Ali from 1965 to 1974 beat any version of Holmes from a wide UD ( Ali from 65 to 71) to a split Dec win from (72 to 74) Ali probably would beat Holmes in 1975 on personality alone. It is what it is. Holmes may have had a better jab than Ali ( very debatable) but power, speed, skills, mobility, and competition faced all are in Ali's corner. There's a reason Holmes was always seen as a Ali imitation. It's because he was. I like Holmes, definitely not a hater, but he wasnt on Ali's level. On competition faced alone Ali should be rated over Holmes.
I really can't see the Zaire or Manila Ali beating the 1980 Holmes. Larry by that time was gaining ring IQ at an alarming rate. I think that Ali would make a great fight, but ultimately Larry's left would land way too much for him. No way Holmes falls for the rope a dope for long, if at all. I see Ali making it the 15 and winning 6 or possibly 7 rounds. He did have a susceptibility to the left hand, it plagued him for so many of his peak years. Holmes was the left hand man. Ali would be very swoll up at the end. Just my opinion. Any time after Shavers Ali gets stopped late.
Holmes had a spiteful, punishing right hand, too. He was mean. Unlike Ali, he didn't play around. He was all business.
Seriously, is this a joke thread? Holmes' best win was a Norton. A better version of Norton was Ali's sixth best at best... Foreman Frazier Frazier Liston Liston Norton You can even make an argument for... Foreman Frazier Frazier Liston Liston Patterson Patterson Norton I mean, really...Holmes' record was not in the same ballpark.
A) You've just said that you can see prime Ali beating prime Holmes...what does it matter what post exile Ali can do? B) All h2h is hypothetical. What matters is how a fighter bosses the era he was in.
I have Foreman and Louis above Ali. But no for Holmes. If you take the records of Holmes title opponents at face value he has the toughest SOS in HW history but most people don't take it at face value nor should they. Also people chalk up Ali losses to Spinks, Holmes and Berbick to age. While Holmes success into his 40s washes away whatever asterisk would have been hanging over the Tyson and Spinks fights.
How can Foreman be above Ali when Ali beat him in his prime, not to mention Foreman doesn't even come close to Ali in regards to wins over ranked opposition or the amount of title wins. As for Ali's age it wasn't just his age his health was deteriorating from early stages of Parkinson's, the man had been in wars and been fighting top opposition for like 16 years. Holmes doesn't even close to level of opposition Ali was fighting throughout his career.
I disagree the Ali who beat Norton in their 2nd fight clearly beats Holmes no way Holmes is dealing with that constant movement. Frigging Witherspoon doing his bad Ali impression had Holmes baffled just imagine Ali in the same position.
I think that was a fluke and Foremans and Foremans dominance over Norton and Frazier preempts the need to have a longer resume. I agree that Alis competition was much better. I'm just saying in terms of pure wins and losses Holmes title SOS was the best. That does not mean it actually was the best but he had 12 title fights against undefeated fighters.
How can it be a fluke ? Ali was a bit past his prime Foreman was in his prime. Foreman was well beaten physically and mentally by the better fighter end of. As for Norton/Frazier all that means is that styles make fights the ABC criteria doesn't work in boxing, just because Foreman had an easier time vs Norton/Frazier doesn't mean he automatically beats Ali. Wladimir had more wins against undefeated opposition I believe you'd have to double check though, but I don't think that's automatically a good criteria for being better just because you're undefeated. For one alot of Holmes's undefeated opponents like Williams, Witherspoon, were green at the time with not many professional fights.