BoxRec

Muhammad Ali aka Cassuis Clay: Takes on The Heavyweight Greats!


John L. Sullivan:

You simply cannot compare apples to oranges here. 'The Great John L' was one of the strongest fighters in ring history and one of the more tougher and ferocious champions. But, fact of business, Sullivan's career for the better part of a decade was cut out from victories under a completely different set of rules and regulations. It's safe to say, had Ali fought in London Prize Ring era, he probably wouldn't have defeated the rough and tumble Sullivan, under those rules. Under the Marquis of Queensbury, however, it would be a systematic beating. Ali's speed, slashing offense, and complete elusiveness not only would give Sullivan fits of rage, but a big fat loss on his record. Sullivan had no defense, really, to speak of outside of 'pushing' his opponent’s punches out of his way and would be knocked out inside of 8 rounds, losing all 8.

James J. Corbett:

Though some BoxRec 'experts' rate Corbett rather low (i.e. 'looks like shit on film') this man was much like Ali in style, being a fast mover and using the jab constantly. A talented amateur, beating the likes of Jake Kilrain, Joe Choynski and even drawing the legendary Peter Jackson, it can be argued he was the Marquis of Queensbury's first "boxing purist". Like Ali, he also had trouble with swarmers, but unlike Ali he didn't quite have the toughness or the speed or the movement to get out of dangerous situations on a regular basis. He had great stamina; this is for certain, just like Ali also. But, he just can't cope with Ali's speed; he is completely baffled and as a result spends more time thinking in the ring rather than doing. He loses a unanimous decision to Muhammad Ali, battered and ego bruised.

James J. Jefferies:

When these two "met" in Murray Woroner's NCR-315 computer tournament, Ali was so irate that the "slowest" could have beaten the "fastest and greatest". It truly hurt Ali that a man who lost to Jack Johnson, whom he related with tremendously, could beat him. But Ali's analysis of Jefferies is well off, he wasn't 'slow' to say the least, he was an all around great athlete at the turn of the 20th century and had superb conditioning and power and a chin of granite. He chased down Jim Corbett 23 rounds before knocking him out, and did it in 11 rounds in the rematch. He was hardly slow, in his prime he was a marathon man, a genuine iron man. But this isn't the era of 20-45 round fights either. This is 15 rounds, and on average it took Jefferies 12-15 or so rounds to get the 'better' of the opponents he faced. It would be competitive, but Jefferies is going to face a similar fate against Ali like he done against Johnson, this time in his prime. Jefferies loses via 15 round decision and a somewhat wide one at that.

Jack Johnson:

How can you beat a man who’s virtually the same as you in every way imaginable? Ali's style was virtually a copy of Johnson's, both men were nearly the same in size, Johnson was almost as fast and just as elusive. The only difference is that Johnson could also punch, being one of the strongest competitors the ring ever seen. Johnson, like Ali, would toy with his opponents, taunt his opponents, and often times torture his opponents just like Ali done to Patterson and Terrell. Johnson, like Ali, rarely ever left his feet in the ring, and when he did, like Ali, he got up rather fast. And like Ali, he was never knocked out, stopped, until after his prime years. Both men also had unbelievable stamina. Who would win? How could you really judge it? Johnson, like Ali, was all but unbeatable. I personally won't even make a prediction on this, it's too tough a call for me to make.

Jack Dempsey:

"The Manassas Mauler" was one of the more entertaining fighters of his time. Though small for a HW he had such power and ferocity that he handled men who were much taller and larger than himself, usually inside of 4 rounds. He also possessed a decent amount of ring science, and had genuinely amazing hand and foot speed. The rub against Dempsey is that he failed to vanquish, knock out, alot of the movers of his era. He failed to stop Tommy Gibbons; he also failed to stop Tunney. A stylist with a good jab and foot movement was Dempsey's Achilles heel, and there's no question in my mind that the fastest of the stylists would have beaten Dempsey. It would have went the distance, for Dempsey was tough as nails and his own style would keep Ali on his toes, but Dempsey usually faded in the middle rounds, I don't think he would have been able to take the initiative against Ali like Frazier done. Ali by unanimous decision.

Gene Tunney:

Maybe I am just biased against Tunney, but I personally never rated him as a top 10 HW, let alone as an all-time great, though many people do. His career was cut out mostly by his work at 175 and is easily one of the top 5 of all time in that division, but I don't personally think wins over Johnny Risko, a past his prime Dempsey twice and Tom Meehan makes him a top HW. Tunney was as tough as they come, though, he was also one of the greatest tacticians to ever live and he packed a pretty hard punch as well, and he had the conditioning to go 15 rounds rather easily. But I personally don't think it would have made a difference, it would have been a decent match of science, a genuine chess game in the ring, but Ali would have won 12 of 15 hands down...and I don't even have to argue with that. Anyone who wishes to debate that let them go ahead. Ali easily handles Tunney.

