Would Holmes have beaten prime Ali?

[Rocky Balboa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLHZj6E1t4I

At 08:44 of the video Larry says he feels he would have beaten a peak Ali.

I tend to agree with that. No doubt Holmes had the tools to do it! Holmes was one of the best HW's ever. Looking back, I find it amazing how he was greatly underestimated & not given his due.

What do you guys think?

[Ezzard]

It's possible for the reasons Buzz has given in previous debates. Ali took Liston's jab away with his own (if you don't think they were fixes) could he do it to Holmes?

Holmes was much more up on his toes as a younger man, not as quick as Ali though... This fight would go the distance and would be a battle of jabs.

Holmes generally more susceptible to right hands though (which Ali could deliver) whereas Ali was more susceptible to left hooks (not Larry's speciality punch).

It's always a close fight.

[DaveV17]

edit

[bennie]

Beat Ali in the sixties? No.

[bennie]

Beat Ali in the sixties? No.

You mean mythical fight? If Jones can tag Clay repeatedly with the right why not Holmes?

I thought it was a prime Ali vs a prime Holmes. Clay was still learning against Jones and we never did see him at his very best. But the Ali of 1966-'67 was too good for the 1980 version of Holmes. In fact, I've never seen Holmes rated above Ali in an all-time list.

[bennie]

The two famously sparred as part of Ali's preparation for The Rumble in the Jungle. Holmes was still on the way up and everyone could see he was going to be a great fighter. He gave Ali quality sparring.
But Ali in the sixties was pretty special. He made nine defences in the blink of an eye. That's his prime for me.

[observer1]

Ali Wins..

[HomicideHenry]

Outside of Ali's speed, in my honest humble opinion, Larry Holmes did everything that Ali did better. He had it down better. I think it would be a close but clear cut decision for Holmes. Ali's mind games and tactics wouldn't have phased Holmes, who was at one time Ali's sparring partner.

Holmes wins the fight.

[pundit]

Probably not.

[elmersalsa]

I think Larry had the tools to beat him...It is a toss up for me...Any one tof the 2 could win this one.

[I Feel Fine]

People overrate Holmes' abilities very badly. Basically you had two guys who did similar things, but one guy was doing it against Liston and Frazier and one guy was doing it against Leroy Jones and Tex Cobb, and so people assume Holmes must have therefore been a better technical fighter because he was hit less. He was hit less because he was fighting scrubs, and when he did fight decent fighters he got hit a lot.

Holmes was open for the right hand, didn't have Ali's chin or physical strength, wasn't as fast as Ali, could not throw combinations as Ali could, had almost no left hook, didn't keep his hands all that much higher; it goes on and on. Ali in his prime beats Holmes in his prime.

[BoxBuzz]

granberry doesn't care for either of these fighters....so I'm having a hard time imagining if it really even matters.

[I Feel Fine]

Beat Ali in the sixties? No.

You mean mythical fight? If Jones can tag Clay repeatedly with the right why not Holmes?

So you're saying that you haven't seen Holmes-Weaver? Holmes was Heavyweight champion in that fight, while Clay was 21 years old with 17 pro fights going into the match with Jones. If Weaver, along with other title challengers, could hit Holmes with the right, then I think Ali could. I would also say, looking at their careers as a whole, that Holmes was more open for the right hand than Ali was.

What exactly is the claim here, anyway? That Clay/Ali never improved after 1963? I mentioned in the other thread that I agreed with granberry that Cooper hit Ali a lot in the first fight, along with the knock down. And yet he never touched him in the rematch. I think that's a small but sufficient example of Ali's development. I'm quite sure that Holmes was not a world beater at 21, but he did not have the spotlight on him at that age as Clay had, the reason being that Clay was a gold medal winner while Holmes as an amateur had lost to Duane Bobick.

[BoxBuzz]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLHZj6E1t4I

At 08:44 of the video Larry says he feels he would have beaten a peak Ali.

I tend to agree with that. No doubt Holmes had the tools to do it! Holmes was one of the best HW's ever. Looking back, I find it amazing how he was greatly underestimated & not given his due.

What do you guys think?

That's a great clip by the way.

[I Feel Fine]

I tend to agree with that. No doubt Holmes had the tools to do it! Holmes was one of the best HW's ever. Looking back, I find it amazing how he was greatly underestimated & not given his due.

