BoxRec

[quote="evndrbsn"]If the fight took place next month, I think Holyfield would KO Ali in one round, two rounds tops.[/quote]

And how many more times are you going to bring up that stupid shit? Chump. There are scholars on this side of BoxRec. This isn't BoxingInsider.

Professor X wrote:

evndrbsn wrote:If the fight took place next month, I think Holyfield would KO Ali in one round, two rounds tops.

And how many more times are you going to bring up that stupid shit? Chump. There are scholars on this side of BoxRec. This isn't BoxingInsider.

You sure sound like a scholar with a high intellect when you use those fancy words like "shit" and "chump." By the way, saying Holyfield would beat Ali doesn't necessarily bode well for your superior boxing intellect. Maybe you should actually watch fights and gauge that way instead of slinging insults like a grade school bully at recess.

Professor X wrote:
Now, of course, Holyfield gave Larry Holmes a grade A lesson in the jab. That fight was a jab contest, won unanimously by Holyfield. That's exhibit A...a scientific fact. Holyfield could deal with Ali's jab...and he might double or tripple it up right back on him

Have you actually seen this fight? Holmes gave Holyfield a much tougher than expected fight, why? Because of his jab. Holmes gave Holyfield a tip or two on how to jab correctly that night. Holyfield was given trouble by a 43-year old's jab ... a scientific fact. Holyfield always had problems with jabbers, such as Holmes, Bowe, Moorer, and Lewis. Holyfield had a pretty good jab, but not in league with the aformentioned fighters, minus maybe Moorer. Ali would out jab Holyfield at his leisure. Holyfield would make it a tough fight by trying to get on the inside and throw combinations, not by trying to out jab Ali, because he couldn't. For a so-called scholar, you are pretty clueless, "Professor."

What, no more cute stuff, evndrbsn? That's what I thought, asshole.

I heard that same talk when I bet Holyfield over Tyson in Oct'89, chump.

[quote="evndrbsn"][quote="Professor X"]

Now, of course, Holyfield gave Larry Holmes a grade A lesson in the jab. That fight was a jab contest, won unanimously by Holyfield. That's exhibit A...a scientific fact. Holyfield could deal with Ali's jab...and he might double or tripple it up right back on him [/quote]

Have you actually seen this fight? Holmes gave Holyfield a much tougher than expected fight, why? Because of [i]his[/i] jab. Holmes gave Holyfield a tip or two on how to jab correctly that night. Holyfield was given trouble by a 43-year old's jab ... a scientific fact. Holyfield always had problems with jabbers, such as Holmes, Bowe, Moorer, and Lewis. Holyfield had a pretty good jab, but not in league with the aformentioned fighters, minus maybe Moorer. Ali would out jab Holyfield at his leisure. Holyfield would make it a tough fight by trying to get on the inside and throw combinations, not by trying to out jab Ali, because he couldn't. For a so-called scholar, you are pretty clueless, "Professor."[/quote]

Damn... you are a chump, joker.

Professor X wrote:What, no more cute stuff, evndrbsn? That's what I thought, asshole.

I heard that same talk when I bet Holyfield over Tyson in Oct'89, chump.

What the heck are you talking about? That made absolutely no sense. Thanks for making my job easier and making yourself look stupid.

By the way, I picked Holyfield over Tyson also. What point does that prove to me?

Professor X wrote:

evndrbsn wrote:

Professor X wrote:
Now, of course, Holyfield gave Larry Holmes a grade A lesson in the jab. That fight was a jab contest, won unanimously by Holyfield. That's exhibit A...a scientific fact. Holyfield could deal with Ali's jab...and he might double or tripple it up right back on him

Have you actually seen this fight? Holmes gave Holyfield a much tougher than expected fight, why? Because of his jab. Holmes gave Holyfield a tip or two on how to jab correctly that night. Holyfield was given trouble by a 43-year old's jab ... a scientific fact. Holyfield always had problems with jabbers, such as Holmes, Bowe, Moorer, and Lewis. Holyfield had a pretty good jab, but not in league with the aformentioned fighters, minus maybe Moorer. Ali would out jab Holyfield at his leisure. Holyfield would make it a tough fight by trying to get on the inside and throw combinations, not by trying to out jab Ali, because he couldn't. For a so-called scholar, you are pretty clueless, "Professor."

