Who do you rate higher Ali or Holmes?

IMHO the version of Ali from the time he first won the HW title in 1964 through 1972 defeats late 70's early 80's Holmes pretty decisively. From 1973-1975 it's a lot closer but Ali still wins based on his great chin and ring savvy. Beyond 1975 Holmes wins.

 

This content is protected

Ali beat him in every way you could imagine.

 

I mean if they fight 10 times Foreman probably wins 8 times. The fact Foreman had absolutley nothing for Ali is why it is a fluke. That was not Foremans best. Off nights happen. One is not obligated to consider a fighter better off a 1 fight H2H. The reason Ali beating Foreman is his greatest acheivement is he shouldn't have been able to do it.

I was counting losses but either way Holmes has more 12 to 10 for title opponents and 9 to 8 for title wins. My feelings on the criteria of undefeated or x loss opponents is complicated. On one hand everyone pursuing a padded record has made it meaningless on the other hand I greatly prefer it to rankings especially in the context of comparing opponents from the same era.

 

I don't even think Holmes (realistically) would rank himself higher than Ali.

The only HW imo that you could possibly rank higher than Ali (greater not better) is Joe Louis. I do think Lennox would be hell for Ali, but he's not greater".

 

Originally I ranked Ali higher

I used to rank Holmes higher but now rank Ali higher. I think Alis peak and big wins gives him the edge.

Those are 1 and 2 for me

 

So you think just because Foreman was beaten convincingly it must be a fluke? Then you must think Foreman's win over a slow and overweight Frazier was a fluke too?

 

Some of the most baffling logic I've ever seen on here.

 

Holmes considers himself the GOAT at heavyweight.

 

I'm not understanding your logic at all TBH.

Your first comment was that you rated Foreman higher than Ali, when infact a past his prime Ali beat a prime Foreman. And also swamps Foreman in achievements and wins over ranked opposition so your logic for rating Foreman over Ali is a bit baffling TBH.

Then your saying Ali's win over Foreman was a fluke ? when Ali convincingly beat a prime Foreman whilst being past his best ? again that also makes no sense why would it be a fluke ? Ali is simply a better fighter than Foreman. I don't think many people would pick Foreman over a prime Ali on H2H basis when a past his prime Ali beat him.

As for the undefeated records again it's all about context, beating an undefeated fighter is never a bad thing obviously. But you also have to take into account especially in Holmes's case that the likes of Witherspoon, Bey, Williams, were relative novices with only handful of fights at the time.

And in some cases you get undefeated records which are heavily padded with no real world class fighters on the resume.

Again it's all down to your criteria i suppose but honestly i don't see any argument for Foreman or Holmes being rated above Ali.

 

He had just destroyed Joe Frazier and Ken Norton.

This content is protected

This content is protected

Ali was smarter, tougher, braver, and faster. He beat Foreman in every way a boxer can beat another boxer.

 

Holmes can consider himself whatever he wants. He is entitled to his opinion but it doesn't mean he really is.

Actually, I also consider myself the GOAT HW, way better than Ali, Lous and Holmes all put together, and I am sticking to that.

 

I’ve seen Holmes make more outlandish claims than this about himself & other fighters, frankly.

He is as classless an individual as any law-abiding citizen can possibly be.

 

Muhammad Ali beat four Olympic Gold Medalists from the 1956 to the 1976 Olympics which shows the breadth of his career, two consensus top ten heavyweight all-time greats and one bubble top ten all-time great. He beat six members of the International Boxing Hall of Fame.