Evander Holyfield vs Muhammad Ali, 12 rounds. Prime for prime.

I am among those in the minority who believe Ali was beatable by perhaps a handful of guys...

Evander isn't on that short list, and its because of his penchant for brawling when it serves him to box and his defensive shortcomings. I don't think his counterpunching game will gain much momentum because of Ali's movement.

I won't call John crazy for having an opinion that Evander belongs on his list of fighters who could have beaten Ali, though.

 

Ali is rated the greatest hwt ever for a reason. Speed and skill kills and there is no defense for it. Only John in his sad little mind believes Holy and others were faster and greater. Just not the case however.

 

Nat Fleischer was very well known for his bias in favor of the superiority of the old timers over newer competitors, rating Jack Johnson as the greatest HW of all time. He witnessed Johnson-Jeffries, Dempsey-Willard, Tunney-Heeney, and Joe Louis-Max Baer from ringside. In these four instances, the winner was at his fastest. He was also well familiar with the hand speed of Floyd Patterson.

In 1969, Fleischer's voice was recorded expressing his opinion during the introductory portion of the staged cinematic super fight between Marciano and Ali. He stated that while he didn't think Muhammad Ali had not [yet] proved himself to be a great fighter [a viewpoint Nat may very well have changed after Manila had he lived to see Ali complete his prime], he DID express that he considered Muhammad to definitely be the FASTEST heavyweight of all time, an opinion shared by Jimmy Jacobs and Bill Cayton.

Even in 1972, Bob Foster was astounded by Ali's speed after their match.

Folley is not the match to watch when assessing this. Zora was a highly seasoned veteran who boxed smartly over the first three rounds, and got Muhammad off his toes. [Actually, in winning two of the first three rounds, Folley probably boxed him as intelligently as anybody during that 1964-1967 title run.]

Brian London and Cleveland Williams are the bouts to watch, especially Big Cat. Yes, Cleveland had been shot, was sorely compromised, and aging, while also lacking in punch resistance. But what's also evident in the footage is that he also probably still had the fastest hands of any big man Ali took on during the 1960s. He was a match in height and reach, yet still couldn't come close with his rapid fire jabs.

 

If you need the shell of a fighter Cleveland Williams and the pitifully inept Brian London to support your case, then your argument is DOA.

 

Holyfield may be underrated in the speed department, but he certainly isn't on par with Ali.

 

All this being said, you don't need to be as fast as the other guy to hit him...

Ali got hit plenty and taken the distance with far inferior fighters than Holyfield.

There's a reason Ali looked so good in those fights mentioned- it has a bit to do with his speed, skill, and other attributes, but it also has to do with his opposition...

He wouldn't make prime Holyfield or Frazier or Lewis or ___________ look like Cleveland Williams looked that night, swinging at air and staggering all over the place.

 

Holyfield would be the best fighter Ali ever faced... yeah, I said!

Frazier, Foreman, and others were great... but I honestly rank Holyfield just a little ahead of them.

Ali would be the best fighter Holyfield faced as well.

Holyfield fought some great big men like Lewis x2, Bowe x3, and even older versions of Holmes and Foreman were great (if you deny that you're lying to yourself). Sure, Holyfield lost 2 out of 3 to Bowe and he lost to Lewis.

Holyfield fought well in his first fight vs. Bowe but he took Bowe lightly. Holyfield used to beat the crap out of Bowe in sparring sessions and even made him quit before. Well, he underestimated Bowe and paid for it. Still, it was a great fight! Holyfield fought smarter and was better prepared in their rematch. Bowe may have not been at his very best but again, it was a great fight. Holyfield in their '93 rematch would have defeated Bowe in their '92 fight. Holyfield was far from 100% in their rematch and lost KOby8... Holyfield still dropped Bowe and almost stopped him in the 6th round.

Holyfield was 137 years old when he fought Lewis. Lewis should have won but it was scored even. Holyfield had his moments (especially in the 3rd round), but he did not fight a smart fight. The rematch was close and could have went either way. A prime Holyfield beats a prime Lewis.

An old Foreman gave Holyfield some problems. In some ways the older version of Foreman was better than the younger version (I'm not saying older would have defeated younger). He was smarter, more patient, and conserved his energy well. He was actually stronger as well, even though his punches had less snap than before. He also used the extra 30+ Lbs he gained to his advantage. Prime vs. prime? I'll take Holyfield by close decision.