Max Schmeling:

Max Schmeling is arguably the most under-rated HW champion, which is completely unfair. It is also unfair that his entire illustrious career was over shadowed by his 1st round knock out to Joe Louis. He was easily, in my opinion, the greatest European HW ever. He had a hard punch, he was all about ring science, but he too, could be viscous in the ring when he wanted to be. It was his tremendous insight, his constant studying of his opponents, which made him also extra dangerous. I think Schmeling would have had the foresight to see that Ali kept his hands down rather low, and would question whether Ali could have fought in short, backing up, etc. I think it would have went the distance, and be close, more closer than people would think, but I have to say the thing that really makes it in Ali's favor and why I would give him the decision is, I think Schmeling tended to be too mechanical, too methodical and you can't be a robot in the ring with Ali. Ali wins clear cut unanimous decision.

Max Baer:

Before the death of Frankie Campbell, Max Baer was a power house. He was really an animal when the bell rang for round one. When he landed that looping over hand right, two hundred pound men either dropped or were completely knocked goofy. In short, he was like the George Foreman of his day. He was forever chasing the kayo, and would not stop throwing bombs; he was intent on destroying his opponents. After Campbell, however, Baer became more the perpetual, fun loving clown he truly was at heart. The rub against Baer is that he wasn't very well conditioned, was too wild and sloppy, and he didn't pace himself. His style made for bad business for Ali, yes, but I don't think he would have been able to keep up that sort of pace against Ali. Had he fought with the intent of battering his opponents like he done against Schmeling and Carnera, he would have fared better against Ali, I believe, than he would have as the lovable 'Madcap Maxie'. Ali wins, no disrespect, via decision, but I bet 10-1 the two characters would have generated the biggest money fight of all time.

James J. Braddock:

I honestly, also, don't consider Braddock really to have been an all time great. I personally never rated him higher than top 30 to be quite frank. But, this man showed no fear, was very tough, was one of the more determined men to ever enter the ring, was quick and possessed not only some good ring smarts but a punch to go with it. The majority of his career, like Tunney, was cut out from fighting at 175 but never won that title. His "comeback" against Corn Griffin, John Henry Lewis, Art Lasky and his remarkable win over Max Baer is a testament of how hard work, having alot of self belief and being full of heart can make you go far in this business. I think he would have given Ali a bit of a work out, some trouble, making for an entertaining fight, but unfortunately the clock strikes midnight on the Cinderella Man and loses a unanimous decision.

Joe Louis:

Generally considered the "greatest" by some historians, Joe Louis was an excellent finisher and was arguably the greatest HW champion from the waist up, his offense being all but second to none and his jab one of the best ever no matter the division. 25 title defenses in almost 11 years is a record he still holds still to this day, most of those defenses ending inside of 5 or 6 rounds. His defense was nothing to sneer at either. But the rub against Louis was his 'stalking', he was rather slow footed and at times one-dimensional. And like Dempsey before him, his greatest weakness was against stylists. He couldn't stop Tommy Farr; he lost to Schmeling once, he 'won' a decision over Walcott, lost to Charles, almost lost to Billy Conn and was dropped by Jim Braddock. Plus Louis also had a soft chin for a HW. But his hands were lightning quick and Louis always claimed had he fought Ali he would have won a decision, as Ali's hands were always low and always hypothesized Ali could be thrown off with a jab, which was one of Louis's greatest weapons. But, if Billy Conn was beating Louis, imagine Conn having 40 more pounds of muscle, more speed and being much taller? Louis loses a decision, if not getting stopped late.

Jersey Joe Walcott:

Walcott is generally dismissed by most fans today, and it is rather sad, considering this man for many years was a highly ranked and highly regarded contender who, like Ali, was an innovator of moves in the ring. Walcott also had good power in his hands and was quite viscous, and made his opponents double think in the ring (big mistake) as he'd walk away and then land start throwing bombs. He systematically tore his opponents down; this man was one of the greatest stylists of all time. He was 'robbed' in some of his fights against Charles, and was robbed against Louis the first go around, and for 12 rounds was easily disposing of Rocky Marciano, fighting his greatest fight ever. This would be no cake walk for Muhammad Ali and it would have been close, but Ali's speed and his own elusiveness would have given him an edge over Walcott. Ali wins a close but unanimous decision.

Rocky Marciano:

49-0 with 43 knock outs, the only undefeated HW champion in history. He was also one of the greatest punchers of all time, having a knockout ratio higher than George Foreman (88%). He had a chin of granite and was the most conditioned HW champion in history. But he was also one of the shortest HW's to compete, and his 68" reach was the shortest of any HW champion. He also had a tendency to cut, and he had problems with great movers. Marciano's style spells bad business, though, for Ali. It was his own determination, tremendous punch rate, conditioning and, yes, his power, that got him to beat Walcott, Charles, Louis...but I don't personally believe he could have been effective enough, possibly, against a prime Ali. Just too fast and too elusive. I do believe it would have been a much closer fight than most would imagine, very competitive, and probably would break a record for the most punches thrown in a HW showdown...but I think the alternative ending to the "Super Fight" was correct...Ali wins by TKO in the 13th round, though the cards by that time were even.

