BoxRec

Counter-puncher wrote:so, how come Ken Norton managed to hit him with about 40% of the jabs he threw over 39 rounds???????

Ali was never at his best when he fought Norton, although they fought three times, none of Ali's performances in that trilogy could be said to have been amongst his best nights.

Crease wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:so, how come Ken Norton managed to hit him with about 40% of the jabs he threw over 39 rounds???????

Ali was never at his best when he fought Norton, although they fought three times, none of Ali's performances in that trilogy could be said to have been amongst his best nights.

Because Ken Norton was hell on him. It's not like Ali was off or anything.

Crease wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:so, how come Ken Norton managed to hit him with about 40% of the jabs he threw over 39 rounds???????

Ali was never at his best when he fought Norton, although they fought three times, none of Ali's performances in that trilogy could be said to have been amongst his best nights.

Norton had Ali's number, big time. It's not really all that relevant though as Larry did not fight in a similar style to Norton.

Crease wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:so, how come Ken Norton managed to hit him with about 40% of the jabs he threw over 39 rounds???????

Ali was never at his best when he fought Norton, although they fought three times, none of Ali's performances in that trilogy could be said to have been amongst his best nights.

crease i respect you and your knowledge
but be truthful and just admit they could of fought
a thousand rounds and there would still be controversy

styles make fights norton and frazier both would always give ali hell

Ali. Better conditioning, quicker feet, and yes THE HARDER PUNCHER. I don't understand how Holmes got the rep for being a bigger puncher than Ali . . by doing what, icing Marvis Frazier? Ali scored a lot more knockouts of (and hurt) much more durable guys than Larry ever did. And Shaver's opinion doesn't count for much as the Ali he fought was WAY past it and yes his jab at that stage was a flick. His jab at his peak (vs Patterson, Williams, London) was as fast and hard as Larry's.

I think Norton was the prototype for how Antonio Tarver trained. He eventually was trained to become a "boutique specialist" to beat one fighter and even with that as the focused goal he (and his trainer) were only somewhat successful. Though arguably more successful than anyone else had ever been.

Norton was Futch's "frankenstein" so to speak. He almost solved the puzzle. And from what one reads here, Norton and Young both did solve the puzzle, though the judges were not swayed.

I have to agree that Ali must have hit harder than we give him credit for.....although Norton's description of what it was like to hit Ali might also explain why his cumulitive punches ultimately had a lot of success with a lot of opponents. Norton described hitting ali to hitting Iron, and that that act alone, and what it felt like to hit the man would took some wind out of his opponents sails.

I was impressed with Holmes....however the only serious advantage I would give Holmes was what he learned from Ali.....and if we imagine a "prime vs prime" match.....it's hard to factor that learning period into the equation.

Neither Holmes nor Ali were punchers but that uppercut Holmes put on Weaver impressed me more than any single punch that Ali ever threw.

Oh wait, I forgot the anchor punch.

Yeah, Larry was the bigger puncher. I'm surprised that carries any contention. Ali was more accurate so it makes it a wash, but Holmes had more power in his right hand, uppercut and his jab was heavier. Not that it matters, they could fight 50 times and neither of them would come near the canvas.Truth be told, this fight would always be close and I doubt Holmes would get any help from the judges.

I see hitting power as a reasonable place folks could disagree. I tend to think of Holmes as generally the heavier hitter....but I ask myself why?

Mostly because Holmes would always emphasize his jab with that sound he made lol. Like putting cards in your bicycle and imagining the horsepower has increased.

If you simply looked at the list of who was sparked by who...you might be inclined to say Ali....but Like Saad, I go with the accumulative affect theory. But I can't fault Dempsey with going with the raw data either.

Ali had a fairly significant size advantage over most of the guys he stopped. Though I don't think who edges the power game has much bearing on this fight. Ali's speed edges it for me, albeit in controversial fashion.

dempseyfire wrote:Ali. Better conditioning, quicker feet, and yes THE HARDER PUNCHER. I don't understand how Holmes got the rep for being a bigger puncher than Ali . . by doing what, icing Marvis Frazier? Ali scored a lot more knockouts of (and hurt) much more durable guys than Larry ever did. And Shaver's opinion doesn't count for much as the Ali he fought was WAY past it and yes his jab at that stage was a flick. His jab at his peak (vs Patterson, Williams, London) was as fast and hard as Larry's.

Agreed. People must think its the wind that stopped/knocked down so many of Ali's opponents.
And Ali was much harder to hit during this time. However, with Ali, often we compare him when he was past his best against someone else when they were in their absolute prime. I agree that Holmes at his best would have been a close match for Ali of the 1970-1975 period. This isn't when Ali was his best. And of course he beats Ali anytime afterwards.

How about we turn this around and compare a prime Ali against a slipping Holmes the Ali of the mid-1960s vs the Larry Holmes who eked by Tim Witherspoon (some would say Witherspoon should got the decision) struggled greatly with Mike Weaver, and got a ridiculaus decison over Carl "The Truth" Williams and lsot to Michael Spinks?

