Prime Muhammad Ali vs. a prime Larry Holmes?

[BoxBuzz]

McCall and Rahman were both world class big men at 230+. I don't think the much smaller men ali was facing in the 60s would be as dangerous

Would you favor both of them over Liston?

[Sidney Carton]

he wasn't behind on the cards either as I recall.

From boxrec:

Liston-Ali I

referee: Barney Felix 57-57

judge Bernie Lovett 58-56--- Liston

judge Gus Jacobson 58-56--- Ali

[BoxBuzz]

he wasn't behind on the cards either as I recall.

From boxrec:

Liston-Ali I

referee: Barney Felix 57-57

judge Bernie Lovett 58-56--- Liston

judge Gus Jacobson 58-56--- Ali

How about that.....a future Roach Spray Salesman from Ky, holding Sonny to a draw, even with linament in his eye.

Not bad. And I have to say, this is one go round where the judges surely were NOT doing him any favors.

[Ambling Alp II]

McCall and Rahman were both world class big men at 230+. I don't think the much smaller men ali was facing in the 60s would be as dangerous

Again with the bigger man is better with heavyweights. In real life, that works somewhere roughly between 49% and 51% of the time.
In real life, Lewis fought Zeljko Mavrovic who weighed less than Liston. Lewis had all sorts of trouble with Mavrovic.
Liston weighed more than Mavrovic. So did George Chuvalo. Ernie Terrell was pretty close.

Nobody was saying Rahman or McCall were dangerous until he fought Lewis.
Maybe Lewis would have beaten Liston, maybe not. There is a very remote chance that he would have stopped him in 6 rounds.

[BoxBuzz]

This subject goes around a lot.....and I'm sort of thinking that size applies, just as it does in all other divisions.

The only argument against it is that the physics of the human body get a little distorted and less efficient at the top of our size scale. So true Giants really often have "two left feet" so to speak...so a much smaller person would be a fair opponent due to the larger folks inherent clumsiness.

But we seem to be getting larger, and keeping a sense of "streamlined" aspects at the higher weights.

I think it's time we change all the divisions and weight standards. Just moving HW up a bit, and Cruiser and the rest up or down a bit if needed. I hate "SuperHeavyweight" as a descriptor.

But doesn't it just make SOME sense to think that Marciano would be in a hopeless situation against Joshua and Wilder?

If not....why not?

[Cojimar 1946]

Most people don't see the Lewis Mavrovic fight as being at all close. The scores seem to reflect this assessment. All of Alis 60s competition would be pretty massive underdogs against Lewis. You could speculate that Lewis could lose to them but in reality that seems like a pretty unlikely outcome. Throughout his career Lewis showed an ability to defeat all sorts of styles.

[Cojimar 1946]

If size wasn't relevant in the division surely we would have seen a Dempsey or Marciano sized heavy take the division by storm sometime in the past 50 years yet they seem to have disappeared for good even though they largely dominated until the 1950s.

[Ambling Alp II]

Actually Dempsey and Marciano were small by the standards of their day. They are two of the smallest heavyweight champions even up to the 1950s.

Sonny Liston would not have been a massive underdog to Lennox Lewis. That is a pick'em fight.

All of Lennox Lewis opponents would have been massive underdogs against a prime Ali.
Somehow I think Ali would have gotton by McCall and Rahman.
Did you even see the Lewis-Mavrovic fight? I'm guessing not since you had to rely on the judges scorecard. It was a competitive fight. Against a no name that was average sized. Someone who was nowhere near as good as Sonny Liston, much less Ali.

As I have explained to you man times in the past, size makes a difference to a point. Then it stops being an advantage. At a later point it becomes a disadvantage. .ie. a heavyweight weighing 210-220 is most likely to beat a heavyweight weight 180-190. He is also most likely to beat one weighing 240-250. How good you are is a lot more important than the needle on the scale.
This is just theory. It is based on what had actually happened in real fights.

