Would Holmes have beaten prime Ali?

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 23 Feb 2008, 03:19

Prime for Prime I have Holmes.

But damned it'd make for a good boxing match.

Depends what the judges on the night see, as I cant see
either man stopping the other.

Cojimar 1945 · Post by **Cojimar 1945** » 23 Feb 2008, 22:28

Holmes rates below Ali because he failed to clear out his era and beat his best contemporaries like Ali did, did not dominate as long and did not beat as many highly-ranked opponnents.

If Holmes had stepped up in competition earlier and faced more of the divisions best he might have surpassed Ali in accomplishments

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 24 Feb 2008, 18:23

As achievements go Ali has done alot better.

Prime for Prime I think it is a tight fight
but I favour Holmes...I am biased though,

how about in there last fights ?

Ali at 39 vs Holmes at 52. Id pick Holmes
there also.

Kym

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 24 Feb 2008, 19:25

If Holmes had fought a trilogy with Frazier he likely wouldn't have been boxing at 52.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 24 Feb 2008, 20:05

For all we know Ali like many other people was genetically doomed
to his condition. though no doubt boxing did make a big difference.

Holmes in his career did eat some big punches, and I think his defence
over all and the way he used his left kept him out of danger alot better over the course of his career than compared to Ali.

In either case I think Ali took more punishment than needed to for whatever reason.

I think the rope-a-dope was more 'laziness' at time than design or strategy.

kym

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 24 Feb 2008, 20:13

I would take Holmes to defeat Ali in their last ever respective bouts also, though if the battle between them in their primes would be somewhat boring, this'd be the worst stinker of all-time.

Holmes MD12.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 24 Feb 2008, 20:15

Well I'm not a doctor so I'm not going to claim to know what would have happened to Ali without boxing. I have heard it said that Ali's problems may have been genetic, but I can't say. It's something I probably should do more research on. Either way, it seems to me that fights like the ones he had with Frazier must have had an impact on him, and I tend to think that his career was basically over when his Frazier trilogy ended.

I sort of said it in the above post in a much more verbose way, but the fact that Holmes never had to fight someone like Frazier was, in my opinion, the reason why he didn't take as many punches as he did. If Larry had been fighting more guys like Frazier he wouldn't have lasted as long as he did. Joe isn't going to go away with a simple jab, otherwise Ali wouldn't have lost too many rounds to Joe. Its one thing to land your jab with ease when you're fighting Scott Le Doux, not quite as easy with Smokin' Joe. Ali had a hell of a time trying to land his jab on Frazier.

As for the rope-a-dope, it wasn't a good strategy for many of his fights, but on the same token I think people have become overly condescending towards it. And its not like Holmes never found himself on the ropes, especially in his later years. Check out his fights with Mercer and Holyfield as just two examples. I've seen the fight a million times and yet for some reason its not coming clear to me, but I'm pretty sure that Holmes was on the ropes a lot for Tyson; which is about as dumb as anything Ali ever did, whatever the circumstances.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 24 Feb 2008, 20:17

I would always favour Frazier against Holmes in their respective primes, particularly in a fifteen-rounder. As much as anything, a bad style match-up for Holmes.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 25 Feb 2008, 01:24

I Feel Fine wrote: I've seen the fight a million times and yet for some reason its not coming clear to me, but I'm pretty sure that Holmes was on the ropes a lot for Tyson

I think I have to take this part back. As I said earlier, I've seen the fight plenty of times but for some reason I wasn't remembering it well. I just watched the fight again and Holmes was only on the ropes a couple of times and not for very long. Still, that said, in his fight with Tyson, Holmes held his hands low, kept his head straight up, moved straight back; all technical flaws that he showed throughout his career. And while this wasn't one of them, there were fights in Holmes' later years where he spent a lot of time on the ropes. I think we're deluding ourselves when we claim that Holmes was all that much better than Ali in terms of the fundamentals. When they were in their primes they had speed and youth to help them hide those flaws, and Holmes was further aided by his many limited opponents who were not good enough to expose those flaws, and that was the main difference.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 25 Feb 2008, 01:43

Agreed Holmes went to the ropes alot in his 40s, where Ali did it in his 30s.

