Who do you think was a better ali, 1964 or 1972?

Question

Which version of ali do you think was better, the one who beat sonny liston or the one who beat george foreman? They are very different.

Answer 1

I think the one who beat foreman was better. As in smarter. He may not have had that dancing style anymore, but he hit alot harder (that right was devastating) and his hands, in my opinion, were actually faster.

Just as a sidenote, i really didnt like Ali as a boxer, he talked too much trash, and got away with holding behind the head too much. I preferred joe frazier or foreman. But if you ask me who is the greatest of all time, i'd say Ali in a heartbeat.

And Danny boy:

ali would kill lennox lewis. Tyson would have a chance though.

Answer 2

64 b/c he was alot quicker.  I think the 72 version he was definatly more experienced but imho it's the classic young raw and quick vs older and experienced. Had Foreman been around in 64 I think Ali would have had an easier time with him, probably even predicting that 5th round knock out.

Answer 3

1964 classic

Answer 4

1964.  Quicker, more fiery and more desire.  The 1974 version of Ali, when he beat Foreman, had more ring savvy, for sure, and may have been a little more patient and smarter, perhaps, but I'd still go with 1964.

Answer 5

This is actually a very good question.  I give a slight edge to ALI 64.  However, if anyone can beat him it's ALI 74.  What makes this question even more interesting is that there was a drastic difference between ALI 72 and 74.  

In 1972 ALI wasn't training as well as he could have.   He was being ducked by Joe Frazier and taking meaningless tune-ups, using the fights themselves as training.  During that time an unmotivated ALI lost a decision to Ken Norton, having his jaw broken in the process.  

As quiet as it's kept,  Frazier is often given credit for his bravery but the truth is that he wanted NO PART of ALI in a rematch.  THe 1971 fight took A LOT out of Frazier.  He was never the same after that fight.  He didn't give ALI a rematch until AFTER he was destroyed by the relatively unknown George Forman in 73.

ALI 72 would  not be prepared for ALI 64.  ALI 74, which is when ALI actually fought Forman (not 72), might just have a chance.  One must remember that ALI 64 was still very young at 22.  It's rare that a man is, overall, better at 22 than at 32.  He's faster and has better balance.  However, his endurance has not reached it's peak.  At 22 most men, especially big men, are still developing.  

The speed and youth of ALI 64 would edge the slightly dulled timing of ALI 74.  However, ALI was much smarter in 74 and might have been able to lure ALI 64 into a trap.  

Liston and Forman are both stronger than either version of ALI.  However,  power is all either of them had.  What good is power if you can't hit your oppenent?  Both would lose to either version of ALI and ALL would lose to Prime ALI 67.  

ALI's prime was supposed to be 66-70.  Had it not been for the politics of the draft we might have a much better assessment of ALI's overall career.  I'm certain he would have destroyed Joe Frazier had their fight taken place in late 69 when it was originally supposed to.

ALI was no dynamite puncher but he was a very solid puncher before the exile.  Afterwards he developed problems with his hands and didn't punch as hard as he could.  He was FAR too accurate for a fighter of Frazier's type.  

Frazier and Norton are often given a lot of credit for their victories over ALI.  However, if you look at the careers of both men, and take away all the ALI fights from each, what have they done?  Overall, ALI is WORLDS ahead of both.  Had it not been for the exile ALI would have only two fights, not three, with both men.  He would destroy either in the first and grant rematches only after he has gone through the rest of the division,  IF he chose to stick around long enough.

ALI 64 edges ALI 74 slightly.  It could go the other way.  ALI 74 could steal enough rounds to make the fight close or take a close decision.  

ALI 67 was the best ever.  

  

Answer 6

i think 64 aswell he was too quick

Answer 7

They are different because in 1964, there was no Ali, he was Cassius Clay.  When he fought Foreman in 1972 he had changed his name to Ali.

Answer 8

I think the later Ali was better. The first few years of any athelete's professional life are fleeting. (The average career length of an NBA player is about four years) For most fighters, when their twentys are gone, so is their career. The great ones are those that learn to adapt and make up for the slowing moves with strategy and endurance. Actually, I think the writers said it best when the said "the best Ali is the one we never saw. The 31/2 year forced retirement for refusing to be drafted robbed him of his peak years, and us fans of what could have been "the greatest" fights of all.

Answer 9

ali 20 yrs from now or 50 yrs from now would still get hammered by Lennox Lewis!! or tyson or klischko or me!

Answer 10

64 absolutely, after his 3 year layoff he had to adapt a new style because his foot work and legs were not what they used to be. He was more of a thinking mans fighter by the time he fought Foreman but that is because he had to be he couldn't rely on his lightning speed and ability to pull away from punches.  The Ali of 64 was unbeatable!

Rick The Reckless :  Muhammad Ali changed his name to Muhammad Ali after he won the titles from Sonny Liston in 1964 and announced he was a member of the Nation of Islam and not after beating George Foreman, that was 10 years later in 1974.