Larry Holmes:

Wipe the one-sided 1980 tragedy from your minds, when Ali was way passed his prime and was in the early stages of Parkinson’s disease. The fight might as well never counted; Holmes was fighting a walking, talking punching bag. Holmes, like Ezzard Charles before him, had the misfortune of following one of the biggest icons of the sport and was under-valued because of it. The Ali fight made him all the more a villain to the public. 20 successful title defenses in just seven years, Larry Holmes more than made his mark in HW history. He defeated Norton, and future champions Trevor Berbick, Tim Witherspoon, as well as a motley crew of some of boxing’s best and worst abortions of the 1980’s. Like Joe Louis before him, he took on all comers. His jab is one of boxing’s greatest ever, and he is easily one of the all time great stylists. He, like Ali, was only stopped once in their illustrious careers. Holmes was a very determined, highly skilled, very tough fighter, who would have more than likely been a champion in almost any era. The only thing, really, in my mind Ali has over Holmes is the speed. But what Holmes lacks, he makes up for in brain power. Considering how he was Ali’s sparring partner for many years, he knew all of Ali’s tricks and couldn’t be suckered in to Ali’s games. I think this could have possibly made up for Holmes losses. But like the Johnson fight, its too close a call for me to make a positive call on.

Mike Tyson:

Mike Tyson is easily the biggest name in boxing. His fights with Holyfield and Lewis broke records in gate receipts and pay per view buys. He was arguably the most successful “bully” in boxing history, using his surly demeanor just as much as his power, speed and defense to move him on into victory. Tyson, like Foreman, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey and Liston before him, seemed all but invincible. But early on it was apparent that a brave man, a tough man, someone willing to fight back, with enough skill and speed could throw him off rather easily. He went the distance with James Tillis, who wasn’t so ‘Quick’ anymore, and he had problems with bigger men such as Bonecrusher Smith, Buster Douglas and Lennox Lewis. Ali was much taller than Tyson, had a much longer reach, was far faster, was one of the toughest of all time, one of the most courageous fighters to ever step into the ring and was all the more willing to fight. Plus take into consideration how Liston and Foreman’s aura of invincibility failed to waver Ali. Like them, Tyson too, would falter and eventually break down and give up, if not resume to using illegal tactics and getting himself disqualified. Ali wins either one of three ways: unanimous decision, late round technical knockout or disqualification.

Evander Holyfield:

One of the greatest of all time. Period. The greatest Cruiserweight champion. Four times the HW champion of the world (twice undisputed). Also one of the most conditioned and toughest competitors the sport has ever known, as well as one of the bravest. He beat his own Sonny Liston in Mike Tyson. He had faced the more technically improved (though older) Foreman. He defeated Mercer, Holmes, Bowe…in short, like Ali, he’s faced virtually every name player in his career, most of those times his hand raised in victory. He is also one of the biggest punchers in boxing history, least according to RING magazine. His tremendous work rate, punch rate, eagerness to prove himself against anyone available makes him not only one of the best HW’s in the last two decades, he’s also one of the more entertaining, rarely ever being in a dull fight. Rarely have you ever seen anyone shake this man up, make him lose focus or get inside his head, Holyfield always tried to dictate the pace before his opponents could. I think out of all the more modern day champions, Holyfield would be the one who would give Ali the hardest time in the ring. Ali the speedster constantly jabbing, while Holyfield is throwing rapid fire combinations...Ali backpedaling and fighting backwards, while Holyfield is trying to catch up and trying to get in close…both men at times trading blows in the center of the ring at close range…would be a very entertaining fight to say the least, but is one I can’t make a positive prediction on.

Lennox Lewis:

Easily the best big man since Larry Holmes, Lennox Lewis was rather quick for a man being 6’5” and in the vicinity of 245 pounds. His cannonball of a jab, combined with a thunderous right hand made him a big puncher in the ring, though he preferred to be a stylist. His boxing matches were generally considered “flops” in the United States as it was deemed boring, but nevertheless Lewis dominated his opponents virtually from the first to the land rounds, much like Ali had done. He was a three time undisputed HW champion, and was death in rematches like Joe Louis. His 85” reach made him all but untouchable, though it was his ego that cost him against McCall and Rahman in career KO losses, both were avenged. Possibly is the greatest British champion of all time. Lewis, like Ali, carried his hands down too low, which was sometimes taken advantage of by the likes of Shannon Briggs, Ray Mercer and Evander Holyfield. Like Ali and Louis before him, he pretty much faced every single opponent of his generation, save Riddick Bowe. Lewis is, in my opinion, #11 out of the HW champions. But Lewis had a lack of killer attitude, unless he was trying to prove himself or ‘get respect’ as he would say. Even so, killer attitude or not, he’ll get no respect against Ali. Ernie Terrell had a reach and was even taller than Lewis, but Ali easily decisioned and brutalized him over 15 rounds. So size means nothing here. Ali had faced punchers like Frazier, Foreman and Shavers and wasn’t ever stopped. So power isn’t going to cut it either. Lewis was a great boxer, and he did use the jab a lot, but I always thought he was a bit methodical…Ali did it all by instinct, it was fluid, and it was faster than anyone Lewis ever faced.
Ali wins via close, but clear cut, unanimous decision over Lennox Lewis.