When Holmes did it against Mercer, Holyfield he was more side on and offensive. Ali from what I recall (shall have to rewatch some fights) he leaned back and was square on. Sure on the ropes but seemingly different approaches to the defensive-restful ploy.

The Holmes-Tyson fight was well...yes painful to watch. Tyson, so well trained, worked of the jab, was aggressive, fast, timed well and near perfection, defeated a rusty past his best Holmes. Who should of have perhaps a 'warm up' bout to shake himself free of rust.

Holmes vs Frazier would be such a damned fun fight to watch

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 25 Feb 2008, 02:11

I agree. I don't think Tyson beats a prime Holmes, or at least I would favor Holmes. But my point is that this fight was yet another example of Holmes showing his technical flaws, but in this fight Holmes was older and slower and so his flaws were easier to exploit. Plus he was fighting Tyson, rather than Ocasio and Cobb and some others.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 25 Feb 2008, 02:17

But not a Lubbers, Dunn, Mildenberger or Wepner some one of that calibre :P

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 25 Feb 2008, 02:21

BURN!!!!!

That was excellent Kym!

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 25 Feb 2008, 02:23

HomicideHenry wrote:BURN!!!!!

That was excellent Kym!

LOL

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 25 Feb 2008, 02:28

Robinson wrote:But not a Lubbers, Dunn, Mildenberger or Wepner some one of that calibre :P

Right. Those guys, with the exception of Mildenberger, were Ali's yearly tune up fights. Ali generally took one easy fight a year, among fights with top opponents. Holmes, on the other hand, took several easy fights a year, with an occasional tough opponent mixed in. For Ali, easy opponents were rare, for Holmes they were the norm, as was also the case with Joe Louis (am I going to burn for that statement?

).

In the case of Mildenberger, Ali had no choice because he couldn't fight in the U.S. Holmes can complain about how little respect he got, but he was never put into a situation where he was unable to fight in his home country.

I think the last thing a Holmes fan wants is for someone to list Ali's opponents next to Holmes' and for us to try to compare the number of tune ups versus the number of impressive opponents.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 25 Feb 2008, 02:32

Difference between Louis and Ali is, Joe couldnt help but be in the era he was in, Ali was different....he could have fought better men than Alfredo Evangelista, Richard Dunne, Jean Pierre Coopman, and Chuck Wepner...there were other better men out there that he could have fought...hell I am sure MANY would have loved to have seen Foreman-Ali 2, or seen Ali face off against Gerrie Coetzee rather than Leon Spinks.

There is a difference between what was available in the era, and 'quacking' or 'ducking' or even trying to give himself a few more months/years with the title.

Same logic goes for Marciano and Holmes, they couldnt help being in the eras they were in, but they fought the best available [though Holmes never did face Page or Coetzee and some others].

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 25 Feb 2008, 02:36

HomicideHenry wrote:Difference between Louis and Ali is, Joe couldnt help but be in the era he was in, Ali was different....he could have fought better men than Alfredo Evangelista, Richard Dunne, Jean Pierre Coopman, and Chuck Wepner...there were other better men out there that he could have fought...hell I am sure MANY would have loved to have seen Foreman-Ali 2, or seen Ali face off against Gerrie Coetzee rather than Leon Spinks.

There is a difference between what was available in the era, and 'quacking' or 'ducking' or even trying to give himself a few more months/years with the title.

Same logic goes for Marciano and Holmes, they couldnt help being in the eras they were in, but they fought the best available [though Holmes never did face Page or Coetzee and some others].

Who are you trying to kid?