Damn... you are a chump, joker.

Once again, you make yourself look stupid by not intelligently responding and slinging even more grade school insults. Sorry that your original analysis was off point and elementary in content. If you are not going to put something worthwhile, post elsewhere, half-wit.

evndrbsn wrote:

Professor X wrote:
Now, of course, Holyfield gave Larry Holmes a grade A lesson in the jab. That fight was a jab contest, won unanimously by Holyfield. That's exhibit A...a scientific fact. Holyfield could deal with Ali's jab...and he might double or tripple it up right back on him

Have you actually seen this fight? Holmes gave Holyfield a much tougher than expected fight, why? Because of his jab. Holmes gave Holyfield a tip or two on how to jab correctly that night. Holyfield was given trouble by a 43-year old's jab ... a scientific fact. Holyfield always had problems with jabbers, such as Holmes, Bowe, Moorer, and Lewis. Holyfield had a pretty good jab, but not in league with the aformentioned fighters, minus maybe Moorer. Ali would out jab Holyfield at his leisure. Holyfield would make it a tough fight by trying to get on the inside and throw combinations, not by trying to out jab Ali, because he couldn't. For a so-called scholar, you are pretty clueless, "Professor."

I agree with you here on how Holyfield would have to fight Ali - He couldn't (and wouldn't) get in a jabbing contest with Ali - That is "Ali's fight"....and Holyfield wouldn't fight his fight -

But I also believe that Holyfield could very well get inside Ali's jab and do a great deal of damage - It would be a pick'em fight....but it wouldn't shock me to see Holyfield win a DEC -

As for the Holmes fight - I don't necessarily think Holmes gave Holyfield all that much trouble - In reality he didn't - Holyfield was winning the whole fight and it was never in doubt -

The fact that Holmes style wasn't there to stand and trade....maybe made the fight appear a little sluggish at times......But in no real way did Holmes give Holyfield all that much trouble that night (outside of Homles elbow that caused a big gash above Holy's eye in the sixth round).

If you can't understand that , you're a chump a joker and stupid. Fuckin' up a thread with stupid shit, chump. Holyfield came out trying to KO Holmes recklessly. When he got that 36 stitch cut over his right eye, courtesy of a deliberate Holmes left elbow, he went to back to boxing (he had to...one more shot on that eye, and the fight was over). Of course, Holyfield boxed the ears off of Holmes from there on out, to the tune of an easy unanimous decision...Holmes threw up chunks in his corner after that boxing lesson that he never expected. Holyfield jabbed him sick.

meade95 wrote:

evndrbsn wrote:

Professor X wrote:
Now, of course, Holyfield gave Larry Holmes a grade A lesson in the jab. That fight was a jab contest, won unanimously by Holyfield. That's exhibit A...a scientific fact. Holyfield could deal with Ali's jab...and he might double or tripple it up right back on him

Have you actually seen this fight? Holmes gave Holyfield a much tougher than expected fight, why? Because of his jab. Holmes gave Holyfield a tip or two on how to jab correctly that night. Holyfield was given trouble by a 43-year old's jab ... a scientific fact. Holyfield always had problems with jabbers, such as Holmes, Bowe, Moorer, and Lewis. Holyfield had a pretty good jab, but not in league with the aformentioned fighters, minus maybe Moorer. Ali would out jab Holyfield at his leisure. Holyfield would make it a tough fight by trying to get on the inside and throw combinations, not by trying to out jab Ali, because he couldn't. For a so-called scholar, you are pretty clueless, "Professor."

I agree with you here on how Holyfield would have to fight Ali - He couldn't (and wouldn't) get in a jabbing contest with Ali - That is "Ali's fight"....and Holyfield wouldn't fight his fight -

But I also believe that Holyfield could very well get inside Ali's jab and do a great deal of damage - It would be a pick'em fight....but it wouldn't shock me to see Holyfield win a DEC -

As for the Holmes fight - I don't necessarily think Holmes gave Holyfield all that much trouble - In reality he didn't - Holyfield was winning the whole fight and it was never in doubt -

The fact that Holmes style wasn't there to stand and trade....maybe made the fight appear a little sluggish at times......But in no real way did Holmes give Holyfield all that much trouble that night (outside of Homles elbow that caused a big gash above Holy's eye in the sixth round).

