you kidding? Walcott was quick, clever, and a real good puncher, but durability was never his strong suit. His entire career attests to that obvious fact. He was not usually a crowding, aggressive fighter who would work his way inside. Rather, he liked to stay outside and slip in for his counters when people came to him. That's what he did to Louis and also to Marciano the first time. It simply would not work the same way against another long range guy like Ali, who, incidentally, was plenty strong enough to push him back out. Over the last few rounds, it would have been Walcott, and definitely not the Ali of Manila, who would have faded.

Reviewing more film of Walcott last night I practically have little doubt he would've beaten the mid-late 70s Ali soundly. Awful stylematchup for a slower Ali who relied on gamesmanship, flurries and conditioning to beat his better opponents post-Zaire.

Well, like I said before, who knows? I think you have grossly mis-analyzed this particular match-up, but that's what makes these forums fun.

The Great John L wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I go with Ali as the #1 HW. A great fighter but Young, Norton and Frazier would have always given him problems no matter when they fought. Shavers and Leon would have been minced back in Ali's pomp though.

I tend agree with this, especially Frazier. In fact, I think a prime Frazier might have been too much for the ’67 Ali, who probably had slightly better physical skills than the ’71 Ali but may not have had the same toughness as the post exile Ali.

Excellent points about the '67 and '71 versions of Ali.

Anybody who thinks '71 Ali was only 75-80% of his '67 self is deluded.

yancey wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I go with Ali as the #1 HW. A great fighter but Young, Norton and Frazier would have always given him problems no matter when they fought. Shavers and Leon would have been minced back in Ali's pomp though.

I tend agree with this, especially Frazier. In fact, I think a prime Frazier might have been too much for the ’67 Ali, who probably had slightly better physical skills than the ’71 Ali but may not have had the same toughness as the post exile Ali.

Excellent points about the '67 and '71 versions of Ali.

Anybody who thinks '71 Ali was only 75-80% of his '67 self is deluded.

I agree with John and Ezzard, except I wouldn't hazzard a guess as to the #1 heavyweight of all time.