Because when Holmes peaked in 1982, he had Eddie Futch instead of Ritchie Giachetti as his chief strategist, and Futch knew how to beat Ali. Larry had the jab necessary to throw Ali off his rhythm, and Holmes was known to go to the body when the openings were there, as they would have been with Muhammad. Holmes was bigger, stronger and more durable than Folley, who had some success with a peak Ali in the opening three rounds. Larry would need a virtually flawless sustained performance to pull the upset, but that wouldn't have been completely impossible. (Having said that, it must also be acknowledged that we never saw how good Ali might have become in 1968, 1969 and early 1970.)
Could Povetkin beat Ali with Futch in his corner? Yes, because Ali has a long record of struggling with good jabs, like Sonny Liston? Ali would have slipped Holmes' jab all night.
Yeah. I don't see how that contradicts what I said earlier. I thought Ali won that fight handily, even if he looked awkward at times.
Yes, hence my post. Having a strategist in your corner makes no difference when there is a clear gulf in class and no telling stylistic edge, e.g. with Holmes and Ali.
I agree with you that Ali would have beaten Holmes. I would favour any version of Muhammad in between 1964-74 over a prime Holmes,but Larry would still have been a tough opponent for him.
Very true :good The Ali of Zaire for example would have treated Spinks and Berbick like sparring partners.
I have to disagree with you about Lyle. No disrespect to Denver's finest,but a myth about Lyle outboxing and outclassing Ali seems to have built up over the years. Lyle was ahead on points up until the elevent round,purely because Muhammad was doing nothing,and Lyle was totting up the points on workrate. It's not like Ali was being knocked around the ring.