Does anyone seriously think that version of holmes could compete at all vs Ali from the mid-1960s?

More importantly, the Ali of 1964-1967 would certainly beat Holmes at his best.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Ali. Better conditioning, quicker feet, and yes THE HARDER PUNCHER. I don't understand how Holmes got the rep for being a bigger puncher than Ali . . by doing what, icing Marvis Frazier? Ali scored a lot more knockouts of (and hurt) much more durable guys than Larry ever did. And Shaver's opinion doesn't count for much as the Ali he fought was WAY past it and yes his jab at that stage was a flick. His jab at his peak (vs Patterson, Williams, London) was as fast and hard as Larry's.

Agreed. People must think its the wind that stopped/knocked down so many of Ali's opponents.
And Ali was much harder to hit during this time. However, with Ali, often we compare him when he was past his best against someone else when they were in their absolute prime. I agree that Holmes at his best would have been a close match for Ali of the 1970-1975 period. This isn't when Ali was his best. And of course he beats Ali anytime afterwards.

How about we turn this around and compare a prime Ali against a slipping Holmes the Ali of the mid-1960s vs the Larry Holmes who eked by Tim Witherspoon (some would say Witherspoon should got the decision) struggled greatly with Mike Weaver, and got a ridiculaus decison over Carl "The Truth" Williams and lsot to Michael Spinks?

Does anyone seriously think that version of holmes could compete at all vs Ali from the mid-1960s?

More importantly, the Ali of 1964-1967 would certainly beat Holmes at his best.

Saad, your ability to cut and paste is improving!

I see you added your own Icon as well. Kudos!

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Yeah, Larry was the bigger puncher. I'm surprised that carries any contention. Ali was more accurate so it makes it a wash, but Holmes had more power in his right hand, uppercut and his jab was heavier. Not that it matters, they could fight 50 times and neither of them would come near the canvas.Truth be told, this fight would always be close and I doubt Holmes would get any help from the judges.

Yeah that was my thinking too. I get the feeling it would be one of those fights that would be 8 rounds to 7 or 9 rounds to 6. Or probably more accurately considering they awarded even rounds more often then, 7 rounds to 6 with 2 even or something. I personally think Holmes would get the better of it, but this would be an extremely evenly matched bout. If they fought 10 times, I think there's a fair chance they'd each have 5 victories. About as evenly matched a fight between ATG's as you will see.

No doubt Ali could find the punch when he needed to. And with the big men accuracy counts for so much. Hit the point of the chin and it’s going to cause damage.

Johnson was similar. Not thought of as a big puncher but could often find the big punch when he needed to.

If Ali fought Holmes 10 times they both win at least 4… My guess is Ali comes out on top. If Ali had a weakness it was defending the left hook. Holmes didn’t really have a great one. Holmes was more open to right hands and Ali had a very good straight right hand.

Probably comes down to the jab though.

Again, if we are comparing a past his best Ali vs a prime Holmes, then yes it would be close and the jab could be important. Don't really think that being knocked down twice for a total of six seconds by a left hook in a career spanning 61 fights vs great competition makes you that suspecitble to left hooks. The chances of Holmes (not known for his left hook anyway) is going to do any damage with it is miniscule.

If we are comparing the Ali of his prime (mid-1960s) then it would not be that close. Holmes would have all kinds of trouble hitting Ali with anything. Ali's handspeed would be far greater and he would hit Holmes a lot more.

Ali in his prime vs a Holmes when he was say 33 or older would be a very easy win for Ali. It would not be fair. Not competitive at all. Yet that is what people want to do with Ali.

People like to ignore Ali at his best and pretend his real prime did not exist. Think if you did that with Holmes or someone else. How about joe Louis? Most people would probably pick Joe Louis over Holmes. But they actually compare a prime Louis from the late 1930s/early 1940s.

Why not compare the post World War II Joe Louis to a prime Holmes? Then it's a completely different situation. Though of course it would not be fair to Louis, so no one would even consider it.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Again, if we are comparing a past his best Ali vs a prime Holmes, then yes it would be close and the jab could be important. Don't really think that being knocked down twice for a total of six seconds by a left hook in a career spanning 61 fights vs great competition makes you that suspecitble to left hooks. The chances of Holmes (not known for his left hook anyway) is going to do any damage with it is miniscule.

If we are comparing the Ali of his prime (mid-1960s) then it would not be that close. Holmes would have all kinds of trouble hitting Ali with anything. Ali's handspeed would be far greater and he would hit Holmes a lot more.

Ali in his prime vs a Holmes when he was say 33 or older would be a very easy win for Ali. It would not be fair. Not competitive at all. Yet that is what people want to do with Ali.

People like to ignore Ali at his best and pretend his real prime did not exist. Think if you did that with Holmes or someone else. How about joe Louis? Most people would probably pick Joe Louis over Holmes. But they actually compare a prime Louis from the late 1930s/early 1940s.

Why not compare the post World War II Joe Louis to a prime Holmes? Then it's a completely different situation. Though of course it would not be fair to Louis, so no one would even consider it.

