Which 1970 s Heavyweight Is Far Too Overrated, IYO?

Floyd stayed in the gym all the time he was off and was likely on PEDs (the IV) which would help. Vitaly was also always looking to come back and probably never stopped training and probably helped himself to PEDs as well. Banned for them earlier. Ali never knew if he would actually come back and didn't train, and what happened to his abilities was exactly what for example Cus D'Amato had predicted.

You think he was hit a lot by Quarry, Ellis, Bugner, Chuvalo et al? Don't think you've watched them. By Frazier and Norton, yes. But watch Holmes, in his prime, against a worse version of Norton. 1973 Norton beats that Holmes imo. Frazier would be hell on earth for him. Especially if we're talking a Holmes that's a few years into his 30's. He faces 1973 Norton instead of Witherspoon...

But my question was if you think prime Holmes looked better than prime Ali. He used fundamentals beter yes, but I think even you can see that 60's Ali's athleticism is superior. Of course, each to their own who you think looks best, but the honest thing is to look at the best versions of each guy and that would be 60's Ali.

Holmes fundamentals might have helped him age so well, but I think it also helped that he had 17 fight Witherspoon, Bey, Williams and Spinks as his best opponents when he was slowing down, and never rematched Witherspoon and Williams after tight fights.. Had that instead been Frazier x 3, Norton x 3 plus Foreman; I don't think he'd be as good in his 40's.

 

Then that's on him especially for never learning proper fundamentals which cost him once his athletic ability started to decline

I rewatched the Quarry and Bonavena fights recently, while Quarry couldn't do much because of Alis length Bonavena landed some very good punches especially with his left hook and even had Ali hurt a few times not as flawless as you claim

I mean while it was a competitive fight I thought Holmes won pretty clearly 10-5 and Norton was still pretty good fighter when they fought. And noticeably Holmes did a lot better against Norton then Ali did who imo deserved to lose all 3 fights to Norton.

Put Holmes against Ali's competition in the 60s he would look just as good perhaps better. Plus Ali wasn't perfect in that era he got knocked down and hurt by Cooper and had a close fight against Doug Jones while his athletism is impressive I'll always prefer good boxing technique.

Perhaps that's part of it but you don't think Ali's lack of fundamentals caused him to take much more damage then he would have had he learnt proper fundamental which lead to his decline?

 

I would disagree when we're talking about someone who might be life time banned and facing jail. But whatever morals you put in it, the absence was due to different reasons, he didn't train and gobble PEDs and was never quite the same.

I didn't claim he was flawless against Bonavena. Quarry 2 was a damn near flawless performance, though.

You think Ali lost all the Norton fights? I'm almost beginning to think you don't like Ali.

Holmes-Norton was razor close to me and I think 1973 Norton would win it.

We can only speculate of course, but that wouldn't be my guess.

Fine, if you prefer Holmes style. But just as we don't compare 60's Ali to Holmes in the same age or to Holmes post Cooney, I don't think we should use 70's Ali when comparing to prime Holmes.

Yeah, there are fights - especially Frazier 1 and Norton 1 - where he would have taken less damage with a better guard. I think he did improve as he slowed down, though. In Frazier 3, I think his fundamentals were quite good.

Not that Holmes had perfect fundamentals either, tbf. He held his left low and was hit quite frequently with rights. Ageing Norton, Shavers, Weaver and Sipes all had success to different degrees. Had he had to face Liston, Frazier, Foreman and a younger Norton in a total of nine fights, I think he'd have a lot more rough spots, to put it mildly.

 

I don't know what happened, but Ali was the first of the 6-3, 210-15 pound ATHLETES in boxing. After Ali, by the 70s there were more, by the 80s it was common to be athletic and that size and many of them were bigger. Since then the heavyweights have continued to grow. I think most of them could be put into a time machine and moved into the 60s and they would have dominated like Ali and in some cases more. Just as an example, some of the 80s guys who had lifestyle issues, Thomas, Witherspoon, Page, Dokes, Cooney, etc., in the 60s competing against London, Patterson, Mildenberger, Folley, Williams, Cooper, Terrell, Chuvalo...they would all dominate the 60s and in Cooney's case, it'd be hard to watch that left hook against guys like Folley, London, Patterson...I can't imagine any of the 80s athletes having a problem with any of the 60s Ali title opponents.

For awhile in the 60s Ali was having growing pains like most fighters as he moved up the rankings, looking mortal against smaller men like Doug Jones and Cooper, then he is 30+ pounds heavier than he was in the Olympics in 1960, he is just as lean at 210 as he he had been at 178, and he is noticeably bigger, leaner, and stronger than the guy he beat for the title. Ali had been to the Olympics where he'd seen PED results and he had a doctor in his entourage who would have known about PEDs and their benefits. I have no idea if Ali used PEDs, but he sure had a good run against smaller, weaker men between about 64-67. Something Changed in boxing and for some reason, boxing never went back to the Folley, Patterson types after Ali was gone!

 

I apologise for miscommunicating. To be clear, I'm not saying Joe Frazier's a bum, I'm saying that the masses would be calling him a bum if he fought today and would use his lack of jab as an example to illustrate how unskilled today's heavyweights are.

To be clear again, I'm not saying Joe Frazier isn't skilled, I'm saying that's what people would be saying if he fought today.

 

Are you joking? In his prime, Holmes had to rely on his toughness far more than Ali who only really had to do so upon his return.

Watching both in their primes, it's clear as day Ali was the superior fighter. He was much faster and could run circles around his opponents unlike Holmes. For all this talk about Holmes impenetrable jab, guys like Weaver, Berbick, Snipes, and Shavers (granted he only had one moment but it was a big moment) all got past it, to have their moments.