I don't think Holmes gave Holyfield that much of a tough fight either. He gave Holyfield a tougher than expected fight. My point was that he was the jabber in the fight, not Holyfield and I believe Holmes gave Holyfield trouble dealing with his jab. A pure jabbing contest would not have benefited Holyfield, even against a 43-year old Holmes. Holyfield utilized a fully realized fight plan while Holmes was content to jab and throw the elbow you mentioned! Holyfield took that fight with combination punching, like he took most of his prior fights.

I think Holyfield had a clear chance against Ali and he would not be stupid enough to try to jab with Ali for more than one or two rounds like he did against Lewis in the rematch. Holyfield had the ability to work his way past Ali's jab and open up with combinations. I think Ali was the smarter fighter in the end and would utilize his better gameplan more efficiently.

Regardless, it would be an excellent fight that had the ability to go either way. I just think the edge is with Ali.

Professor X wrote:If you can't understand that , you're a chump a joker and stupid. Fuckin' up a thread with stupid shit, chump. Holyfield came out trying to KO Holmes recklessly. When he got that 36 stitch cut over his right eye, courtesy of a deliberate Holmes left elbow, he went to back to boxing (he had to...one more shot on that eye, and the fight was over). Of course, Holyfield boxed the ears off of Holmes from there on out, to the tune of an easy unanimous decision...Holmes threw up chunks in his corner after that boxing lesson that he never expected. Holyfield jabbed him sick.

Wow, don't overuse your limited vocabulary by writing chump, joker, and stupid in every post! Anyway, the point is that Holyfield did not out jab Holmes. He beat Holmes, yes, but not by out jabbing him. If you remember (if you were even a boxing fan then), Holyfield took a lot of slack from the press and boxing enthusiasts because Holmes gave him a competitive fight. Wow, 43-year old Holmes giving the heavyweight champion a lesson on how to jab and a competitive fight to boot!

Wait!!! I am having a premonition ... I see chump, joker, and stupid in your reply. Unless you read this first, of course. Look forward to your next incoherent post, "scholar!"

..

I think Holyfield had a clear chance against Ali and he would not be stupid enough to try to jab with Ali for more than one or two rounds like he did against Lewis in the rematch. Holyfield had the ability to work his way past Ali's jab and open up with combinations. I think Ali was the smarter fighter in the end and would utilize his better gameplan more efficiently.Regardless, it would be an excellent fight that had the ability to go either way.

We're in complete agreement here - Best regards -

Holy didn't have a very good jab .. it is that why he always went into a brawl.. But I'd give the edge for Evanders favour if id be VS ALI. I don't think too much of Ali and I have my reasons. well maybe 50/50 when in his prime but after the Layoff EVANDER beats him.

George Foreman fought Ali and Holyfield. He might know something about how they compare in certain areas.

Holyfield beating Tyson doesen't seem all that bizarre given that Douglas thrashed Tyson. Holyfield is way ahead of Douglas in terms of career accomplishments.

To even suggest an Ali of 80 -81 beating Holyfield even of today is ludicrous

Muhammad Ali shouldn't have been allowed in the ring with either Berbick or Holmes he was shot, Parkinsons had already started to slow him down and his bravery in lastin as long as he did in both fights may have worsened his condition now.

He should have quit after Manila.

Ali collapsed seconds after Frazier's corner threw in the towel. He was finished as a serious fighter then.

Spinks should never have had his 2 fights and the Berbick & Holmes fights were criminal.

Holyfield today is showing signs of wear & tear and shouldn't even consider putting gloves on again either.

These men are two of the Greatest HW's of all time and to see them now is heartbreaking.

Gordon wrote:To even suggest an Ali of 80 -81 beating Holyfield even of today is ludicrous

Muhammad Ali shouldn't have been allowed in the ring with either Berbick or Holmes he was shot, Parkinsons had already started to slow him down and his bravery in lastin as long as he did in both fights may have worsened his condition now.

He should have quit after Manila.

Ali collapsed seconds after Frazier's corner threw in the towel. He was finished as a serious fighter then.

Spinks should never have had his 2 fights and the Berbick & Holmes fights were criminal.

