I don't see a point in arguing greatness, Ali has a clear edge there. I'm talking prime-for-prime who was better, the 64-67 Ali or prime Floyd?
130 Floyd was better IMO. Just as talented but more skilled in both an advanced sense and a conventional/fundamental sense.
There's no question Floyd was better fundamentally, but Ali had the ability to do things few in history have been able to replicate even at lower weights. Is somebody who trained classically for years a better guitar player than Jimi Hendrix? It's subjective of course but it's not only about inborn talent. In boxing you have to use all your abilities both natural and ones you've honed over the years to defeat your opponent head to head, however it's accomplished. In essence to be better than them. Ali bettered the deepest heavyweight division in boxing history.
I echo Whiskey's thoughts. I don't think any version of Floyd was as good as the Liston 1, Cleveland Williams Ali. Better technically doesn't tell the full story. Ricardo Lopez was better technically than Ali as well.
Agreed. In boxing, styles are always related to the physical capabilities of the fighter in question. Prime Ali did very little wrong, considering his results. That said, I don't consider Ali to be the best heavyweight ever, h2h. He'd have a lot of trouble with some of his successors, Tyson and Lennox first and foremost
Having trouble, and actually losing are two different things. Tyson and Lewis in their primes are both dangerous fights for Ali, but in the end I would favor Ali over both. I know sometimes guys being humble about how they would fare against their heroes doesn't tell the full story, but Mike will freely admit that Ali was too mentally tough for him. He's said it often.
I would favor Ali as well, but i can't honestly say i would be shocked if he lost to either or both. If for whatever reason you didn't get to see the fight and only heard who won the next day would your reaction be "wtf, i don't believe it"!? (and yes i'm talking a legit win not a robbery or some freak occurrence)
88 Tyson would have the best shot, because Mike's footspeed and ability to cut the ring would make it hard for Ali to dance. Also, Ali keeping his hands low isn't a good idea given Mike's insane handpeed and countering ability. So I see the case for Tyson. Lewis? I just see Ali outpointing Lewis in a boring fight. Lennox isn't as effective if a guy isn't standing in front of him, or coming at him. I see Lewis winning his share of rounds, but Ali mainly beating him to the punch. I also think Ali would be able to hurt Lewis. Enough that Lewis wouldn't just rush at him, or let his hands go freely.
Personnaly, I feel it's unjust to rate the hw against the lower weights as they don't have the luxury of winning titles in multiple weight class and physical size play a much bigger role. I mean, p4p it s quite obvious Floyd wins (might be close though) but part of the reason why Ali was so efficient was that he nearly always had the size and reach advantage. It s a bit unjust ri take this away from him
I favour Frazier over any Ali, and I think Tyson is fully capable of winning over 12. No-one else has a good chance IMO.
Tyson's chances are good in a 12 rounder, I agree. You look at the way he handled Biggs, and Holmes, and yes, I know Biggs and faded Holmes are not prime Ali... but the way Mike handled those styles shows you that he's the biggest threat to prime Ali.
130 Floyd was a great fighter, but mid 60s Ali was simply a freakish, almost once-in-a-lifetime talent. Arguing that "Floyd was more technically sound than Ali" is misleading, since Ali was a semi-unorthodox fighter who owed much of his success to his defiance of technical norms. There are even other HWs that were technically superior to Ali (i.e.: Holmes), but I would still rate Ali as better than them.
