Prime Muhammad Ali vs. a prime Larry Holmes?

[Cojimar 1946]

In the 60s Ali came close to losing to Doug Jones. If Doug Jones can nearly beat Ali it seems silly to dismiss the chances of Lewis. His speed was not enough to prevent Jones from landing over and over so perhaps its not as decisive in this matchup as some imagine. Surely the Jones fight should be considered when considering matchups with 60s Ali.

[Ambling Alp II]

What is is silly is to dismiss fighters that you know almost nothing about simply because of their weight, which is what you constantly do.
Clay beat Jones. It was competitive, but clear. Ali won fair and square. The fight was in Jones hometown.
It was also a great fight. It was named Fight of the Year. (Lewis was never in a fight that was the Fight of the Year)
Jones did fight well ,but he was not able to hit Ali nearly as often as Ali hit him. Jones was a lot faster than Lewis.

Ali had also not quite reached his prime yet. He was still at the stage where he was improving from fight to fight.
This was just his 18th fight, he been a pro for less than three years and was only 21.
Lennox Lewis Lewis had more experience when he fought Levi Billups, who was a stiff.
Lewis could not stop him.

[Ambling Alp II]

Lewis was significantly bigger and the main thing, he had an ability to use it. He was smart, he was fluid, he had an excellent jab. Probably Ali would have been not so easy target, but Lewis wouldn't be an easy target for Ali as well. Ali could have made him look not superb, but he probably wouldn't be able to handle such both big and classy opponent. It could be similar to what we've seen in Wlad-Haye bout.

How would he use this significant size advantage? Ali had a a great chin and was very difficult to hit.
I have never heard anyone refer to Lennox Lewis Lewis as fluid before.
Lewis did have a good jab; it wasn't as good as Ali's.
Ali would not have a lot of trouble hitting Lewis. Ali had hand speed that Lewis never came close to encountering. He was a great combination puncher. He was also incredibly accurate.

You are comparing Lewis-Ali to Wlad-Haye? Wow. I mean wow. You absolutely can not be serious.
Lewis was clearly better than Wlad, but Ali was light years better than David Haye.

Lewis could use his reach to outjab Ali from the distance and it could have settled combinations, Lennox could threw them as well. He could overpower Ali, if the fight went to close quarters. Ali got hit by Sonny Banks and Henry Cooper in his prime, when he was hard to be hit. Lewis was miles ahead of those fighters, he could have landed some vicious stuff, he was a great puncher and a bigger puncher, than Ali.

And you got all wrong. I wasn't comparing Lewis and Ali with Wlad and Haye. I said, the their fights could have been similar in the way, that the bigger boxer, who rationally used his size, would have won, but wouldn't have been too impressive due to the slickness of his smaller opponent.

Lewis would not have been able to outjab Ali. Liston had the same reach as Lewis. Ali was way to elusive for Lewis to land often. Lewis did not have a great jab. Often he just pawed with it.
Spped, and accurracy and the other fighter's defense is much more important with your jab than the sheer amount of inches your reach is.
Ali would have completely outjabbed him.
He would not overpower Ali in close quarters because the fight would not be close quarters.

Ali was not in his prime against Sonny Banks? You have to be kidding. It was his 11th pro fight. He had been a pro for less than two years.
Have you actually seen the fight? It was flash knockdown. He was up before the ref could even begin a count.
Lewis had more experience when he fought a shot Ossie Ocasio. Lewis could not stop him.
The Cooper fight? He completely dominated the fight except for being knocked down for three seconds.

Well yes you are comparing Haye ot Ali. Haye was nowhere near as slick or as good as as Ali. So Ali-Lewis would not be anything at all like Klitschko-Haye. Lewis would not be able to outbox and opponent who hits him a lot more than he hit Ali.

You are trying to nitpick Ali's career and completely overlooking Lewis's career:
Lewis lost to Rahman
Lewis lost to McCall
Lewis had way too much trouble with Mavrovic
Lewis was very lucky to get the decision against Mercer
Lewis could not blow away a shot Holyfield

And these are Lewis is his prime.
I notice you don't have anything to say about Ali from 1964-1967.