Note:

I did not include Carnera, Burns, Hart, Sharkey, Bowe, Moorer, etc because I did not feel these men really lived up to their own hype, though the majority of them had so much talent, but for one reason or another never quite reached a defining moment or simply pissed it all away or was untested during their primes. I also did not add the current ‘champions’ or ‘alphabet champions’ throughout the years for pretty much the same reasons.

I must also say, I do apologise, for not doing a analysis on an Ezzard Charles or Ingemar Johansson hypothetical match-up between Muhammad Ali. I personally didn't have enough time to fool around with it, and I don't want to sound like I am biased because I have had complaints in the past of me not portraying Johansson better, and honestly I never quite thought much of Charles as a HW so I can't really have done him much justice either.

I also did not add Patterson, Liston, Frazier and Foreman into this, because Ali had fought them when they were in their primes or very much near their primes, and the end results are clear cut enough to not debate upon. If Ali being Frazier 2 out of 3 times when he wasn’t in his prime, and beat Foreman when he wasn’t in his prime, it was pretty obvious that neither man could do much with the prime Ali. Liston was an example of this.

And this was based upon the logic of Muhammad Ali being in his prime in 1964-1967, when he defeated Terrell, Chuvalo, Folley, Cooper, Mildenberger, London, Williams, Patterson and the Liston debacle in Lewiston, Maine.


Rocky Marciano on Muhammad Ali:

“I’d rate him as the fastest man on wheels. As a HW I’d rate him as the fastest of all times. Great reflexes, well conditioned, very scientific man, throws a lot of punches.”

“I never thought I’d ever see the HW division have a Sugar Ray Robinson.”

"I think it's just too early to really analyze Cassius Clay, I think so far he has proven that he is a very very good fighter, he's learning his trade, he's improving, he's looking better all the time. Right up till now he has proved there is nobody who can even get into the same ring with him."


Jersey Joe Walcott on Muhammad Ali:

“I think Clay is the greatest champion we have ever had. I think he boxes as well as any champion we ever had, and I think he knows what he's doing in that ring."


Joe Louis on Muhammad Ali:

"There's really nobody out there to really give him a good fight...he don't
have to worry about making any mistakes, because he knows he can make a mistake
and get away with it."

And of course…

Muhammad Ali on Muhammad Ali:

"I watched all those old fight films and they all fought like washer women, I saw them. And if you seen them they had no class, no foot work, no speed, no color, no timing, no rhythm, they swung from the floor, when the man would fall they hit him before he got up, when the man fell out of the ring they wouldn't let em back in, if I did it today they would say I was the dirtiest fighter in the world."

"Could you imagine Sugar Ray Robinson a little faster with feet and hands and being 210 pounds...maybe even faster with feet and hands, then that's me...a HW Sugar Ray Robinson."

..homicide...good stuff..i have to admit i mostly skimmed it and will give it a deeper reading later.

but....i was pulled up short with your statement about walcott being robbed against charles. charles clearly won the first two fights. clearly.period. was kayoed cleanly in the third. then ..the huge robbery occurs in the fourth. this fight was a fraud all the way....the referee clearly biased, took charles' body attack away by calling ...and i'm serious...punches to the COLLAR BONE low....and was heard to cheer walcott on by ..and this was clearly heard by the tv audience..most of ther rounds were close...how could they not be...but ezzard still won as many as 11 on some writers' cards....including the new york times. i saw it with friends on live tv...with friends...we were so sure ezzard won that we were .....stunned i guess is the word..when the judges earned their pay with their decision.
referee zack clayton was driving around philadelphia the next day in a brand new caddilac...and the wide spread joke was...the caddy that ezzard donated" and "walcott's wheels.

now back to your regular programming...

Jimmy Cannon [of the first fight]: "It was a fight which caused the smells of the stockyards to have the fragrance of Chanel Number 5 by comparison, and to identify Charles as champion of anything but Walcott is a misuse of the word."

The second fight was 'better' than the first, with Charles knocking down Walcott in the 9th round, but even then some observers thought the decision should have went the other way. In either case it was probably both men's best fight between eachother.

The third fight, of course, Walcott won by KO in the 7th.

The fourth fight was a 15 round decision for Walcott, and was a rather lackluster fight being descriped as 'tepid' by some more modern day writers, with the only real distinction of having the first black referee in a championship fight.


But, let's just say for sake of argument that the second fight was real close despite the 9th round knock down scored by Charles and it could have went either way...that gives 2 wins for Walcott, 1 win for Charles and 1 even.

But, if you're right in saying that Charles was robbed in the 4th fight, that makes the whole series 2-1-1 for Charles [if you go by the logic that the second fight was 'close'], if not the series is 3-1 for Charles.


Thanks for giving your insight on this, for I said before, I ain't that big on Charles and I never mentioned him in hypotheticals because I probably wouldn't have done him much justice considering my lack of knowledge/respect for Charles as a HW.

I agree with pretty much all of your analyses, except for Holyfield. I think Ali would beat Holyfield by a wide decision: too fast, would land the jab regularly, would throw many more punches than Holyfield (who even in his prime tended to fight in spurts).

