Terry D wrote:Misty-eyed? I was just pointing out that there is no reason to bring up a non-debate between you and that windbag Granmama into things. Any posts by either of you guys is not going to be at the forefront of my memory. You made a non-point and are continuing with it. Is 'I Feel Fine' an assurance?
Again, I casually made mention of a conversation that had recently come up. For whatever reason you felt the need to try to correct me in saying that you had never read the thread, when I neither suggested that nor cared if you had. Again, if you feel the need to wrangle over trivial matters then, by all means, locate someone like granberry and have a great time. Outside of your posts in this thread I care little of what you write, and I might think that this kind of thing is a good reason why I shouldn't.
Terry D wrote:I'll spell this out. Clay may have developed between the two Cooper fights but his stance, style and skill-set was roughly the same. He bulked-up a few more inches in key areas and was setting more on some of his shots but that defence was still a problem and left him open for shots. It was more an improvement of physical maturity than anything else.
I agree that that those "flaws" remained in Ali throughout his career, as I said earlier. What I have said is that those flaws were not as easy to exploit and that Ali became harder to hit because of his development. The Cooper fights demonstrate Ali's improvements and show that he became harder to hit, and that's not really a point that can be disputed. The suggestion that you made that Clay's fights in '63 suggest something in how Holmes would be able to hit a prime Ali are wrong and that is what I am pointing out. You can disagree all you like, but you'll have a hard time demonstrating that Ali was as easy to hit in '66 as he was in '63. The other point I raised was that while Ali had this one fight with Jones where he was hit with some right hands, Holmes had his own fights where he was hit by that punch consistently; and he was champion, not an underdeveloped fighter.
Terry D wrote:As for Clay in later life. I do believe I was talking with Bennie about the pre-exile Clay when you jumped into things. The same Clay had the same flaws before his later style in which he was easier to hit in some ways but more settled as a boxer in other ways, plus had a better left hook because he was more settled. Evidently you jumped into a conversation you did not truly grasp and are now showing the difficulties inherent in this.
You again show your presumptuousness or inability to read, but I again have no disagreement with these points. These are not the points that I am disputing. As for your conversation; your arguments aren't very complex, and I think my grasp of the conversation that I "jumped into" was just fine, thank you.
Terry D wrote:Holmes adapted and overcame against Williams. Clay did not truly do this against Jones and you can see in his mind he was worried by the pace he set in the final two rounds. Holmes-Williams was a fight in which an under-prepared and aging fighter was confronted by a great weapon, the jab of Williams, and then countered it. Clay never truly got to grips with the style of Jones and if you think Holmes-Williams is the worst decision of the two think again. Look at the exceptionally poor card of the ref in the Jones fight, he completely misread the fight and if anything that is what sets off conspiracy nuts like Granmama. Holmes-Williams was close, Clay-Jones I gave it 6-4 to Jones and the other cards were relatively close with one glaringly bad card. That fight is more contentious than Holmes-Williams.
Well I care little about what the judges say, sometimes judges give the right winner but have the scores too wide, sometimes they score the fight close but pick the wrong winner. I think the judges picked the wrong winner in Holmes-Williams, I do not believe they did in Clay-Jones.
Terry D wrote:Ali's flaws in terms of leaning back were not as pronounced in Holmes. Ali later went to the ropes and absorbed shots there whereas Holmes was more adept at blocking and parrying shots in my view. Both men later took tough fights when older against mediocre guys such as McCall and Berbick but Holmes had a little more all-round savvy and fewer outright flaws to exploit.
