Holmes or Louis against prime Ali.

Here's the deal:

Muhammad Ali was a magnificent fighter. He had a natural boxing talent, you can see it in his movement; smooth, fluid, deluxe. However - he is subject to a vast amount of overrating.

Ali was a pretty good puncher in his prime; his speed, fluidity and combination punching meant he could bewilder an opponent and hit him at will, but he did not have 'good' or 'very good' power. He had average power. He never really took a fighter out with one punch - none of us count the Liston fight, and Foreman was exhausted. Ali was capable of delivering a stunning punch on occasion, but so can any fighter. All world class fighters can punch to an extent if they plant their feet, and it doesn't mean they have above average power when they demonstrate this.

Ali had a great chin, probably one of the best. But it wasn't the best. Ali was stunned on many occasions and sometimes dropped - it was his heart, determination, survival skills and recuperative powers that allowed him to take these punches and recover from them. Someone like Oliver McCall or George Chuvalo most likely had better chins than Ali - I would even say Mike Tyson did as well. Those fighters just lacked the aforementioned attributes to match. Tyson, for instance (at least in his declining years), would get hit by a shot and stay exactly where he was, only to be hit by another one, and then another.

I think it is wrong to assume Ali was the strongest heavyweight of all time just because he hung on the heads of fighters like Foreman and Frazier. Ali used leverage and weight to pull these men down - it's not like he was powering forward and shoving them back, he was just hanging on strategically. In all seriousness, you can't tell me Ali was stronger than someone like Nicolay Valuev or Tye Fields, even though he might have been light years ahead as a boxer.

Ali was not aggressive. Yes, he often dictated the pace, yes, he took opportunities and yes, he hit fighters a lot - but that doesn't mean he was aggressive. Pernell Whitaker did the same things, so did Willie Pep. Were they aggressive? Ali could be sadistic, but he wasn't aggressive.
Some definitions for 'aggressive':
- Militantly forward or menacing
- Making an all-out effort to win or succeed
- Vigorously energetic, especially regarding initiative and forcefulness
- Boldy assertive and forward; pushy

Doesn't sound like Ali to me.

Ali - great fighter, not quite Superman. If I listened to the people round 'ere, I'd think Ali was the most complete fighter of all time.

 

We're going to have to disagree on the aggressiveness shout. At best, I think you could call Ali 'passive aggressive' because of his sadistic streak. But when you say he asserted himself and went all-out to win, that's just what any fighter does. If we saw things like that, we'd be calling every fighter and his uncle aggressive. Mike Tyson was aggressive. Roberto Duran was aggressive. Henry Armstrong was aggressive. There is a striking contrast between those men and Ali.

 

That's quite a radical viewpoint. I never once thought, when watching an Ali fight, that he was out to inflict as much damage as possible. A couple of times I saw him punish an opponent for personal reasons, but I never saw him crushing foes in the same fashion as Ike Williams or Marvin Hagler did.

 

To be honest I think you're complicating things far too much.

 

Not by only natural punchers. LaMotta, Greb, Hamsho, these men were aggressive but far from dynamite.

 

What´s that for a question? 2 of the greatest ATG´s against another great ATG and you formulate it if they have a chance? Of course they would have a chance, especially Holmes... some of you wrote that it need a fighter with great footwork and speed to beat Ali, Frazier IMO isn´t that fast at this 2 things...

 

“Hit and not be hit” was prime Ali’s mantra. He didn’t like beating people up and, on the other hand, he once said, “People don’t understand you don’t have to get hit in boxing.”

His intention was to get the W. Using his superior speed, he would hover at outside distance, looking to lead with long jabs or rights and follow up with fast combinations. But he would take the initiative and was accurate and had a high punch output. His focus was on winning rounds, not engaging in a phone-booth slugfest. He was content to use long punches because of his physical attributes of normally being the taller man; he didn’t need to fight in the trenches with hooks and uppercuts. Thus, he was not aggressive in a bloodthirsty way, just a gifted technician whose great shape and speed allowed him to throw a lot of punches and have the edge, second to second.

As far as hooks and uppercuts, Ali stunned Big Cat with several great hooks and landed some jolting uppers on Frazier in FOTC. He also showed a varied repertoire in Norton II.

How else did Ali beat such greats as Liston, Frazier and Foreman, total 56 wins and come to be considered the GOAT without a great offense? But he did it his way, not as Manassa would have liked.

 

Louis' sloppy guard would have been taken advantage of safely from outside. Holmes....Holmes has a good chance to get the decision.

I've never seen Holmes in with a dancer. Any such match-up in history?

 

I agree with you. However, if forced to pick between the two to take on a peak Ali, I would pick Holmes. Larry sparred with Ali for many years before they actually fought.

It was unfortunate for any HW contender coming through at the same time Larry was, because you were in Ali's shadow and the public, boxing world, to a ceetain degree, wouldn't let people forget that.

I firmly beleive Larry would have been HW champion long before he did if he were only given the opportunity. Holmes' biography is a very, very good read. Larry is as bluntly honest as they come. Holmes was not an attraction, box-office by any means & that's why he wasn't given a title shot until 1978.

It's unbelieveable to think how a lot of the public & some of the boxing people, thought Holmes was not a great champion, didn't have the tools to excel in the sport etc.