How many of Holmes' fights have you seen? Particularly title fights?

[DaveV17]

edit

[I Feel Fine]

I didn't compare Ali and Weaver's power. You suggested that Ali was open to the right hand, and I was pointing out that Holmes had his own fights where he was hit by that punch more than once, and my contention is that Holmes was as much open for a right hand as Ali was, if not more so.

I think Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier, George Foreman and Ron Lyle will disagree with you about Ali having nothing behind his right hand. Ali wasn't a huge puncher, but neither was Holmes. I don't see Holmes landing the right on Ali any more than Ali would be landing it on Holmes, and I certainly don't see the weaker chinned Holmes hurting Ali with a right any sooner than Ali would be hurting Holmes with one. I think one guy getting badly hurt in this fight is rather unlikely.

As for Holmes' "superior" fundamentals, I would say that they weren't particularly better. Holmes made many of the same mistakes that Ali did but Holmes fought opposition who could not make him pay for it. Holes was fighting mostly tomato cans while Ali was in the deepest era that the division has seen. When Holmes did fight a decent fighter like Norton or Witherspoon he got hit plenty and arguably could have lost both fights. I think the problem is that everyone has seen or heard of Clay-Cooper or Ali-Frazier, but not as many fans, particularly younger fans, have seen or have heard of fights like Holmes-Snipes.

[Diamond WEAPON]

Ali-Holmes would be kinda like Jones-Hopkins but a little closer. Ali beats him, too fast and too good. Holmes NEVER beat anyone of Ali's caliber or even anyone as good as Ali's best opposition (Frazier and Foreman specifically).

[BoxBuzz]

Ali-Holmes would be kinda like Jones-Hopkins but a little closer. Ali beats him, too fast and too good. Holmes NEVER beat anyone of Ali's caliber or even anyone as good as Ali's best opposition (Frazier and Foreman specifically).

You could argue that a prime Holmes did just about as well as an aging Ali vs Norton. He didn't dominate Norton and some thought Norton won. So that may be a bit of an indicator.

[DaveV17]

edit

[I Feel Fine]

Ali-Norton II was no closer than Holmes-Norton.

As for their performances, Holmes was in his 20's, Ali was 31 and 34 fighting Norton at his best, while Norton has said that his interest in boxing had waned by the time he fought Holmes. I've said this before, but if a 31 and 34 year old Holmes had fought a prime Norton he wouldn't have done any better than Ali did in the Norton rematches, while Ali in his 20's would have done a little better against Norton. I've heard the torn bicep tale, I won't say that its untrue, but I will say that it didn't seem to have had any effect on Holmes' punching, whether with the right or left arm (not sure which arm it supposedly was). Again, I won't say that its untrue, but I wonder if there is any medical proof of it? Ali also had an injury in the Norton rematch.

[BoxBuzz]

Ali-Norton II was no closer than Holmes-Norton.

As for their performances, Holmes was in his 20's, Ali was 31 and 34 fighting Norton at his best, while Norton has said that his interest in boxing had waned by the time he fought Holmes. I've said this before, but if a 31 and 34 year old Holmes had fought a prime Norton he wouldn't have done any better than Ali did in the Norton rematches, while Ali in his 20's would have done a little better against Norton. I've heard the torn bicep tale, I won't say that its untrue, but I will say that it didn't seem to have had any effect on Holmes' punching, whether with the right or left arm (not sure which arm it supposedly was). Again, I won't say that its untrue, but I wonder if there is any medical proof of it? Ali also had an injury in the Norton rematch.

Anyway you slice it all these fights were close, Shows that Norton was a perfect foil against either of these great champions. He knew how to handle the great jabber....a hell of a quality. Funny no one including me says that Norton was an all time great. But what these fights may show is that Norton had a great style against top boxers with a good jab. Certainly Ali in his prime would have done better than Holmes did against Norton. At least that makes some sense to me. The difference here would be the increased speed Ali would bring during his best years.