I asked you a question before and you didn't answer. I will ask again. Have you actually seen Ali's title fights from 1964-1967?

[Ambling Alp II]

This subject goes around a lot.....and I'm sort of thinking that size applies, just as it does in all other divisions.

The only argument against it is that the physics of the human body get a little distorted and less efficient at the top of our size scale. So true Giants really often have "two left feet" so to speak...so a much smaller person would be a fair opponent due to the larger folks inherent clumsiness.

But we seem to be getting larger, and keeping a sense of "streamlined" aspects at the higher weights.

I think it's time we change all the divisions and weight standards. Just moving HW up a bit, and Cruiser and the rest up or down a bit if needed. I hate "SuperHeavyweight" as a descriptor.

But doesn't it just make SOME sense to think that Marciano would be in a hopeless situation against Joshua and Wilder?

If not....why not?

There is a reason we don't see 300 pound quarterbacks. There are disadvantages to being big.

Wilder weighed less in his last fight than Liston did against Ali. He is 40-0 with 39 KOs. He has beaten heavier opponents in 18 straight fights.
If size is such an advantage, why is i that in over 130 years of boxing the best heavyweight has never been biggest heavyweight?
Do you realize once the cruiser weight gets up to 2 10 we will hear idiots say that Louis was "just a cruiserweight"?
220 and Ali was just a "crusierweight"?

[BoxBuzz]

lol no doubt about that.

And yeah Wilder is sort of basketball player material I suppose. I didn't know the weight stats you just mentioned re Wilder, .sort of makes him a Tommy Hearns among the Heavies I suppose.

Sort of surprises me that Kalan would pick Joshua over Wilder, since Wilder is more "basketballish".....lol.

[BoxBuzz]

And I have said all along that Welterweight is my pick for "the most bang for the weight" It's a weight where the human body seems to be it's most pound for pound efficient to my way of thinking.

However....I get it and stated about the upper parameters of HW's being clumsy, and not the best. But the efficiency factor in the division does seem to be creeping upward.

I mean would you favor Marciano, or Frazer against either of the current champs?

[Cojimar 1946]

The problem with that theory is that the scale has shifted over time. Prior to the 1960s the best heavyweights consistently weighed around 190 pounds. Then from the 60s to the 90s the best heavyweights were in the 210s, from the 90s to the 2010s the best heavyweights consistently weighed in the 240s and 250s. You seem to be looking at things from a 70s perspective while ignoring changes that have happened since then and prior to the 70s.

The reality is that prior to the 60s heavyweights the size of Ali and Holmes consistently lost to Dempsey and Marciano sized heavies than suddenly in the late 50s early 60s that changed and they started winning at the highest level consistently.

[Ambling Alp II]

And I have said all along that Welterweight is my pick for "the most bang for the weight" It's a weight where the human body seems to be it's most pound for pound efficient to my way of thinking.

However....I get it and stated about the upper parameters of HW's being clumsy, and not the best. But the efficiency factor in the division does seem to be creeping upward.

I mean would you favor Marciano, or Frazer against either of the current champs?

Cojimar doesn't like to answer questions or respond to inconvenient point, but I will, buzz.
To be honest, we really don't know how good Joshua is yet. So far, he seems to be content to fighting senior citizens. Joshua has some strengths but doesn't seem that polished. Charr doesn't seem that good at all.
I would have to pick Frazier over all of them.
I would pick Marciano against Charr, it's really hard to say about Joshua to a lesser extent Wilder.
Might help if they fought each other, but that probably won't happen any time soon.
One of the problems with the heavyweight division the last 20 years or so is that fighters don't get challenged on their way up. Often it's hard to tell how good someone is because they have not been tested. Fighters naturally develop better by fighting tough competition and having to overcome tough situations. Seldom does this happen anymore.