What in the world are you talking about? The mere word Ali sends you into the most irrational frenzies. Nobody is talking about post prime Ali, there was a mere mention that someone thought Larry would handle Ali post-prime vs post-prime.

On the very best nights of their life, this is an incredibly close fight.

I’m a bit lost here. I’m agreeing that Holmes didn’t have a great left hook. I also believe Ali wins.

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that this was the punch Ali had most difficulty avoiding. I’m not saying anything new here. Beaten by Frazier who threw left hooks instead of jabs…likewise Norton…dropped by Cooper and top fighter but who was nowhere near Ali’s level. There’s more evidence but it’s probably mostly photoshopped to be honest.

This is not controversial. Or anti-Ali. Or anti Mother Theresa…not desecrating the grave of Ron Hubbard…not protecting a government conspiracy…not printing free tickets to Area 51…or giving away the location of Studio 54…

Holmes and Ali probably have the greatest 2 jabs in history of boxing, of all-time, ever, since the caveman…it’s going to be a major factor.

Ezzard wrote:I’m a bit lost here. I’m agreeing that Holmes didn’t have a great left hook. I also believe Ali wins.

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that this was the punch Ali had most difficulty avoiding. I’m not saying anything new here. Beaten by Frazier who threw left hooks instead of jabs…likewise Norton…dropped by Cooper and top fighter but who was nowhere near Ali’s level. There’s more evidence but it’s probably mostly photoshopped to be honest.

This is not controversial. Or anti-Ali. Or anti Mother Theresa…not desecrating the grave of Ron Hubbard…not protecting a government conspiracy…not printing free tickets to Area 51…or giving away the location of Studio 54…

Holmes and Ali probably have the greatest 2 jabs in history of boxing, of all-time, ever, since the caveman…it’s going to be a major factor.

There is no way to keep up with Alp in an Ali discussion, picking him to win isn't nearly enough. You must drop to your knees and offer supreme worship. Even then it's probably not going to cut it.

Since you said it would come down to the jab, I was under the impression that you thought it was 50-50 fight with Ali and Holmes. You also said if they fought 10 times, they would each win at least 4 times.

Maybe not you specifically, Ezzard, but a lot of people compare a past it Ali vs a prime Holmes. When talking about Ali, you usually hear more conversation about his fights with Young, Shavers etc. than his fights when he was far better. Even his fights in the early 1970s vs Frazier, Norton, Foreman etc. were when he was not at his best. Yet his detractors like to pretend that he somehow was better in his 30s than he was in his 20s.

I don't see how in the world Holmes is going to win 4 out of 10 times against from the mid-1960s. Against the Ali of the early 1970s, that is reasonable. Against Ali of his prime, it is not. Ali was much, much harder to hit during his 20s. He also had much faster handspeed. He also had greater stamina.


As for the left hook, I don't the left hook is well overblown with Ali. In his first title reign, he never got kncoked down or hurt.
The Cooper and Frazier fights were but two instances in a long career. He fought 41 rounds with Frazier and never was knocked down from it at any other time. Frazier may have had the best left hook of all-time. Floyd Patterson had a great left hook and never hurt Ali with it.

Ali did get hit with the left hook and other punches in the 2nd half of his career, but really not more than other punches.
He seldom got hit with anything during his mid 20s.

He didn't face the kind of opposition he faced later. If he would have been fighting Joe Frazier before the layoff he would have repeatedly been hit with left hooks.

He never fought Holmes though – who would land.

If Holmes were to win 4 out of 10 fights then distilling that to a single 15 round fight would be exactly 9-6 in rounds to Ali… Considering Terrell took 2 rounds off Ali I think that’s a pretty sensible estimate of the fight.

If you seriously think that’s unreasonable then I don’t know what to say…

In the 60s Ali also got floored by Cooper, Banks…repeatedly hurt by Jones…should we not then take it that his chin wasn’t as good in the 60s as it was in the 70s? Please, that’s a mischievous point that doesn’t need a reply.

Its Larry for me on points I dont think he would stop Ali as Ali had probably more heart than anybody but I think Larrys jab would have negated Alis speed and movement but on the other hand I dont see Ali stopping Larry so it would have to be Larry for me by a couple of rounds with Ali just managing to see the final bell after the early rounds going to Ali but Larry taking over in the middle rounds as Ali really began to slow up
A great fight though but its Larry for me

Ambling Alp II wrote: As for the left hook, I don't the left hook is well overblown with Ali. In his first title reign, he never got kncoked down or hurt.
The Cooper and Frazier fights were but two instances in a long career.

I guess I was mistaken about the left hook when I stated that Ali was open for it. He was of course only hit twice with it during his long career. You know who was never hit with anything at all? George Chuvalo that's who.

BTW, I change my prediction: Larry knocks Ali out in the second round from the southpaw stance with a massive right hook. Larry sure was smart switching his stance, knowing Ali could not be hit with the left hook.

hhaehre wrote:BTW, I change my prediction: Larry knocks Ali out in the second round from the southpaw stance with a massive right hook.

Ali weren't no bum, mate.