Holyfield was murder on guys who came right at him. A lot less so against elusive types and movers. Ali wins a very easy decision i believe.

Johnson wouldn't know where to start against Ali. Johnson never, ever fought anyone anywhere near the size and skill level of Ali. His competition is downright laughable in comparison. The overrated Johnson would probably get shut out.

Prime Larry Holmes gets closer than anyone to beating prime Ali; close but no cigar. Ali's edge in speed is the difference in this one.

Henry, I think I'm surprised at these surmised outcomes.....since I've always thought that one of your main themes was that Ali was somewhat over rated. Perhaps your general context has been in deference to the Ali vs Superman comic book. The only one I might disagree with is Larry Holmes...and for reasons that are complex and have to do with the "what if Ali had never trained with Larry" scenario. To me Leotis Martin got the Keys to Sonny Liston in much the Same way that Larry got the Keys to Ali.
(The actual fight is of course a red herring since it played out leaving a huge advantage to one over the other). Bu
So this fight becomes very competitive IF Larry had the inside knowledge that Larry actually had. However when we begin to discuss fighters in theoreticals such as this do you still include this ? Ali gave him the keys for such a prime to prime competitive possibility BASED ON INSIDER KNOWLEDGE> IMHO.

Does this make sense?

Jaclem I found your take on the fourth Walcott/Charles fight absolutely fascinating. What's the very best written source on this specific subject that you have found? I really want to read some takes on this. Not that I don't completely agree and trust your unbias and neutral assessment of all things Ezzard.

Have I ever shared my thoughts on a Moore vs Walcott fight? OH I have? Many times you say? If this would have taken place I"m quite certain it would further explain the unusual nature of the 4 straight fluke of two very competitive LHW's of the past.

theone wrote:Holyfield was murder on guys who came right at him. A lot less so against elusive types and movers. Ali wins a very easy decision i believe.

Johnson wouldn't know where to start against Ali. Johnson never, ever fought anyone anywhere near the size and skill level of Ali. His competition is downright laughable in comparison. The overrated Johnson would probably get shut out.
Prime Larry Holmes gets closer than anyone to beating prime Ali; close but no cigar. Ali's edge in speed is the difference in this one.

jezzamundo wrote:I agree with pretty much all of your analyses, except for Holyfield. I think Ali would beat Holyfield by a wide decision: too fast, would land the jab regularly, would throw many more punches than Holyfield (who even in his prime tended to fight in spurts).

I can see this fight being a total animated heart stopping event. Ali wins 3 out of 4 prime vs prime. But Holyfields confidence, ego and "no quit" aspects make for absolutely electrfying moments and Holy pushes Ali to the limit over and over. Ali would solve the puzzle. This would not be the same as a Frazier fight by any means but would have twists and turns unique unto itself. It would have chess like aspects and chance taking and "going for broke" moments on both sides. A thinking man's war with chance taking mixed in that might not have an equal. I think both guys would try to showboat and display bravado moments that would have them both looking extraordinary and Maybe Holy looking extraordinarly clumsy on occasion.

Two comments, before my actual point:

Even if Charles didn't deserve the decision in the first fight, Walcott from everything I have heard or read about the fight got a gift in the fourth fight. I think almost all the sports writers had Charles winning. So, even if you give the first fight to Walcott, then you have to give the last to Charles, and the series remains at 2-2. Charles actually would have been the first Heavyweight champion to regain the title, before Patterson.

Wasn't Liston beating Leotis Martin at the time of the knock out? I only saw the fight once, years ago, but I remember Liston knocking him down and not doing too badly before Martin landed those bombs. And Liston was pretty old by then, I don't know that Martin would beat a younger Liston.

Anyway, I don't think that Holmes beats Ali, at least not in a trilogy. Sure, Holmes sparred with Ali... Ali sparred with Holmes too. And from what I understand of Ali in sparring, Ali didn't really use all of his tricks and techniques in sparring, he usually let his opponents pummel him so that he could toughen himself up for the fight. I've seen many clips of Ali in sparring, he never looks impressive, he's just going through the motions. They actually talk about this in "When We Were Kings" about how Holmes would dominate Ali in sparring, because Ali was just working on his weaknesses, he wasn't seriously fighting Holmes. I remember hearing a story about how Holmes made a comment about how he was better than Ali, and Ali heard about it and beat Holmes up in sparring and even made Holmes cry... I'm not sure if its true or not. Point is; its just sparring, Ali was much different in an actual fight.

Anyway, Holmes can box with Ali, but Ali is tougher. I read an interview with Ken Norton and Norton said that Ali was a much stronger fighter than Holmes physically. Ali clearly had a better chin. I'm not sure how that would play into it, I don't really see Ali ever badly hurting Holmes or vice versa, but maybe if Ali can hurt Holmes a few times it can effect scoring in a close decision. Holmes had a stiffer jab, but overall their ability to use the jab was about even; Ali would be the best jabber Holmes ever met and vice versa... though Ali did meet Liston who had one of the great jabs in Heavyweight history. I think the difference would be that Ali was faster, especially in terms of leg speed, which homicide mentioned. I think in most other categories they're about even, they're pretty much exactly the same size in terms of height, reach and weight; but in the speed and toughness category Ali has it over Holmes. And I certainly don't think Holmes is smarter than Ali.

