Mirror match of two different primes
2007-09-18 19:29:10 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Boxing
1960-1965 Clay
OR
1965-1977 Ali
2007-09-18 19:39:26 · update #1
Clay
2007-09-18 20:44:48 · answer #1 · answered by jdog 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
From 1965 until 1975, Ali grew into the kind of fighter who always found a way to win, no matter what the odds. I believe that Ali (from '65 to '75) would have found a way to beat Clay even though the young Clay was faster and more accurate and almost impossible to hit. Plus, Ali would have the edge of knowing exactly what kind of fight plan Clay would come in to the fight with. The reason I've left out the Ali from 1976 onward is because that was when he visibly began his physical decline. It was very evident that something after 1975 was wrong with Ali's game because he began to have trouble with fighters that never would have given him trouble in the past and by the time he ran into Leon Spinks he was merely a shadow of his former self. But, that being said, Muhammad Ali from '65 to '75 gives the young Clay a boxing lesson.
2007-09-19 07:09:30 · answer #2 · answered by stinkeenudz 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd go for the older Ali. Cassius Clay was very very fast, almost like featherweight, and during that period before the exile, literally nobody had ever touched him inside the ring. On the other hand the post-exile Ali was bigger, stronger and more mature as a fighter. He may have lost some of his Cassius Clay speed but he became the consummate strategist. His ring generalship was impeccable that he could change strategies in the middle of a fight as he had proven in the Foreman fight. He also developed his ability to take a punch and used it to tire his opponents and finish 'em off. Unfortunately, he's now paying the price. Anyway, in a fight, I'd say Ali would knock Clay out inside 10 rounds.
2007-09-19 14:44:16 · answer #3 · answered by bundini 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well for one thing your Ali from 65-77 lost 3.5 years. Comparing the guy who beat Liston the first time to the guy who was sat down in 67 would be very accurate. Then you compare the 67 Ali to the 1971 Ali. The 1967 Ali was what I compare when looking at other fighters-all fighters. No one would have beat him. Too quick. Young Ali beats Old Ali.
2007-09-19 10:41:33 · answer #4 · answered by Allen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The man was a great all around boxer. He had his ups and downs. As Ali he had the smarts to conserve his energy and sit on the ropes and beet George Forman. Yet he took a beating. As a young Clay he was fast and immature fighter Losing to Fraser. It was The transition time from Clay to Ali that He was Great.
2007-09-19 00:43:39 · answer #5 · answered by gmoney 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The older version was better. Younger had some pretty glaring flaws in his game that he was able to hide through speed and the fact that the competition wasn't that good. Older Ali lost a little bit of speed but gained a lot of size, power and skill-sets to make him a better fighter.
2007-09-19 02:46:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
When your green, your growing, when your ripe you rot. Not even Ali got better as he aged once he peaked, and he peaked in his youth.
2007-09-18 19:42:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not very nice if you're thinking what I think
you think ? !
2007-09-18 19:35:54 · answer #8 · answered by massimo 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