[squiggy]

My feeling is there are too many factors involved for this kind of conversation to ever really be fruitful. Fighters really aren't the same from fight to fight, even during their prime. They train more or less, one of a million little things goes wrong or goes right (i.e. they happen to be the one able to buy a little extra time by spitting out their mouthpiece while the other guy happens to get caught out on his feet instead of falling down, etc. etc.)
Also anybody can come out flat in any given fight, or anybody could theoretically come out and surpass everything they've ever done before--or they can both happen at once, as in Douglas-Tyson.
I know this stuff is the bread and butter of a lot of boxing conversations, but to me it's like playing "What if the Mississippi flowed north?" Who the hell knows what might have happened?

[Goodnight, Irene]

If you put Holmes in the ring ten times over --- maybe just five times over --- with every great Heavyweight in history, he's coming away with at least one win, in many cases more, Ali included.

If I had to bet, my money would be on Ali. He was flat-out the better ring general, & he was better at getting opponents to do what he wanted them to in the ring. I can see him making Holmes lead, if only in spurts, & in this type of fight, the man who leads most often, loses. Interesting point --- neither man appreciates someone who can jab with them, & if anything, Holmes has the edge here. He's the better technical boxer, makes fewer mistakes, but gives up a good bit of speed across the board, & in this boxer-meets-boxer clash, reflexes are going to be critical.

This would be close, & somewhat boring. I can't see either man dominating, each is just too good. I've got it on the order of 8-6-1 Ali, in three out of five fights.

[I Feel Fine]

Is there any indication that I would read your thoughts on Ali-Cooper on another thread? No, I saw this one and posted my opinion.

I don't know or particularly care what you read. I was mentioning that it was an example that had recently come up. I think the Cooper fight in '63 vs. the Cooper fight in '66 example stands, that while Ali may have always had the flaws that he had in the Jones and first Cooper fights, that he did improve and that those flaws were not as easy to exploit in later fights. Clay, at times, had trouble avoiding Cooper's punches in the first fight and was knocked down; but the second fight, on the other hand, could not have been any easier for him. Its just that simple; Ali did not stop growing as a fighter in 1963. What was true in '63 was not in 1966.

And I love how you point to Holmes' age and lack of training for the Williams fight and yet dismiss that those factors meant anything with the very young and very over confident Clay. If we can say that Ali was always as easy to hit as he was in '63 (which he was not), then perhaps we can say that Holmes was always capable of being timed with a jab, and that Williams was simply the first fighter that he met with a particularly good one. Or, we could focus on their respective primes.

These discussions often focus on Ali's so-called flaws, which for a fighter with his speed really are not as important as they would be for other fighters, but what gets lost is that Holmes was not all that much better. His hands were often held low, he often stood straight up, he didn't throw that many more body shots, we've talked ad nauseam about how Holmes was open for a right hand, and there were even some later fights where Holmes sinfully laid on the ropes more often. While I do think that there is at least some truth to the claim that Holmes was better in terms of the fundamentals, I think the real difference is one of perceptions because Ali was facing better fighters who could make those "flaws" more visible than Holmes' opponents could with Larry. If you put Larry in Ali's era then Larry will face better fighters who will be more capable of exposing Larry's flaws and making them more visible, while if Ali is fighting Jones, Le Doux, Cooney, Cobb, Rodriguez, Bey, M. Frazier with only some occasional decent fighters mixed in, then his flaws will be less obvious. Larry will get hit more, Ali will get hit less. Larry will get tested more and his flaws will be there for his opponents to exploit, while Ali will be tested less and his "flaws" will rarely be taken advantage of by the fighters of the weak division of the late 70's and 80's. Ali didn't get the same free ride in his era that Holmes did in his own, and so Holmes' weaknesses were less evident. While it has become fashionable to say that Holmes' fundamentals were much better than Ali's, I think that the difference was not as great as some would think.

Ditto Holmes' jab. Some might say that Holmes' jab offsets Ali's speed, I might say that Ali's jab and speed and superior mobility offset Holmes' gameplan. I think Holmes' jab was consistently stiffer than Ali's jab, but I don't agree with this other fashionable notion that Holmes was a more effective jabber. I would say that they were about equally good at using the jab, and even that might be generous to Holmes. It's funny, there was even one point in their rather unfortunate fight where Ali was landing some jabs on Holmes... not that that likely means anything, but it was an interesting site to see Holmes taking jabs from a dead man, at least for a couple of minutes.

Does Larry have the tools to possibly beat Ali? Sure, and vice versa. I would not favor Holmes, however, at least not in a series of fights.