[DrDuke]

How would he use this significant size advantage? Ali had a a great chin and was very difficult to hit.
I have never heard anyone refer to Lennox Lewis Lewis as fluid before.
Lewis did have a good jab; it wasn't as good as Ali's.
Ali would not have a lot of trouble hitting Lewis. Ali had hand speed that Lewis never came close to encountering. He was a great combination puncher. He was also incredibly accurate.

You are comparing Lewis-Ali to Wlad-Haye? Wow. I mean wow. You absolutely can not be serious.
Lewis was clearly better than Wlad, but Ali was light years better than David Haye.

Lewis could use his reach to outjab Ali from the distance and it could have settled combinations, Lennox could threw them as well. He could overpower Ali, if the fight went to close quarters. Ali got hit by Sonny Banks and Henry Cooper in his prime, when he was hard to be hit. Lewis was miles ahead of those fighters, he could have landed some vicious stuff, he was a great puncher and a bigger puncher, than Ali.

And you got all wrong. I wasn't comparing Lewis and Ali with Wlad and Haye. I said, the their fights could have been similar in the way, that the bigger boxer, who rationally used his size, would have won, but wouldn't have been too impressive due to the slickness of his smaller opponent.

Lewis would not have been able to outjab Ali. Liston had the same reach as Lewis. Ali was way to elusive for Lewis to land often. Lewis did not have a great jab. Often he just pawed with it.
Spped, and accurracy and the other fighter's defense is much more important with your jab than the sheer amount of inches your reach is.
Ali would have completely outjabbed him.
He would not overpower Ali in close quarters because the fight would not be close quarters.

Ali was not in his prime against Sonny Banks? You have to be kidding. It was his 11th pro fight. He had been a pro for less than two years.
Have you actually seen the fight? It was flash knockdown. He was up before the ref could even begin a count.
Lewis had more experience when he fought a shot Ossie Ocasio. Lewis could not stop him.
The Cooper fight? He completely dominated the fight except for being knocked down for three seconds.

Well yes you are comparing Haye ot Ali. Haye was nowhere near as slick or as good as as Ali. So Ali-Lewis would not be anything at all like Klitschko-Haye. Lewis would not be able to outbox and opponent who hits him a lot more than he hit Ali.

You are trying to nitpick Ali's career and completely overlooking Lewis's career:
Lewis lost to Rahman
Lewis lost to McCall
Lewis had way too much trouble with Mavrovic
Lewis was very lucky to get the decision against Mercer
Lewis could not blow away a shot Holyfield

And these are Lewis is his prime.
I notice you don't have anything to say about Ali from 1964-1967.

I don't have to say anything like that about Ali's 1964-1967 career, because I'm not talking about Ali in the underestimating way you talk about Lewis. So I'm actually not trying to nitpick Ali's career. You presented my words about Klitschko-Haye fight from another perspective, now you're trying to give my evaluation of Ali's career another sense.

You mentioned Lewis' losses, which occurred due to the lack of dedication, but what have been in the rematches? Maybe McCall had some troublesome times and mental breakdown between his Lewis bouts, ok, but what about an instant Rahman rematch?

And you completely underestimating Lewis' achievements. Mavrovic, Mercer, Holyfield - he won them fair and square. That Mercer decision duscussion is a complete joke. Furthermore Holyfield wasn't shot, he was after Lewis, but not before, especially consdering the fact he was able to perform better in the rematch.

If I was really trying to nitpick Ali's career like you do with Lewis' one, I'd mentioned, how he was struggling with Chuvalo or Mildenberger during his 1964-1967 career praised by many including yourself. Not undeservedly though, but still not without a snag, a fact that he faced the toughest opposition in a later period of time.

[Cojimar 1946]

I think its perfectly reasonable to suggest that alis success in the 60s was at least partially due to having relatively poor opponents and that if you put him with guys who are better than anyone he beat he could lose and struggle. Lewis is pretty clearly a more dangerous proposition than anyone he actually faced.

[DrDuke]

I think its perfectly reasonable to suggest that alis success in the 60s was at least partially due to having relatively poor opponents and that if you put him with guys who are better than anyone he beat he could lose and struggle. Lewis is pretty clearly a more dangerous proposition than anyone he actually faced.

That's the point I just was talking about.

[keithmoonhangover]

Ali before the ban beats any heavyweight ever for me. Almost impossible to hit. Lightning fast.

[Ambling Alp II]

Amen.