You know damned well that Ali never ducked an opponent. If you don't, name one prominent guy who Ali could have fought but didn't. And don't give me that Foreman shit, George went a whole year without fighting, and when he was in a position to get a rematch he lost to Young. Ali at around that age was willing to fight Shavers and Holmes but he was ducking f-cking Coetzee? You know damned well the nature of Ali's fights with Wepner and Coopman and Dunn, and that in those same years Ali fought Ron Lyle, Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, Jimmy Young and Earnie Shavers. Louis could have fought some more black challengers, Holmes could have fought some belt holders. Marciano is the only guy among them who was simply in a situation where there was no one else around; but no one has claimed that Marciano ducked anyone.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 25 Feb 2008, 02:45

Ali did in fact face virtually ever name opponent of note, this is true, BUT he could have faced them again, rather than put in some weak substitute like Evangelista [a fight Howard Cossell said was the worst of all time].

For instance, rather than face Wepner, he could have faced Foreman again. Sure Foreman was inactive for 1975 (other than the Toronto Five farce), but in 1976 he came back...but where was Ali? He was facing both Coopman and Dunne, later done the ridiculous Antonio Inoki "match" and outside of Norton and Young, what else was there?

For sure he could have dropped the Dunne and Coopman fights. He could have had his rematch with Foreman, there was no reason at all that he couldnt have fought Norton, Young and Foreman that year.

But why am I arguing with you about it? Its just beating the same old dead horse over and over again.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 25 Feb 2008, 02:54

The horse is dead, because these arguments are bullshit. It was George who went a whole year without fighting. Ali said that he would fight George again. When George did come back, he lost to Young and retired. And this is Ali's fault? Ali rematched all of his best opponents; Liston, Patterson, Quarry, Frazier, Norton. If Ali was avoiding rematches he would have never thought twice about fighting Norton again, as Holmes didn't. Holmes is the one who should have provided more rematches.

The thing is that in our modern mindset where fighters fight once or twice a year we have this idea that a fighter should fight the best or no one at all. In Ali's time, fighters took tune ups rather than stay inactive. Ali fought the best of his time, and when he wasn't he took a tune up to stay active, as Robinson or Moore would do. Rather than fight two or three top fighters and stay inactive for a quarter of the year, Ali would take one tune up to stay busy. But Ali's critics can be quite full of it at times, and when you have something like his resume which is beyond any kind of reasonable criticism, they have to really reach and go after his tune ups, as if there were good opponents sitting on the sidelines waiting for Ali but who were not getting fights with him, when we know that they all did get those fights with him.

Listen guys, if you want me to list Ali's opponents and put them next to Holmes and Louis', its to the detriment of Louis and Holmes, not Ali.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 25 Feb 2008, 03:03

Hey nobody is tearing down Ali's over all rating of opponents, but ffs man...from 1975 and onward the great opponents came fewer and farther between...I can name the "greats" on one hand: Norton, Young, Frazier, Lyle and Shavers...the rest were Wepner, Dunne, Coopman, Evangelista, Inoki [if you even can count that], a mess full of exhibitions with such stiffs as John L Gardner and Lyle Alzado and proposed bouts with Teofilio Stevenson, and then the two Leon Spinks bouts.

What should be done is pull out a RING ratings book of 1975-1979, and see who was ranked where.

As far as Foreman is concerned you cant hold it against Foreman in 1976, as he was on a quest to face Ali [he would lose to Young in 1977].

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 25 Feb 2008, 03:13

Young, Norton, Shavers, Holmes and Berbick isn't good enough for a 34, 35, 36, 38 and 39 year old fighter who is obviously shot, whose doctor has pulled out from his team because he knows Ali is beyond finished and is suffering from damage to his brain and kidneys, who after his fight with Shavers was told he could never fight in MSG again because they didn't want to see him hurt himself, who was only fighting because he was getting these fat ten million dollar purses for each fight, in an era where athletes were lucky to make 100 grand a year, and who above all likely ended up in the condition he is in today precisely because the fights he took in his last five or six years in the ring were so tough?