I tend to think Lennox Lewis would give Ali his closest fight, or at least it would be the fight I would be most interested in seeing, because Ali never really faced someone who was very tall and very good. I'm sure Ali would win, but that fight interests me... hell, I would be interested in seeing Holmes vs. Lewis as well. I think if you had an all time heavyweight champions tournament, Ali, Holmes and Lewis would come out in the top 3, probably in that order.

I don't think Holyfield would give Ali all that close a fight, or Holmes for that matter. Hell, 40+ year old Holmes gave Holyfield a somewhat competitive fight. Its funny watching Tyson-Holmes, thinking you're watching the end of one era and the beginning of a new, yet when you get to the 90's Holmes actually gives Holyfield a tougher fight than Tyson does.

I Feel Fine wrote:Two comments, before my actual point:

Even if Charles didn't deserve the decision in the first fight, Walcott from everything I have heard or read about the fight got a gift in the fourth fight. I think almost all the sports writers had Charles winning. So, even if you give the first fight to Walcott, then you have to give the last to Charles, and the series remains at 2-2. Charles actually would have been the first Heavyweight champion to regain the title, before Patterson.

Wasn't Liston beating Leotis Martin at the time of the knock out? I only saw the fight once, years ago, but I remember Liston knocking him down and not doing too badly before Martin landed those bombs. And Liston was pretty old by then, I don't know that Martin would beat a younger Liston.

Anyway, I don't think that Holmes beats Ali, at least not in a trilogy. Sure, Holmes sparred with Ali... Ali sparred with Holmes too. And from what I understand of Ali in sparring, Ali didn't really use all of his tricks and techniques in sparring, he usually let his opponents pummel him so that he could toughen himself up for the fight. I've seen many clips of Ali in sparring, he never looks impressive, he's just going through the motions. They actually talk about this in "When We Were Kings" about how Holmes would dominate Ali in sparring, because Ali was just working on his weakness, he wasn't seriously fighting Holmes. I remember hearing a story about how Holmes made a comment about how he was better than Ali, and Ali heard about it and beat Holmes up in sparring and even made Holmes cry... I'm not sure if its true or not. Point is; its just sparring, Ali was much different in an actual fight.

Anyway, Holmes can box with Ali, but Ali is tougher. I read an interview with Ken Norton and Norton said that Ali was a much stronger fighter than Holmes physically. Ali clearly had a better chin. I'm not sure how that would play into it, I don't really see Ali ever badly hurting Holmes or vice versa, but maybe if Ali can hurt Holmes a few times it can effect scoring in a close decision. Holmes had a stiffer jab, but overall their ability to use the jab was about even; Ali would be the best jabber Holmes ever met and vice versa... though Ali did meet Liston who had one of the great jabs in Heavyweight history. I think the difference would be that Ali was faster, especially in terms of leg speed, which homicide mentioned. I think in most other categories they're about even, they're pretty much exactly the same size in terms of height, reach and weight; but in the speed and toughness category Ali has it over Holmes. And I certainly don't think Holmes is smarter than Ali.

I tend to think Lennox Lewis would give Ali his closest fight, or at least it would be the fight I would be most interested in seeing, because Ali never really faced someone who was very tall and very good. I'm sure Ali would win, but that fight interests me... hell, I would be interested in seeing Holmes vs. Lewis as well. I think if you had an all time heavyweight champions tournament, Ali, Holmes and Lewis would come out in the top 3, probably in that order.

I don't think Holyfield would give Ali all that close a fight, or Holmes for that matter. Hell, 40+ year old Holmes gave Holyfield a somewhat competitive fight. Its funny watching Tyson-Holmes, thinking you're watching the end of one era and the beginning of a new, yet when you get to the 90's Holmes actually gives Holyfield a tougher fight than Tyson does.

Your basing your Holfyield vs Ali on skills most likely and that is a logical stand. But Holfyield IMHO always made dramatic things happen and had a fighting spirit about him that almost matched Ali's . And here is where I think the plot could thicken. So your take is more logical. However in boxing the most illogical things seem to happen due to chemistry, personality and spirit. Things that are seldom factored in during these discussions. These itemss always account for at a least one cent of every "two cents worth" that I offer up.

Holyfield is probably my second or third favorite all time Heavyweight behind Ali. But to me the crux of it is that, while Holyfield has heart, toughness, intelligence, spirit... Ali has those things too, probably more so. Plus more skill, as well as a size advantage. And that's forgetting how Ali's jab would play into it. I'm sure Holyfield would give Ali a great, tough fight, but I think Ali would have it over him in pretty much every facet of boxing. And Ali could do some illogical things too.

