Prime Holyfield vs Prime Muhammad Ali

That may be true. Nobody really gave Ali a tough fight after he won the title and matured physically. He toyed with most of them.

 

Agreed. Just think some people are overlooking Holyfield. He has a real chance here. I'm 55:45/60:40 in favour of Ali.

 

How do you see Holyfield winning? He was a fine fighter but I don't see the styles here meshing in his favor. Ali's jab was such a dominating weapon against boxers, Evander a good boxer/brawler but he couldnt close distance like a Frazier did or have an airtight defense like Ken Norton.
Evander could win a few rounds if Ali comes off his toes to rest.

 

Holyfield couldn't close distance? Like a coiled spring

This content is protected

 

I see this as a contest between two primes of Ali vs Holyfield. I am agreeing with the premise that Ali was not necessarily lesser in the 70s once he had hit his straps. He was just different but the sum of all his parts still amounted to the same.

Prime 1: 60s Ali. On his toes firing jabs and straight rights, I think there is a risk to Evander that he is made to look a bit pedestrian. He is an 8/10 boxer in all aspects whereas 60s Ali had a few areas - inside fighting, body punching - where he measured low.

But in movement and jab he is a big 10 and that was enough to get him through everyone else. It would be enough to get him past Evander too who had neither the raw speed and aggression of a young Tyson or Frazier nor the game-changing, devastating power of a Foreman or Louis to potentially derail this version of Ali.

Prime 2: 70s Ali who was stronger, hit harder possibly and had greater endurance also had lower output and rested on the ropes. That Ali is well within Holy's grasp. If he tries to rope a dope Evander, Holy would just chalk up the rounds jabbing and hooking to the body. The strength and endurance Ali had gained wouldn't be a factor, as it was in defeating Foreman, as Holy was never going to knock him out. Instead, Ali would suffer for what he had lost in this fight, that loss of speed and output being decisive against Evander where it was less so against Foreman, who Ali was still quicker than. Ali, with the resources available in his second prime, drew on the greater strength he had acquired instead.

In some fights, because of styles, the pros for a 70s prime Ali would outweigh the cons; in others, what he had lost would be more significant than what he had gained. With Evander, I think it might well be a case of the latter.

 

He debuted on this forum by claiming Holy has a better resume than Ali... Not the strongest debut you could think of.

 

Keeping up step by step with Ali's movement (Holyfield had excellent footwork), using his underrated double jab, applying educated pressure (which he could do when he chose to), outworking Ali, forcing him to fight on the inside, being the aggressor & making Ali fight 3 mins of every round.

 

Exactly. Holyfield had excellent footwork. These posters seem to have forgot.

 

Excuse me? he couldn't do that consistently against an ancient Larry Holmes and you think he'd do that to a 27 year old Muhammed Ali? That's quite an opinion ya got there , don't drop it as it will shatter against reality.

 

I think these tactics could work effectively with Holyfield's tools against the 70s version of Muhammad Ali. He didn't sustain his movement as consistently. Evander would have more opportunities at midrange. Ali may only be slightly favored in his early, mid 70s form.

In his prime Ali had the quickest jab in heavyweight history and his punches flowed off his movement. Without a strong defense against the jab It's gonna be a hurdle. Norton was able to outjab Ali because he could nullify Muhammad's jab then jab with him.
Frazier was able to cut the ring and get under some of Ali's punches but he took alot on the way in. A standup fighter like Holyfield probably not.
Ali is bigger and faster, the better pure boxer.

 

Evander was a fine fighter. If Ali enters the ring at 246lbs asking for directions to the bank he could probably wins a decision.

Ali in top form at 212-215lbs would make Holyfield look slow.

 

Very true. I'd pick Holyfield to beat 70s Ali in a close fight.

Holyfield could cover up well, roll & slip punches. His defence was good & he was effective when he decided to use it. He'd have to do this to beat Ali.

I agree with the last two being an advantage but not the first one. Prime Ali was on average 212-215. Prime Holyfield was 205. That's the same as Frazier was for FOTC. That's no big size advantage. Even the speed (to some degree) isn't as prevalent as you think. Holyfield had quick hands & feet, & would be the quickest opponent Ali faced (before you say it - Patterson had a bad back & couldn't perform well so no, that version of Patterson wasn't faster than Holyfield).

 

How many times do I have to say it. Holmes & Ali didn't have the same style. It was similar, but there are some key differences. Ali was primarily a stick & mover, but no so good on the inside. Holmes could stick & move, but could sit-down & fight in the pocket when he needed to. He was better at blocking & picking off shots also. Old Holmes used this method a lot, & he did that in his fight with Holyfield, while also laying on the ropes to counter - as he couldn't sustain moving around the ring. Plus, Old Holmes would destroy most of Ali's 60s opposition.

 

Watch the combos Ali hit Liston with, Zora Folley, Williams. Ali rarely fought on the inside then because no one could get there, and Ali NEVER blocked or parried shots because he didn't have to! He was so quick and fast it was hard to lay a glove on him. That version of Holmes couldn't beat Patterson, Chuvalo or Bonavena. He most certainly wasn't better at 42 than he was at 35 when he lost to Spinks