Who do you rate higher Ali or Holmes?

There is one important thing - Ali had bigger names on his CV. He fought bigger fights, had more famous rivals. Much more famous, but that doesn't mean much better. In my opinion, it's an exaggeration to say that they weren't close. It's just that Ali's career was going better and he was more lucky and had more charisma. In terms of sports, they are comparable. Prime vs prime I would have a big dilemma. Ali's achievements are better, I don't know if he was a better boxer.

 

Ali ,but there isn't as big a gap as some believe.

 

Ali was right at his peak too.

 

Certainly not on a historical all time great list. In my opinion Muhammad is number one and Larry number three with only a 'Brown Bomber' separating them.

 

Ali at his peak in 1978?

 

Sarcasm.

 

Sorry. Normally I'd have picked up on that straight away but I'd only just got up at the time I'd read it.

 

All good Stevie.

 

Talent is subjective. Resume really isn't. Ali beat two consensus top ten heavyweights atgs and one bubble top ten heavyweights atg. He also beat six members of the International Boxing Hall Of Fame

 

Quite possible.

That considered, Larry is my favorite fighter and even I rank Joe Louis and Ali above him. What those fighters did stands highest imo.

Holmes fought the best of his day 1978 to 1982. I agree, guys like Norton and Weaver deserved rematches. But I don't think he missed anybody during that time; Page for instance got beat by Berbick, and Berbick got owned by Holmes (I realize this isn't an entirely sound way of estimating things).

Yes, he seemed to be ducking and padding his record a bit from 83 on, but he still beat more than legitimate contenders during that time (including a pretty impressive stoppage of David Bey, who had also already beaten Page). Witherspoon and Smith became champions not too long after. Larry was even able to stop Smith, something Tyson couldn't do in 12 rounds.

I would have loved seeing him fight Pinklon Thomas and rematched Weaver (around 1980 would have been amazing). But he held the title seven years and defended it 20 times. Hard to minimize that imo.

 

What? Holmes didn't overlook Spinks? I think he took Witherspoon and Williams lightly too.

Ali might have been even more lacking in dedication during his second reign than Holmes was during the second half of his, but Ali came from beating Liston and Foreman, Holmes from beating Norton and Cooney.

 

I don't see this. A somewhat past his best Ali (though in great shape) did about as well against what could well be the very version of Norton as a prime Holmes did against an ageing version who (according to himself) also had lost some of his drive and dedication.

An even apart from that fight, Holmes was badly hurt by Shavers, Weaver and Snipes in his prime, while top contenders like Patterson and Terrell could hardly lay a hand on Ali at his best.

In short, I think Holmes was less of a standout against his competition at his best, apart from also not having wins over the likes of Liston, Frazier and Foreman. So I don't really see the argument that he was as good as Ali, but just never got to prove it.

 

And Frazier 2 out of 3.

 

If you were 6'3", with fast hands, an 81" reach, and a great jab, how would YOU fight? Dance on the outside popping the other guy with your jab as much as possible? Seems the logical best way to maximize that set of strengths.

That's a better use of those strengths than how he was forced to fight once he got old -- be more stationary, use the jab to try to keep the other guy away, then exchange at mid-range when he closed. He didn't fight like that when young because he was still light on his feet then.

 

Why?