That's why I find it downright comical when I see these "Oh Holmes would shut out Foreman, and Liston with his jab" when he couldn't do that to the mediocre opposition he faced except the limited Cobb.

As I stated, he wasn't like Ali who could effortlessly outbox and run circles around his opponents. He had to get in the trenches and wear his opponents out, which is where he relied on his extraordinary toughness which Ali didn't really have to do in his prime, and only really had to do so in the 70s.

 

Rudi Lubbers.

 

I mean guys like Weaver, Berbick, Snipes, and Shavers were way better then anyone Ali fought in the 60s people, Holmes against those guys Ali fought in the 60s would look just as good. You're also ignoring the difficulty Ali had with Cooper and Doug Jones neither of whom I would say were partically good. The difference is that once Ali's athleticism disappeared he looked awful once Holmes athleticism disappeared he was still able to be competitive with younger boxers even being able to beat some of them, why? Because Holmes has the fundamentals that Ali lacked.

 

I can't think any of them get too much love, Chap.

If anything, the leaning tends towards a counter-positioning on fighters from the era, downgrading them for some reason. (Perhaps to better suit blown-up perspectives on the more recent and current eras?)

 

Weaver, Berbick, SNIPES???!!!!!!, and Shavers were better than anyone Ali fought in the 60s? I'd take the '64 version of Liston that Ali fought, as well as Patterson to sweep these guys for once.

Berbick was unremarkable to say the least.

Weaver was 19-8 ffs.

Snipes.... lol

Shavers, was knocked out in a single round by Quarry, and lost to the 20-24 Bob Stallings. His power is a wildcard, and I see him beating the likes of Folley, a shot Williams, etc. I admittedly have no idea, what would happen if he fought Patterson, but I don't think he has the skills. More likely Patterson takes him out.

It's a misconception that all one needed was power to take out Patterson.

Ali was green against Cooper and Jones, and not in his prime. Same reason I didn't bring up Holmes struggle against Weaver.

And yes Holmes did better at an older age than Ali, but he also didn't have to partake in wars against the likes of Frazier, and Foreman that would've aged him tenfold.

 

That just seems like an excuse to downplay a fighters flaws but sure whatever

Sure but Quarry was small and had issues dealing with Ali's length I don't think that's too impressive of a win overall

i just scored Norton harder more effective punches more then Ali more pitter patter shots many of which Norton blocked but admittedly they were all close fights. The fact Ali could never figure out Norton does showcase his flaws.

What rounds did you give to Norton? I think the fact Holmes clearly beat Norton while Ali couldn't does show something though

I mean say what you will about 70s Ali all his best wins were in the 70s if you only looked at his 60s wins his resumé would not be nearly as good so it seems weird to me to not compare the Ali that got all his big wins.

Were they? Might have to rewatch that fight his inability to raise his right hand to block left hooks was something he seemed to never pick up on which always triggered me

That's perhaps true he def had his flaws as well but overall he seemed to have the fundamentals that Ali lacked

 

The Liston that Ali fought was not good he was old as hell by that point and injured as well. While I like Patterson and think he's a bit underrated and probably Alis best win during that time period he never showed the ability to fight bigger modern heavyweights and looked lost against Ali's size so idk how well he would have done against more modern sized heavyweights
He didn't have to because his fundamentals were much better so he didn't take as much damage as Ali did even when he got older and slowed down just compare their fights with Norton Ali could never figure out Norton style despite fighting him 3 times and imo never actually beating him while Holmes while fighting a competive fight with him still clearly beat him

 

I put this guy on block it's an obvious troll don't waste your time.

 

I’m not saying I agree with you. I think Ali had a better resume than anyone. And I think he’d have a found a way to win against anyone before he’d too badly.

But, I will say, if we want to be fair, Holmes missed his entire physical prime due to a late start. He hadn’t thrown a single punch in a fight by the time Ali had won gold in the Olympics, iirc, age for age. He only came into his boxing prime around age 29. Missed his entire physical prime, as I said.

mind you, I don’t think he, or anyone, could have taken out pre-exile Ali. I don’t think his resume compares, at all. I don’t think he was as good. But just saying, it’s more fair to compare his best to the best of 70s Ali.

 

This is such a strange debate. What is there to excuse? He was banned from boxing and it wasn't a limited ban, and he was facing jail time. So he made a living touring around colleges and didn't live the life of a pro athlete because he wasn't one and didn't know that he would ever be one again. So what the **** are you on about? This gets ever more bizarre.

But he wasn't the same afterwards in any case, and that's what matters in this context.

You seem obsessed with "small". Quarry beat Lyle and took Shavers out in one round. The same Shavers that went 23 rounds over two fights with Holmes and who nearly took his head off.

Foreman has often said he ducked him. Norton got that shot instead and you can see why.

And that a worse version of Norton took prime Holmes to the brink, what does that say?

Ali's best wins were arguably the Liston ones. Unlike Frazier and Foreman, Liston's greatness doesn't in any way rest on Ali - quite the opposite.

Your whole argument rests on that these wins weren't really what they seemed. But anyone who takes an unbiased look at the footage of the fight know what they see there. And that was pre peak Ali. That's why Ali is ranked so highly here.

Ali did that better in Manilla, but, yes, Holmes showed the more consistent fundamentals, even though he also had his flaw. No one is arguing that.

Most think that Ali's edge in athleticism outweighs this if you look at prime for prime. And this is because Ali made good to great fighters look bad. Holmes had some of that, but not to the same degree according to most of us.

You can always debate that, but what really isn't debatable is that Ali beat better fighters both in his prime and after it.