Ive noticed in the Liston Holmes and Ali Witherspoon threads some posters have used Ali and Holmes as comparative measuring sticks. I understand that they were both boxers with good jabs and were fairly quick footed, however I think they are very different fighters. Holmes I feel was a much more orthodox and predictable fighter, a reason I feel he struggled with the likes of Witherspoon and wasnt particularly keen to fight Page or Dokes, who were all a little unorthodox. He nearly always threw his punches as you should from where you should. His defence was fairly orthodox and solid (apart from dropping his left too low after jabbing). Ali on the other hand was far from text book and made many "basic errors". His guard was low, he moved straight back from punches, he didnt block or parry punches ( until his second career ) only moved his head, didnt body punch, constantly threw lead rights etc. I feel it is the fact that he was so unorthodox that allowed him to win a lot of fights against guys he shouldnt have, and the reason I think he beats most if not all the ATGs he has those intangibles to bring something to the table at any point in a fight the other guy doesnt expect or know how to deal with. I rate Holmes from 3-6 All Time, I have Ali at 1, but while I see scenarios for Larry beating anyone at anytime, I feel that you know what you were getting and could prepare for that any give him a tough night.
Larry wasn't so orthodox him self. A lot of the time he threw his jab from his stomach or hip, and he leaned backward from punches, of course, not as good as Ali, Ali was one of a kind there, but Larry could still do it pretty effectively. In Larry's come back in the 90's he was a lot more orthodox, he kept his hands high when he was near the ropes, and he blocked more instead of leaned. IMO when Larry was on his night, (Cooney, Shavers I, Ali before he took it easy) he could and would give anyfighter in history a great fight, and would rate in the top 5 head to head, maybe even top 3.
Holmes was more flat-footed compared to Ali (then again, who isn't?), but did sit down on his punches more and seemed to punch harder. He also had a much better uppercut, a punch Ali never used. Ali usually held on when hurt whereas Holmes usually slugged it out when hurt.
Yup. Larry danced a lot more selectively. He could when he wanted, but he was more interested in backing up and circling instead of getting on his bike.
They were the same STYLE but when it came down to it, they were quite different. They were both boxers. Holmes openly admits to copying Ali alot but he was different. Holmes mentality saw him move less, engage a little more and punch a touch harder.
Mostly similar, Holmes followed Ali's style but saved the trash talking. Ali was more agile with his waist, could dodge and bob against the very best bombers, great eyes scoped incoming a mile away. Both hung around too long, but a fight between the two in their prime would of been a classic.
I ink Holmes went by the book more than Ali did, but that is what allowed Ali to give fighters more trouble. He's more hard to figure out than Holmes. That's why I believe that technical fighters like Louis, Tyson, and Liston would be able to beat Holmes, but not Ali. Holmes is easier to fight than Ali is.:good
But Holmes used more punches than Ali that you had to watch out for as well, including a sneaky uppercut, or hard body shots. Things Ali rarely used.
Larry appeared far more comfortable in the role of an advancing aggressor, stalking his man. He could use his jab far more effectively as an offensive weapon. Jimmy Young would not have befuddled Larry the way he did Ali and Foreman. A single right hand decided the outcome of his matches with Evangelista, Weaver and Witherspoon (who I suspect was far more affected by Holmes's ninth round right hand off the ropes than he ever wanted anybody to let on). Holmes was far more effective circling right than Ali (as was SRL). His counter-clockwise movement against Cooney, and in the first Shavers fight, was different from Ali's clockwise proclivity. Foreman would not have been able to cut the ring of on Larry as effectively as he did Norton and Ali. Muhammad had a more dangerous hook, Holmes a more deadly uppercut. I also think Holmes was a smarter boxer, who took far less punishment, even in his advancing years. Ali would have been rope-a-doping Mercer, where Larry suckered him into the corners, using them to practice the fine art of elusion. Holmes certainly evolved better over time than Ali did, but then again, Larry had the benefit of a later start, not taking punches to the head during childhood.
That isn't true at all. Ali always threw every shot to the head - straights, hooks and uppercuts. It is true that Ali neglected the body but when he did go downstairs he had a good body attack. He had a good jab downstairs. He displayed all the tools to the body - he threw straight shots, hooks and uppercuts to the body. Just watch the Cleveland Williams fight and you'll see one or two unbelievable combinations to the body.
Holmes almost always jabbed to the body. Look how much he did it to Jones in the early rounds. Larry would nail with the jab right down the middle into your solar plexus. And have you seen Larry's hooks to the ribs, or his uppercuts down stairs? He he even stunned Holyfield with an uppercut to the stomach early in their fight. I think it was around round 3 or so.