His foot speed is unmatched by any heavyweight in history, which with his phenomenal reflexes helped make him so hard to hit. His hand speed is also unmatched by any other heavyweight.

It's all on film, if people are interested. His detractors never seem to be.

It is ridiculous that people are saying his competition is poor when they have not seen them fight. You can't just look up some guy's weight on boxrec and know a lot about him.

Lennox Lewis is not clearly better than Sonny Liston. They are very close; and Ali beat Liston easily.
A prime Ali is miles above anyone Lewis ever beat.

[DrDuke]

It's all on film, if people are interested. His detractors never seem to be.

It is ridiculous that people are saying his competition is poor when they have not seen them fight. You can't just look up some guy's weight on boxrec and know a lot about him.

The thing is, now no one called his opposition poor, but relatively poor. The 60s opposition in comparison to the 70s.

Liston, Patterson, Cooper, Terrell, Williams, Chuvalo, London, Mildenberger, Folley

against

Frazier, Foreman, Norton (and I can stop here actually), Young, Quarry, Lyle, Ellis, Mathis, Bugner, Bonavena and again Patterson with Chuvalo.

Hmm... Which list is better?..

It's ridiculous, how the fans of Ali are ready to label even not insulting, but just critical comments as a detraction.

[Cojimar 1946]

Lewis is generally rated well ahead of Liston. Many people have him in their top five whereas Liston often doesn't crack the top 10

[Ambling Alp II]

Most lists I have seen have Lewis just inside the top 10 and Liston just outside of it. I have seen Liston ahead of him many times. Usually it's pretty close. Have never seen Lewis ahead of Ali, and I have seen many people on this Forum who didn't like Ali.

[Ambling Alp II]

It's all on film, if people are interested. His detractors never seem to be.

It is ridiculous that people are saying his competition is poor when they have not seen them fight. You can't just look up some guy's weight on boxrec and know a lot about him.

The thing is, now no one called his opposition poor, but relatively poor. The 60s opposition in comparison to the 70s.

Liston, Patterson, Cooper, Terrell, Williams, Chuvalo, London, Mildenberger, Folley

against

Frazier, Foreman, Norton (and I can stop here actually), Young, Quarry, Lyle, Ellis, Mathis, Bugner, Bonavena and again Patterson with Chuvalo.

Hmm... Which list is better?..

It's ridiculous, how the fans of Ali are ready to label even not insulting, but just critical comments as a detraction.

Maybe we aren't so far apart. I totally agree that the 1970s was better. It was the was greatest decade in heavyweight boxing history.
Any other decade is relatively poor in comparison.
However, the 1960s was pretty good. Certainly good enough to judge how good Ali was. And simply just watching film, you can get an idea how much faster he was then, how better his reflexes were etc.
The gap between Ali and everyone was so much greater in his prime not only because the competition was even better in the 1970s but because Ali himself was even better in his prime.

[DrDuke]

It's all on film, if people are interested. His detractors never seem to be.

It is ridiculous that people are saying his competition is poor when they have not seen them fight. You can't just look up some guy's weight on boxrec and know a lot about him.

The thing is, now no one called his opposition poor, but relatively poor. The 60s opposition in comparison to the 70s.

Liston, Patterson, Cooper, Terrell, Williams, Chuvalo, London, Mildenberger, Folley

against

Frazier, Foreman, Norton (and I can stop here actually), Young, Quarry, Lyle, Ellis, Mathis, Bugner, Bonavena and again Patterson with Chuvalo.

Hmm... Which list is better?..

It's ridiculous, how the fans of Ali are ready to label even not insulting, but just critical comments as a detraction.

Maybe we aren't so far apart. I totally agree that the 1970s was better. It was the was greatest decade in heavyweight boxing history.
Any other decade is relatively poor in comparison.
However, the 1960s was pretty good. Certainly good enough to judge how good Ali was. And simply just watching film, you can get an idea how much faster he was then, how better his reflexes were etc.
The gap between Ali and everyone was so much greater in his prime not only because the competition was even better in the 1970s but because Ali himself was even better in his prime.

Maybe the time off had its effect on Ali, but the saying, that you box in a way your opponent allows you to do, still doesn't lie.