..henry and buzzy...you guys seem to want me to condense over fifty years of boxing information into a comment here on box rec....and at these rates (free) i'm not going to repeat stuff i've written for a few decades..for money. but...as summer wanes and my need to be outside does the same i'll do an entry shortly. you've served up a few gopher balls i can knock out of the park.

now....for this post....i don't have a problem with ezzard not being on the list in the sense that i have no doubt that ali would beat him....on size alone. but...if charles isn't at least worthy of discussion, then i can't see any way that jimmy braddock would even be here....and the same could almost be said of walcott...whom i think when he was really on his game was a good fighter...but if walcott is here so should ezzard be.

max baer..one of my favorite all time champs...for color and for ability when he turned it on...but charles would outpoint him with no problem.. a matter of styles and talent.

okay..that's it....i'm tired....i've had a busy day at a book sale. leave me alone and i'll get back when i feel like it.

okay..one more point...i was always aware of my bias toward ezzard and took that into consideration when i scored his fights. when a round was extremely close or could be called even i gave it to the other guy.

quiz...in which fight and against whom did ezzard suffer from an hugely swollen ear?

Jaclem wrote:..henry and buzzy...you guys seem to want me to condense over fifty years of boxing information into a comment here on box rec....and at these rates (free) i'm not going to repeat stuff i've written for a few decades..for money. but...as summer wanes and my need to be outside does the same i'll do an entry shortly. you've served up a few gopher balls i can knock out of the park.

now....for this post....i don't have a problem with ezzard not being on the list in the sense that i have no doubt that ali would beat him....on size alone. but...if charles isn't at least worthy of discussion, then i can't see any way that jimmy braddock would even be here....and the same could almost be said of walcott...whom i think when he was really on his game was a good fighter...but if walcott is here so should ezzard be.

max baer..one of my favorite all time champs...for color and for ability when he turned it on...but charles would outpoint him with no problem.. a matter of styles and talent.

okay..that's it....i'm tired....i've had a busy day at a book sale. leave me alone and i'll get back when i feel like it.

okay..one more point...i was always aware of my bias toward ezzard and took that into consideration when i scored his fights. when a round was extremely close or could be called even i gave it to the other guy.

quiz...in which fight and against whom did ezzard suffer from an hugely swollen ear?

Jaclem, I have seen a picture of this... but can't for the life of me think of the opponent. Did it turn cauliflower? I imagine not or I certainly would have noticed in pics. And Ezz seemed to retain his aesthetic appeal even into his later years. Did he live the olympian life that Moore did?

Jaclem wrote:quiz...in which fight and against whom did ezzard suffer from an hugely swollen ear?

1951-03-07 when beating Jersey Joe.

KOJOE90 wrote:

Jaclem wrote:quiz...in which fight and against whom did ezzard suffer from an hugely swollen ear?

1951-03-07 when beating Jersey Joe.

I went throught some pics post that fight and it may be only happenstance that all the pics I went through show Ezz from his Right side not showing his left ear. Did he have a "good side" for photos from that point? I swear I've looked at a dozen and they all happen to be from that vantage point. Just a Fluke I'm sure but it's an amusing coincidence if nothing else.

From what I can tell Ali seems to have admired Charles and Walcott. I remember watching something on ESPN Classic where it was an old show with Ali and Howard Cosell circa 1976, and Cosell showed Ali footage of all the previous Heavyweight champions and asked Ali what he thought of those champion and how he thought he would fair against them. And, besides Jack Johnson and Rocky Marciano, and to a lesser degree Joe Louis, the only champions Ali seemed to admire were Charles and Walcott. He said something along the lines that they were the first champions who he felt had great boxing skills, and boxing skills that he felt were comparable to his own.

[quote="HomicideHenry"]


Joe Louis on Muhammad Ali:

"There's really nobody out there to really give him a good fight...he don't
have to worry about making any mistakes, because he knows he can make a mistake
and get away with it."

quote]

Henry,

You stoop so low you make up fictional quotes to sell your product.

Joe Louis said repeatedly that the two Liston fights were fakes

that Ali was a powderpuff puncher

that he Louis would have beaten Ali with no trouble.

Here is a direct quote from Louis on Ali:

"He doesn't have what we call a hard punch. He doesn't have the punch to make him a fighter."

While you are at your sales pitch, Henry

TELL US ALL how Ali would have done against

DOUG JONES

JIMMY YOUNG

LEON SPINKS

HENRY COOPER

KEN NORTON

LOL

Here is a quote on Ali by Gene Tunney,

from a RING magazine interview shortly before Tunney's death:

"Clay is a mediocre fighter at best."

You're a retard.

I actually saw Ali vs. Jones again the other week... not even in the vicinity of a controversial decision. No competent boxing scorer could score the fight for Jones. You don't know boxing.

I Feel Fine wrote:You're a retard.

I actually saw Ali vs. Jones again the other week... not even in the vicinity of a controversial decision. No competent boxing scorer could score the fight for Jones. You don't know boxing.

Jack Dempsey (introduced in the ring before the Madison Square Garden fight)

said Jones won and the decision was a joke.

Gene Tunney (introduced in the ring before the Madison Square Garden fight)

said Jones won and the decision was a joke.

Harold Johnson said, "Doug Jones beat Clay."