I think this is our main source of disagreement. You can say it as many times as you like, but repeating that Holmes did not have real technical flaws or suggesting that they were not pronounced does not erase the fact that he did indeed have those flaws and that they were not at all trivial or less serious. Say it again in fifty or a hundred posts, it unfortunately does not make the claim any more true. He did hold his hands low, he did stand straight up, he did leave his chin exposed. These were consistent things he did throughout his career. Ali did these things throughout his career as well. The difference is, however, that some fans have the perception that Ali's flaws were
much worse, and I believe the reason for this perception is that Ali was fighting guys who were good enough to make those "flaws" visible, while Holmes fought generally easier opponents who were not as capable of exposing those flaws. I think Holmes' lack of tough opposition was also at least part of the reason why he lasted so long. I think we have to take Ali's opposition again into account when we make claims that Holmes' superior longevity indicates that he was a better technical fighter; Holmes wasn't fighting Frazier or an equivalent opponent who drained him quite like Joe did Ali. And I don't agree with the idea that Holmes was more adept at blocking and parrying shots when he was on the ropes; he got hit plenty by Ferguson, Mercer was able to land some shots, and Holyfield landed quite consistently. Something tells me that a 34 year old Holmes would not avoid too many punches fighting on the ropes against prime Norton.
Terry D wrote:Overall Holmes was able to land straight shots, despite pulling his own shots a lot. Clay at his very best, which is what I was discussing before you jumped in, had certain fundamental flaws that were exploited and would be further exploited by a peak Holmes. Heavyweights mature at relative times, throwing that into the mix is extremely banal and does not take into account that it was taken as a given.
Since you seem to want to lecture me about how you can answer whatever you like on this forum, which again was never disputed, I'll point out that I can "jump in" on whatever I like as well. In my opinion a banal argument is the claim that Ali had flaws and that Holmes didn't, but I'll go into that one more time later in this post. Before we go into that; you claim that you take it as a given that Heavyweights mature at different times, but I don't see you analyzing Holmes' abilities at age 21 and making determinations on how easy Holmes the champion would be to hit on the basis of what he was doing at 21. The fact is Holmes could be hit by a right hand, and Ali wasn't exactly Tex Cobb, Ali had a very accurate and quick right hand and Holmes would be hit as much or more as Ali would be with Holmes' right.
Terry D wrote:A peak Holmes beats a peaking Clay. He had a greater grasp of the fundamentals and would time Clay with right hands. Clay fought with as young mans style, later in his life he had to painfully adapt it but never quite did this successfully, as the punishment he took shows.
I'd hate to sound repetitious (which is one of the things that makes your posts tedious to read) but I'll say again that if Ali took punishment it was because he was fighting guys who were generally better than the opponents Holmes encountered. Holmes in his first title fight had Norton, but only a couple of his title challengers were anywhere near that level, and two of them (Witherspoon and Williams, though even they had only around 15 pro fights each) beat Holmes in my opinion and in the opinion of many, perhaps most, viewers of those two fights. Norton, on the other hand, was only one of several great Heavyweights who Ali was in the ring with. And on that note, when we come back to the question of Ali's defense vs. Holmes', I might point to the fact that Norton was able to land punches on both Ali
and Holmes, and with consitency in both cases. What is interesting about that, however, is that Ali, in the second fight, was not in his prime and was up against a prime Norton. Holmes, on the other hand, was in his prime and was fighting a Norton who was in the last years of his prime and who did not have the same determination inside of him. Strange how that worked out, considering that Holmes is supposedly so much better defensively than Ali. Aside from that, Ali, in my view, would have the superior speed and mobility, and would be quite capable of exposing Holmes' overrated defense. Holmes could be hit, and when he was in with decent fighters he often was. Norton, Weaver, Witherspoon hit Holmes plenty, while fighters like Shavers and Snipes were able to drop him, in part because of the reasons stated above; Holmes' technical flaws. I think few who objectively and carefully view Holmes would argue that Holmes was not vulnerable to to a right hand. Some might even say that he was more vulnerable to it than Ali was. Tyson was trained that, should he ever fight Holmes, he should focus on landing the right hand on Larry... Larry might have been older, but the hands were still low despite all his age and experience, and when he fought someone like Mike that flaw cost him and he suffered his first career knock out. But we don't have to go to an older Holmes to see him getting hit, and we certainly don't have to dig up Holmes' fights in his early 20's where Holmes probably wasn't a defensive wizard either; he was capable of being hit in his prime, in large part because of his technical flaws.