Holyfield today is showing signs of wear & tear and shouldn't even consider putting gloves on again either.

These men are two of the Greatest HW's of all time and to see them now is heartbreaking.

Muhammad Ali put on a much better performance against Trevor Berbick (1981) than he did with Larry Holmes (1980). There is speculation that Ali was using a drug to get himself into the shape was in for the Holmes fight that backfired and left him without energy and a shell. He performed much better against Berbick and actually made it competitive. He threw punches in that fight, something that Holyfield is having difficulties even letting his hands go (see Donald fight).

It is sad. I'm trying to figure out when Ali got Parkinson's syndrome. He had a definite slur in 1976 through 1978. Before the Holmes fight, doctor's found a hole in Ali's brain, which Don King kept secret. Very sad. I think the beating against Frazier in 1975 was the biggest contributor. For one of the best sportsmen ever, it hurts to see Ali in his current state. Did you hear him after Laila Ali fight on the Tyson-McBride undercard? I couldn't understand him at all. Neither could Jim Gray. Laila had to translate.

I hope Holyfield doesn't wind up with the same fate.

Gordon wrote:To even suggest an Ali of 80 -81 beating Holyfield even of today is ludicrous

Muhammad Ali shouldn't have been allowed in the ring with either Berbick or Holmes he was shot, Parkinsons had already started to slow him down and his bravery in lastin as long as he did in both fights may have worsened his condition now.

He should have quit after Manila.

Ali collapsed seconds after Frazier's corner threw in the towel. He was finished as a serious fighter then.

Spinks should never have had his 2 fights and the Berbick & Holmes fights were criminal.

Holyfield today is showing signs of wear & tear and shouldn't even consider putting gloves on again either.

These men are two of the Greatest HW's of all time and to see them now is heartbreaking.

Excellent point about Ali after 1979.

How he ever passed a medical to fight is beyond me.

[quote="evndrbsn"][quote="Professor X"]If you can't understand that , you're a chump a joker and stupid. Fuckin' up a thread with stupid shit, chump. Holyfield came out trying to KO Holmes recklessly. When he got that 36 stitch cut over his right eye, courtesy of a deliberate Holmes left elbow, he went to back to boxing (he had to...one more shot on that eye, and the fight was over). Of course, Holyfield boxed the ears off of Holmes from there on out, to the tune of an easy unanimous decision...Holmes threw up chunks in his corner after that boxing lesson that he never expected. Holyfield jabbed him sick.[/quote]

Wow, don't overuse your limited vocabulary by writing chump, joker, and stupid in every post! Anyway, the point is that Holyfield did not out jab Holmes. He beat Holmes, yes, but not by out jabbing him. If you remember (if you were even a boxing fan then), Holyfield took a lot of slack from the press and boxing enthusiasts because Holmes gave him a competitive fight. Wow, 43-year old Holmes giving the heavyweight champion a lesson on how to jab and a competitive fight to boot!

Wait!!! I am having a premonition ... I see chump, joker, and stupid in your reply. Unless you read this first, of course. Look forward to your next incoherent post, "scholar!"[/quote]

Oh, good! I thought this thread was yesterdays news!

Holyfield didn't KO Holmes like Tyson did. So just how did he win the fight then, chump? He boxed and jabbed Holmes sick, half-assing it along the way. Old Holmes didn't fire up Holyfield any more than Bobby Czyz did.

Next thing you know, you'll say something stupid (again) like Ken Norton, all awkward and uncoordinated, was more formidable than Holyfield. Blanket statement that might go over some heads, but really shouldn't: Norton beat Ali in '73...Holyfield would beat him too. Ken Norton is nothing, N-O-T-H-I-N-G, like the Holyfield that smashed Thomas, Dokes, Rodriguez, Stewart and Douglas. Oh, and the key, he would have smashed Tyson like that, too, in '91, BTW...but that punk Tyson pulled out with a "rib injury", you see, chump, evndrbsn?

Yeah, Holyfield had a GREAT jab, when he used it (see vs Douglas or Lewis II, chump). But the aggressive Holyfield that pin-pointed Dokes with incredible accuracy would beat '73 Ali.

I would think Ken Norton might have had a good chance of beating Holyfield. He was one of the better heavyweights of the 70s.