If you ask me, Ali shouldn't have been fighting anyone in those years. The fact that he fought the guys he did is to his credit, not something he should be criticized for.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 25 Feb 2008, 03:13

Foreman did not, "come back & lose to Young." That is not true at all. When he came back in January of '76, he knocked out Lyle (who was robbed blind against Ali, IMO & in spite of IFF's protests), did away relatively easily with Frazier (who obviously performed far better against Ali in his previous match), & took out a number of other fringe contenders.

In total, Foreman was in the mix for over a year (in which time he was very active, far moreso than should have been required for a return bout with the champ). Ali didn't want to face him after Manila, & neither did Ali's people want their man to face him.

I won't listen to anyone who says Ali could make time for Coopman & Dunn, but not Foreman. BS. He didn't want Foreman. Where Ali lucked out was on two fronts --- firstly, Foreman totally blew it by being out of the game for so long. Ali was ruined by Frazier before Foreman even stepped back into the ring (exhibitions notwithstanding). Secondly, Young beat him. Had Foreman beaten Young, & then gone on to KO three or four more quality opponents, no rematch would have been forthcoming.

Don't believe everything you hear. After Manila, Ali never wanted to see Foreman's face again. It may have been true after Zaire.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 25 Feb 2008, 03:21

Yeah, everything that doesn't go the way of an Ali opponent is a robbery. Lyle takes 30 consecutive punches and its a robbery, while Renaldo Snipes puts Holmes on his ass and out on his feet for two rounds and yet when Holmes has him a little stunned the fight is suddenly stopped to ensure that Holmes-Cooney takes place... but Ali-Lyle, according to Ali's critics, is the worst stoppage ever. Nonsense.

Not only did Ali never duck Foreman, but he called for a Foreman rematch right after Manila. If George wanted a rematch he shouldn't have sat out a whole year. The idea that Ali should be blamed for George acting like a mental case is ridiculous.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 25 Feb 2008, 03:29

Foreman is as much to blame for missing out on the rematch as Ali, but I won't hear that Ali was, "totally blameless." Every fighter who wins a title owes the man they won it from a return, circumstances permitting. The circumstances sure did permit when Ali was fighting Coopman & Dunn (though Ali did fight some good competition, no doubt). I just cannot believe he can make time for both of those men, but not Foreman.

Beating Lyle & Frazier consecutively, in addition to being the champion previously, should have been enough for Foreman. Instead, he kept on winning for nine months. Ali would never have made him wait so long if he wanted a return. He didn't.

As for Ali-Lyle, never in a million years does that get stopped if Ali is ahead on the cards.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 25 Feb 2008, 03:33

Well if thats the case then Louis-somehow- deserves criticism for not fighting Braddock again, and I know you agree that Holmes definitely deserves criticism for not fighting Norton again.

It wasn't Ali's job to hunt George down and make him sign for a rematch; George sat on his ass for a year, and when he came back he lost, so its all on him.

As for the stoppages... one could say the same for any respected champion.

Again, you guys are reaching. Ali has the best resume of any Heavyweight champion, and you're grasping at anything you can to try to criticize him and its ridiculous. The guy fought a prime Holmes at 38, and you're accusing him of ducking the best fighters during his declining years? And why should his declining years matter in the first place? Did Foreman fight Moorer again? Should Holmes have fought Lewis instead of Butterbean?

I say it all the time, but if you dislike Ali you have to ignore almost everything inbetween 1964-1975 and have to put all your focus on 1960-1963 and 1976-1981. Which is the equivalent of ignoring all of Henry Armstrong's acheivements and simply focusing on his early and late career losses, which is unfair and lazy criticism and simple bias because one could do the same with any fighter; including Louis. Do you see me spending all my time talking about Louis-Schmeling I and Louis-Marciano?

And the idea that he can be criticized for fighting Blinn in a year where he fought Frazier and Ellis, or for fighting Wepner in the year he fought Lyle and Frazier, or for fighting Dunn in a year where he fought Shavers, that he should be criticized for fighting Mildenberger when he wasn't even able to fight in this country is absurd.

Would Holmes have beaten prime Ali?

Holmes rating