[Cojimar 1946]

Anyway, I agree Ali would probably beat Holmes but I do think that his competition in the 60s doesn't measure up to what he would encounter in later eras and he would probably struggle more against fighters in later eras.

[Sidney Carton]

Lewis' glass chin against Liston?

Hilarious.

[BoxBuzz]

Lewis' glass chin against Liston?

Hilarious.

Yeah, I'm of the mind that a Liston Lewis clash would be a serious encounter. Lewis has his work cut out for him, and it's just no cakewalk at all. What Rahman and McCall could accomplish, wouldn't be all that difficult for Sonny to transcend. Lewis always brought his best, and he could win.....but the idea that the "era" of these guys turns this into a no brainer that Lewis wins, seems cockeyed to say the least.

[Cojimar 1946]

During his career Lewis beat dangerous punchers like Ruddock and Tua. These guys would appear to be bigger punchers than anyone Liston ever faced. As best I can tell Liston never faced anyone as powerful as Lewis so naturally there are questions about how his chin would hold up if he is tagged. He also generally held a size advantage over his opponents so it would be interesting to see on how he deals with a bigger, physically stronger opponent.

[Ambling Alp II]

Lewis never came close to putting away Mavrovic. He never came close to putting away Holyfield. They both were about Liston's size.

Lewis did not have a glass jaw, but he didn't have a great chin either. He knocked out Ruddock before he ever got tagged. Tua did almost nothing the second half half of of the fight; Lewis never really got tagged by him either.

Of course Lewis might be able to hurt Liston.
And Liston would be able to hurt Lewis. McCall and Rahman were not regarded as huge punchers and Lewis got hurt by them.
Liston had a much stiffer jab which would be a significant advantage.

Liston-Lewis could either way. Lewis would lose 10 out 10 times against a prime Ali.

I asked you twice if you have actually seen Ali's title fights from 1964-1967. Well?

[DrDuke]

Lewis would lose 10 out 10 times against a prime Ali.

Honestly, that sounds quite ridiculous.

[Ambling Alp II]

Well, how is Lewis going to win? He can't knock him out. Is he going to outpoint him? Ali is way too fast for Lewis to catch him consistently to land often enough to win many rounds. Ali would literally box circles around him. Outside of some unbelievably bad officiating, or a cut (Ali seldom was cut) Lewis is not going to beat him.

[DrDuke]

Well, how is Lewis going to win? He can't knock him out. Is he going to outpoint him? Ali is way too fast for Lewis to catch him consistently to land often enough to win many rounds. Ali would literally box circles around him. Outside of some unbelievably bad officiating, or a cut (Ali seldom was cut) Lewis is not going to beat him.

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.

[Cojimar 1946]

I'm doubtful that we can rule out Lewis out pointing Ali. He was still plenty fast in the early 70s when he lost to Frazier and Norton. If Norton was able to outpoint Ali then why couldn't Lewis?

[Ambling Alp II]

Since you have not seen Ali during his prime, I will fill you in. He was much, much faster in his prime than he was in in the 1970s when he fought Ken Norton. He was extremely hard to hit during his prime. He also had phenomenal hand speed in his prime which he did not have in the 1970s.
Lewis would have a chance against Ali of the early 1970s. Not against the Ali of the mid-1960s.

[Ambling Alp II]

Well, how is Lewis going to win? He can't knock him out. Is he going to outpoint him? Ali is way too fast for Lewis to catch him consistently to land often enough to win many rounds. Ali would literally box circles around him. Outside of some unbelievably bad officiating, or a cut (Ali seldom was cut) Lewis is not going to beat him.

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.

[DrDuke]

Well, how is Lewis going to win? He can't knock him out. Is he going to outpoint him? Ali is way too fast for Lewis to catch him consistently to land often enough to win many rounds. Ali would literally box circles around him. Outside of some unbelievably bad officiating, or a cut (Ali seldom was cut) Lewis is not going to beat him.

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.