I watched Holmes career from his bout with Ibar Arrington in the mid 70’s to his latter career where he was fighting for a paycheck. The only things Holmes did better than Ali were right uppercut, left jab and right hand power (just power for all three punches). Ali was just the far greater athlete and boxer.
Yes he was open for quick left hook but greatly improved upon this post Frazier 1. Joe as an example did not find Ali an easy target mid range in fight 3 as he did in fight 1.
This looks perfect. However, due to the pervasiveness of Ali's vulnerability to the left hook during the peak and only-just-a-bit-past peak Ali my original assertion stands. Unfortunately it's as you say, the overhand right was (along with head movement) Larry's Achilles' heel throughout his career, though he did have much more movement from both head and feet in his pre-1980 fights.
I see Holmes having issues with a fighter like Mike Tyson at any time in his career. Mike had that quick right hand that would have eventually found its mark and ended the fight.
Ali was the better fighter but there really wasn't a huge amount of daylight between them.Holmes was good enough to have won a fight in a series of three.Holmes was floored by right hands, Ali by left hooks. Holmes had a bit more on his right hand .
Larry's jab was too heavy, and the manhandling you saw in the 1988 fight (with Larry actually doing well tying Mike up early on) would have been to the 10th power during Larry's prime. Larry would have unleashed his incredible one-twos with alacrity, and how is Mike going to deal with the uppercut? But your point is really well founded. That said, imo Mike didn't hit as hard as Shavers, just faster (which gives further credibility to your argument, I know).
Anyone would have issues with a prime Tyson,that combination of power and speed means a tough night for anyone,Ali included.
Shavers said Holmes had overall the better and more powerful jab and right hand...but ES fought Ali toward the end of his career. I agree with him whole-heartedly though. I think it's worth repeating that Ali's accuracy had it all day over Larry.
You have me thinking, especially when watching Ali's defense vs. Larry's. Larry's relative lack of head movement post-1980 was pretty inexcusable, despite the fact he was at his peak then. All I have to do is watch 60s (and even, though to a lesser degree, the early 70s) Ali to see the superiority of his defense overall to Larry. That said, as bizarre as this might sound, in some ways Larry was actually a better defensive fighter in the 90s than he ever was before. The tougher opponents he fought during that time underscore that imo. However, I still can't see Ali doing much beyond a decision against Larry, prime for prime. And I believe it would be a tough (though perhaps largely tactical and not overall thrilling) fight.
When I watch Larry against Shavers I and Norton, I see a young though somewhat overall slower Ali. In fact, I sometimes assert that, for a very general idea of how 60s Ali would have fared against Norton, watch those Holmes fights. But that's not really applicable is it? 60s Ali did have faster combinations, a more accurate jab, and indubitably better foot speed. Opposed to how many people think, I feel Larry peaked after the Norton fight, because up to and including that fight he truly was like an Ali disciple. It was when Larry came down off his toes more often and became both more aggressive and a better puncher that he truly shed the Ali influence and became the Great Larry Holmes. To me, Norton wouldn't have lasted even seven rounds against that Holmes (though the Norton who beat Ali makes me hesitate again to make that into a pronouncement).
To be fair, all of our fave ATGs had Achilles' heels. Ali was as much the left hook as his at time OTT clowing. Holmes: overhand right Louis: chin was inconsistent (double that for even Steward-era Lewis) Marciano: small and clumsy etc.