But what do they know about boxing

compared the vast knowledge of ifeellikeafairy.

LOL

Jones beat the sh*t out of Clay

TWO FIGHTS before Clay was supposedly able to beat Liston.

granberry wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:You're a retard.

I actually saw Ali vs. Jones again the other week... not even in the vicinity of a controversial decision. No competent boxing scorer could score the fight for Jones. You don't know boxing.

Jack Dempsey (introduced in the ring before the Madison Square Garden fight)

said Jones won and the decision was a joke.

Gene Tunney (introduced in the ring before the Madison Square Garden fight)

said Jones won and the decision was a joke.

Harold Johnson said, "Doug Jones beat Clay."

But what do they know about boxing

compared the vast knowledge of ifeellikeafairy.

LOL

Jones beat the sh*t out of Clay

TWO FIGHTS before Clay was supposedly able to beat Liston.

The Louisville Lip was not popular with the "regulars" back then because of his brash manner. In fact you should be very grateful to Clay/Ali opening the door for such brashness...something you share with him.

Before that we were all filmed in black and white and watched our manners and used vitalis. And though you may use Vitalis you do seem somewhat colorful and you certainly are not the soft spoken and mannerly type. granberry you just don't persuede with your reasoning...it's all about sensibility and reasonability....you don't seem to be able to muster enough of it to be taken seriously. Though you have been right on many occasions.

Let's recap.... Jones lost that fight...but to elude Clay's prediction was all he needed for folks like you to say Jones won (or more importantly Clay lost.) So yes...Ali (then Clay), could not make good his boast so in your mind he lost.

You seem to have social/generational anger about this guy and what he represented rather than any real expressed plauseable rationale about how he was a bumbling fighter.

Now I'm not saying here that you've lost your mind....I'm just saying that in your mind Ali lost that fight with Doug Jones. They are not neccessarily the same thing.

Being a great fighter doesn't necessarily mean that you know how to score a fight. They were obviously influenced by the Garden crowd, which cheered wildly whenever Jones, the home town native New York fighter, would land even a jab. There was one instance where Clay landed four flush jabs and a right hand... Jones responded with only a glancing jab, and yet the crowd went nuts cheering for Jones; people who don't know how to score a fight might be influenced by that, especially when they don't like Ali. Jones really did not come close to winning the fight, Clay consistently out punched him throughout the fight, Jones did not throw or land enough punches, and Clay even stunned him a few times, contrary to your claims that Jones was never hurt in the fight. Jones didn't come close, and did not even approach winning 6 rounds. Giving him 4 rounds would be a bit generous. No competent official could give Jones the decision. He was the hometown fighter, an underdog who had the crowd support and did better than people expected against a fighter who people loved to boo, not much else.

You clearly don't know boxing if you don't think Liston was trying to win the first fight. I don't think fighters who throw fights throw and land bombs the way Liston did on Clay, work as hard as Liston did, and certainly don't try to blind their opponent and then pounce them in a last ditch effort to win the fight. It wasn't even that big a blowout, Liston did much better in the fight than some people give him credit for, he was much better than Tyson was against Douglas for example, or Baer against Braddock. Again, you're a moron, you don't know boxing or boxing history, you've probably never even seen these fights.

I disagree, I think granberry indeed knows very much about boxing, so much so I look forward to his contributions. However I think his quirks just completely obfiscate his ability to maintain rational balance when certain topics are mentioned.

Put a quarter in, mention topics A, B, or C and he becomes a one man entertainment megaplex of eclectic truth mixed with eccentric opinionated blathering.

But when those topics are not the issue....he reveals some pretty straight forward quality facts and insight. Some of which I have followed up and found to be substantiated by other sources that I highly respect.

So though sometimes it's a crapshoot, his offerings have been some of the more interesting stuff to arrive at this boxing portal over the past few years.

That may be true, but its hard to notice when he's BS'ing 90% of the time.

I in no way, shape or form made up a quote. During the 1967 NCR tournament Joe Louis said those exact words on Muhammad Ali, and he also said that "Oh he [Ali] can take a punch", but Louis through out the years also said that Ali couldn't punch and that the only man he ever knew who could hurt someone throwing a punch while going backwards was Robinson.*

And I agree with you Jaclem, it wasn't quite right of me to have Braddock and leave out Charles or even Johansson, but like I said before, I only did so for two reasons: I didn't quite have the time to have written a hypothetical on both men, and I been criticized in the past for not accurately portraying Johansson; and I didn't also want to sound biased or critical of Charles as a HW.

Boxbuzz, though I know my 'reputation' hasn't quite been kind to Ali, I always acknowledged he was a top two-three HW champion of all time, and that the majority of past champions and more recent champions wouldn't stand a chance against him. I do believe in ways he was over-rated, but like I said in the Marciano thread, Ali was far closer to his own 'myths' than The Rock was. He was simply the fastest, one of the toughest if not the toughest and had so many great attributes.

*Check out the radio broadcast of 'Ali-Jefferies' and Marciano, Sharkey, Louis and few others give their opinions on Ali, the Louis quote is there as clear as day.