Ali v Holmes who has the better fundamentals?

I think Holmes was better in a traditional sense. Ali was as good as he was because he broke boxing laws. Larry was as good as he was because he perfected them.

 

I agree.

 

Agree to an extent. But I wouldn't say Holmes perfected them either. He quite often dropped his hands, much like Ali (though nowhere near as much), he was particularly bad at dropping his left after the jab. He also did pull back from punches on occasion.

I'd say someone like Joe Louis perfected the boxing "laws" that you speak off. Holmes did rely on physical talent and athleticism a lot too, just not to the extent of Ali. So in other words, Holmes had the better fundamentals, but he was nowhere near perfect.

 

Larry had the better jab, the better right uppercut, but zero left hook. Often Ali more slapped with his left hook, but not always, you could have asked Bonnavena about that. Both had great footwork although considerably different. Aside from his early lean back defence, Ali could slip some and Holmes didn't but Larry's blocking and parrying were a step up from Ali's. If you compare the Ali of the Terrell fight with Holmes in his prime their fundamentals show to be about the same.

 

Holmes is far from flawless, but he might pip Ali fundamentally. Holmes didn't have Ali's great gifts (how many did have) and needed a bit better alliance with the orthodox.

 

Im a big believer that in Larry Holmes we have one of the most underated and overlooked heavyweight fighters in history.

I agree that his lack of left hook hurts him in a fundamental sense but i agree with most posters he was better than Ali in a traditional manner.

Just for the record does anyone give a prime Holmes a chance v a prime Ali?

 

I see Holmes losing a good one to absolute peak Ali. The post Exile Ali tho would have immense trouble.

 

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

 

First principles: the object of boxing is hit your opponent,without getting hit yourself.

To that extent ,boxing is a combination of physical attributes and a basic framework centred around judgement of time and distance, balance,discipline and leverage.

Holmes was superior to Ali ,in the sense that he had a fighting system,the framework of which would be less susceptible to corrosion by the decline of his speed and reflexes.

 

Larry Holmes. Holmes boxed with more sound fundamentals; everything he did was more textbook perfect than what Ali did.

Ali's speed enabled him to get away with a lot. A slower, less-athletic fighter would have struggled much more with Ali's style of fighting.

I never liked how Ali never really punched to the body. Body punching is a very underrated aspect of boxing, and it is just as important as head shots. Holmes was much better to the body than Ali, and his arsenal was more complete - sans the left hook - which both guys never really developed.

 

A chance? Yes! Holmes would have been a tough fight for a prime Ali, but Ali would have been a nightmare for Holmes.

Ali's speed and quickness would have enabled him to outbox Holmes I believe.

 

Good analysis. To further muddy the waters, I would say that a guy like Riddick Bowe, speaking strictly fundamentally wise, was better than both Larry Holmes and Muhammad Ali. He had a better left hook than both Ali and Holmes combined, and his in-fighting was vastly superior.

Riddick Bowe was very solid in boxing fundamentals - ahead of both Holmes and Ali.

But, of course, that doesn't mean he'd beat either one of them!

 

What about his outside game? He was a big man after all.
Why sacrifice this physical advantage to fight on the inside?

 

Holmes imo, but both men held low hands, a technical 'flaw', although Holmes seemed to do moreso when out of range, Ali was just doing it all the time (in his prime), and getting away with it because of how good he was. Holmes just tops him technically for me.