Holmes was still very good when he fought Holyfield. He had won 6 fights in a row and even beat an undefeated Ray Mercer by near shut out. When he fought Tyson he took him lightly (pretty stupid) and even recorded an album when he should have been training. He had not fought in 2 years or won a fight in 3. He was well prepared for Holyfield and really wanted to win. Prime vs. prime? I'll take Holmes by close decision.

Prime Frazier vs. prime Holyfield? I'll take Holyfield by close decision.

Holyfield would provide more problems for Ali than Liston and Norton did as well.

Say what you will about Holyfield... 20 different kids by 20 different woman while acting like a good Christian, Evan Field and his steroid use, intentional head butts, etc... a prime Holyfield (early '90's) was an all-time great HW. Way too often he gets judged on what he did after the age of 30, 35, 40, even 45!

He went undefeated thru his first 8 years as a pro... very impressive when you consider he won a world title in just his 12th pro fight vs. an all-time great.

He went undefeated until age 30.

He won his first 28 fights, 22 by KO. During this 8 year stretch he went 10-0 (7) in world title fights (6-0 (5) at CW and 4-0 (2) at HW) and 5-0 (2) vs. Hall of Famers!

He beat Bowe, Mercer, Tyson x2, Moorer, Ruiz, and Rahman from age 31-39 1/2 years old. He fought pretty much on par with a prime Lennox Lewis at age 37. He was robbed vs. Valuev at age 46.

So... Ali vs. Holyfield? Ali, but it's a great fight, a close fight, there would have to be a rematch!

 

Cleveland Williams wasn't ****! Especially by the time he fought Ali.

Zora Folley was a good fighter but he was a bit undersized vs. Ali and he wasn't the most durable HW either.

Patterson had good speed and power but was basically a blown up LHW and was down more than any other HW Champ (20 times).

Chuvalo was a punching bag, so was Henry Cooper (who managed to drop and almost stop Ali in their first fight, still Cassius Clay at the time).

Ernie Terrell was tall and had a long reach, he had a good chin, and he was good at clinching. He wasn't a big puncher and he didn't apply much pressure.

I'm a big Ali fan but Holyfield would have looked impressive vs. these guys as well.

 

Ali from the 70´s would not be able to cope with the speed of Ali from the 60´s.
The best Ali is the one in the Cleveland Williams fight, his prime would had come 1 or two years later, but unfortunally he was not able to fight during those years. A lot of youngsters today don´t understand how good and fast he was, probably they have seen his last fights and don´t bother watching the fights from the 60´s.
When people think The Klitschkos would beat Ali I just smile, they would be destroyed in two three rounds, cut to pieces. Holyfield was good but would not be able to win over Ali, Ali is just to good, he IS thye greatest of all time.

 

Ali was the far more intelligent fighter of the 2, and consequently any version of him ( until the onset of Parkinson's syndrome ) beats any version of Holyfield.

 

Love it how those that pick Holyfield actually break it down with analysis.
Those picking Ali simply say, Ali wins because he's Ali!

Everyone on this thread intelligently breaking down the merits of Holyfield. :good

Holyfield competes and is a champion in any era of boxing.
In his prime, there is'nt anyone in history that would have an easy time with him.

 

Holyfield is the better boxer, anyone who says otherwise does not know this sport.

Holyfield has BY FAR the better skillset.

Anyone wanna try debate this with me? ..I'm dying to break this down.

 

Holy never looked that great against boxers really. To get the best out of him, he needed a guy to stand in the pocket with him and be willing to trade now and then.

I initially thought that this would be a pretty close fight, but in retrospect I don't think Holyfield could live with Ali at his best. He'd be competitive and always in the mix, but also always a step or two behind, and would almost certainly lose by wide-ish UD.

Ali of the 70's? Different guy. I give Holyfield a decent chance against that version.

 

...Which is good. Diverse opinion are what keeps forums going. Don't you feel a little troubled though, when you see an old Holmes easily bouncing rights off a prime Evander's noggin?

Granted, Holmes fought a defensive fight that made Holyfield look bad, but he did find him pretty easy to nail with right hands.

 

Ali would win on UD about 8 rounds to 4 I would think.