[Ambling Alp II]

It was not a matter of his opponents allowing him to do something that other opponents would not have. No other heavyweight could have handled his talent, speed, and reflexes. It's on film; speed doesn't lie.
You can't always tell certain things on film; for example a guy scores a brutal knockout against someone not that good. Does that mean he is a great power puncher? Maybe it's simply because the other guy could not take a good shot.
However with things like hand speed, foot movement, reflexes, you can get a good idea regardless of the competition.

There is no maybe, he was much better in his prime, which was from 1964-1967; should have been a few years longer. We don't do this with anyone else who has been off this long; we should not do it with Ali.

You don't come back after a 3 and a half year layoff and pick up right where you left off.

[Cojimar 1946]

Yet for all his speed Doug Jones nearly beat him this pretty effectively shoots down the idea that speed alone is some game changer against which opponents are helpless

[Ambling Alp II]

Doug Jones did not nearly beat him. Ali clearly won at least 6 of the 10 rounds.
Ali had not reached his prime yet.

[Cojimar 1946]

So why couldn't someone better than Doug Jones slightly improve in his performance and beat Ali? As far as speed goes Tyson was pretty quick in the 80s and looks like he might have been even faster than Ali at least in terms of handspeed.

[man]

What advantages would Muhammad have over Larry?
Ali has his speed and footwork... Compared to Muhammad, Larry looks flat-footed and rigid.

What advantages would Larry have over Muhammad?
Larry had the bet jab in the history of the Heavyweight division - it was the perfect blend of power, speed and precision. That's a significant advantage over anybody.

What do you see happening in this fight?
I predict that Larry would win his share of rounds, but Ali would win more. Muhammad has too much ability, speed and skill to lose this fight.

Who would win?
In a technical sense, Larry tended to rely on his jab, unfortunately he's in a fight against a clever speedster. In that regard, this is a bad match up for Larry. Though to give Larry his credit, I don't think Muhammad would stop him, but he would win by convincing Unanaimous Decision.

Why?
The key factor would be Ali neutralising Larry's jab. Ali would stay on the move, and move around Larry's jab, it would unnerve him after a few rounds. Ali's speed was considerable and with his lateral movement, it wouldn't give Larry time to set himself for his jabs.

It would frustrate Larry all night. Even the best jab in the world is no good, if you can't catch your target.

spot on IMO.

[man]

a terrific fight and technically among the best in heavy
weight history.

my guess is that the combination of ali's confidence
and intelligence makes him win a close contest. in the end
larry is too similar to muhammad, but the latter was that
tick smarter, more adaptive, more resilient.

[Ambling Alp II]

So why couldn't someone better than Doug Jones slightly improve in his performance and beat Ali? As far as speed goes Tyson was pretty quick in the 80s and looks like he might have been even faster than Ali at least in terms of handspeed.

Because Ali had not reached his prime when he fought Jones, as has been been explained several times. Fighters get better when they are young until they reach their prime.

Lewis had more experience when he could not stop Levi Billups who was a tomato can and was stopped by many other fighters.
Tyson struggled with James Tillis.

Yes Tyson was pretty quick. If you actually watched Ali in his prime you would know that Ali had clearly faster hand speed than Tyson did. Too bad you won't watch Ali in his prime.

[Ambling Alp II]

What advantages would Muhammad have over Larry?
Ali has his speed and footwork... Compared to Muhammad, Larry looks flat-footed and rigid.

What advantages would Larry have over Muhammad?
Larry had the bet jab in the history of the Heavyweight division - it was the perfect blend of power, speed and precision. That's a significant advantage over anybody.

What do you see happening in this fight?
I predict that Larry would win his share of rounds, but Ali would win more. Muhammad has too much ability, speed and skill to lose this fight.

Who would win?
In a technical sense, Larry tended to rely on his jab, unfortunately he's in a fight against a clever speedster. In that regard, this is a bad match up for Larry. Though to give Larry his credit, I don't think Muhammad would stop him, but he would win by convincing Unanaimous Decision.

Why?
The key factor would be Ali neutralising Larry's jab. Ali would stay on the move, and move around Larry's jab, it would unnerve him after a few rounds. Ali's speed was considerable and with his lateral movement, it wouldn't give Larry time to set himself for his jabs.

It would frustrate Larry all night. Even the best jab in the world is no good, if you can't catch your target.

spot on IMO.

For the most part, I agree with this also.