Larry Holmes Had Better Fundamentals Than Ali

This content is protected

 

In training camp with Ali for the Foreman fight, Larry Holmes noted that Ali walked around with a permanent hard on. I guess that means everything was fundamentally sound in that regard.

Tbh, I don't think Ali lacked fundamentals to the degree that has often been claimed. Certainly, perhaps in more eye-catching fashion, he infused a great deal of natural athleticism, speed and reflex into this game - but there were quite a few things that Ali still did by the book. He had a great jab but, imo, he wasn't as singularly reliant on the jab as Holmes was - I think Ali utilized a greater variety of punches that he worked very nicely off his jab.

 

"Honest effort and sterling character backed by solid instruction will carry a man a good way, but unearned natural ability has a lot to be said for it."

-A.J. Liebling

I'm certain Muhammad Ali couldn't have whupped Michael Moorer when he was 45 but it didn't help George Foreman when he was in the ring with him at 24.

 

I don't think anyone would deny that Holmes was far more fundamentally advanced than Ali, but asking the question would Ali have beaten Mercer at age 42 (even without parks) doesn't really prove much. A fighter that can carry on and have success into their 40s is an anomaly, it has far less to do with their skill set.

 

They could've found Ali's jab superior even if Ali had generally declined as a whole. They're absolutely not mutually exclusive.

Also Holmes struggled far more with Norton than Ali did in their second bout imo.

 

Fundamentals for a fighter are correct foot movement, keeping the feet under them while moving/punching, not lunging, bending the knees to change levels, keeping the elbows in, shifting weight to the correct foot when punching, keeping the chin down, turning the shoulders when punching to protect the chin, etc. I don't think Ali or Holmes lacked fundamentals, both might have been "unconventional" in their style at times, but I don't remember seeing either of them doing something fundamentally wrong. Fundamentally, almost any coach or trainer would be happy to have a fighter with the fundamentals of Ali or Holmes. Most coaches/trainers would not be happy to have a fighter who tried to use the "style" of either Ali or Holmes if they lacked the physical talent to make it work. Nobody would want a 5'9" heavyweight with short arms who fought from the outside with his hands low and depended on his jab, even if he had great fundamentals. Fundamentals are universal, style is individual.

 

Muhammad Ali relied more on his incredible athleticism, footwork, speed. Holmes was a more of a technical fighter i mean that's plainly obvious.

But that doesn't mean Muhammad Ali wasn't just as effective in his own way, despite Holmes being the more technical fighter. He probably would've done worse vs the likes of Frazier, Liston, Foreman, etc.

 

100% agree

 

Well Ali had much stronger opposition to deal with than Holmes, and was in many more harder fights than Holmes.

Holmes after 47 fights 48 fights and 49 fights was getting gift vs novice Carl Williams, and lost back to back fights vs Light Heavyweight Michael Spinks.

Muhammad Ali was beating the likes of George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Ron Lyle, Ken Norton, with a similar amount of fights.

Could the same version of Holmes who struggled vs Williams and lost to Spinks beat the likes of Lyle ? Norton ? Frazier ? Foreman ? my guess would be no.

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant in the sense that fighters tend to give more credit to fighters they've beaten and/or done better against. For example, before I knew the answer, I knew Larry Holmes would always say Shavers hit harder than Tyson. He may have done, but knowing what a whiner Larry is and how much he hated giving credit to anyone that beat him, I knew the answer beforehand. Evander was never going to say Bowe hit him the hardest either, as he KO'd him. Archie Moore spoke about his toughest opponents an interview in the 1970s, do you really think he gave a mention to Ezzard Charles? Take a guess.

Most fighters like to say the best guy they ever fought was a guy they beat, it's their ego at work. Unless you take fighters words as gospel every time out. Do you?

How much do you think Ali won that fight by? It's very close.

 

Speed, Intelligence, heart, chin, unbreakable will and psychological warfare. As you said he is the greatest not for his flawless ability but for his unrivalled ability to rise to the occasion and overcome challenges

 

Holmes was superior technically

 

Ali leaned on athleticism and raw talent to use his style, it was built for him, the way he threw his punches, his reach, etc etc..

Larry had gone pro in 1973, 13 years after Ali went pro, the potential development Larry could grow was much more then Ali had at the time in 1960, Ali never had a sparring partner early in his career as Holmes did with Muhammad.

Regardless, most heavyweights have "better fundamentals" than Ali, you could argue Sonny Liston clears Ali in that section. Ali's style did not rely on fundamentals.