Holyfield in his prime vs Ali from the 1970s. Ali was still potent but couldnt move for 3 minutes a round. He was stronger but not as elusive.

Holyfield brings better than average speed to the table and snappy combinations.

?

Can Evander get inside with smart pressure?

Ali UD15

give me a fight were talking about Ali from. The 70s was a big place.

Ah...say the Foreman and 3rd Frazier fight.

Also I would never use anything after Manila because Ali was more or less a shell of himself after that fight.

I think a prime Holyfield would win, but it wouldn't be easy, particularly because Ali would make Holy come to him. He still had a potent jab, by that point, I think Holy could outwork him and would probably be a bit faster than him. The Ali from the first two Frazier fights probably wins a close fight though, due to superior speed and that same potent jab.

Holyfield would have beaten the Ali that fought Foreman, Evander would not have ran out of gas. this is just an uneven matchup...a Prime Evander vs an ALi would could no longer dance on his feet.


What about the Ali that beat Cleveland Williams ?

Ali 15-0. If Foreman had faced Holyfield, Vander would have been one of 4 bums knocked out in one night.

Difficult to say. Holyfield couldn't hurt the mid-70's Ali with a sledgehammer, & his other attributes, though all very good, weren't in the truly great category, I always felt.

However, Ali did show a mild weakness to quick-fisted foes (Young &, admittedly later, Spinks) & Holyfield had a neat pair of gloves. I think he'd have to be very busy, & really work the butting overtime, to out-hustle Ali to a decision, based on activity.

No way in hell this fails to go the distance. It's probably a largely unwatchable affair, in which either man may take a close points victory.

Watch Ali-Frazier III. That version of Ali still threw far more punches a round than Holyfield ever did as a heavyweight.

Ali didn't fight full 3-minute rounds at that stage in his career but Holyfield, as great as he was, never really fought 3-minute rounds as a heavyweight. Both men specialized in taking defensive lulls, then winning rounds with some eye catching and effective combinations.

I think this would look a bit like Lewis-Holyfield II (but with more activity), with Ali landing enough on the outside to win and effectively clinching on the inside.

Holyfield would take some rounds as Ali could be caught with the hook upstairs and downstairs. While his hook was great, it wasn't the bone crunching punch that Frazier threw. I think Ali was still good enough to take away Holyfield's counter right.

Ali 8-4 in a 12 rounder and 10-5 over 15.

I think its a fairly boring fight to be honest, and think the mods should delete this post and start another Holyfield-Frazier one.

Good post, though I'm not sure about boring though.

Any Ali up until and including Spinks II wins a decision.

K X P

I dont think Ali would be stationary enough for Evander to land as much as he did in his bigger fights.

But then again, Evander didnt fall victim to any sort of mindgames from people. He was about as scared of Tyson as Bill Gates is bankruptcy. Peoples drinks froze over sitting next to him talking about the fight. Ali fucking with peoples heads was a large part of his gameplan. It would at least be an even playing field there.

If Holy started doing damage with his uppercut it could get interesting. Dont act like accurate shots couldnt hurt Ali.

Holy couldn't do anything significant, you are dreaming.

Yep.

K X P

Don't forget the 1963 FotY:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVa1AcZDd1Y

Imagine Holyfield does what happens at 5:56.

Left hooks were Ali's kryptonite. Cooper. Frazier. Jones. Even Norton who wasn't a left hooker gave him fits with it. Now Holy is NOBODIES bitch. He would have moments in the fight but if Ali is anything, he is disciplined when he's not facing a left hooker. Holy was very good at everything but the left hook was not his bread and butter.

I don't see Ali getting Vander out of there but I see a UD in a fun fight. 9-5-1 with old Ali. 11-4 with young Ali.

If the left hook wasn't Holyfield's bread and butter than what was?

Well I think most fans would agree that Ali was pretty close to unbeatable at his peak. The version that cameback in the 70s was still a great fighter but could be beaten by the right style. {Frazier} {Norton}.

I might take a young Holifield (the one who KO'd Dokes) to beat the Forman/Frazier III Ali. Someone said Ali threw way more punches. Not so. Holyfield from early in his career was very active. He was also a very good infighter. Ali's inside game really consisted of nothing more than holding his opponent behind the head and waiting for the ref to break them. Young Holyfield would also trouble Ali with his speed.

Holyfield has the best hook at Heavy I've ever seen. It would be a real close fight. Evander would land plenty, but a busier Ali probably edges it.

Holyfield biggest problem would be Ali`s jab. He still had one of the best and fastest jab even slightly past his peak. Ali had more range with those long righthands. Inside Holyfield would have success until Ali was able to grab him and hold on.

I think Holy beats young Ali and loses to old Ali pre Thrilla. I will not be taking questions on the subject. Thank you.

It would also depend on how many cycles Vander was on heading into the fight. That and if this before or after the illegal fiberglas jaw implant that turned Clay's chin into granite.

Agree. I think young Holy has like 25% chance of getting past an older Ali. He would be competitive in his losses. Anything past Manila, I got Evander though.

Prime vs prime, I think Ali beats him for sure.

Ali gets a little too much credit. I'd probably favor a prime Ali. But a prime Holyfield would still give him Hell. Ali never had any infighting ability. And while he was quick as lightning, Holyfield as a young man had plenty of quickness to offset that edge.

Ali has a claim to being the greatest HW of all time. But I think prime for prime Holmes would have beaten him more times than Ali beat him. Frazier always would have given him Hell. And so would several other fighters.

Frazier always gives him the same fight though? I don't see it. Frazier's style benefited from fighting a rusty Ali in their first fight and throughout all fights from a guy who didn't use his legs like before. It changes the dynamic so I don't buy that you get the same fight with the 60's version. Holmes would give any version of Ali a good fight, it's about 55-45 Ali in the early 70's. I don't think he gets any more credit than he deserves though I've noticed an alarming trend to rate Holyfield better than he deserves around here. I blame that on Mark and Prod.

Some may rate Holyfield too high. There are plenty of fighters in the history of the HW division that I'd pick to beat Holyfield, but I can't see him not giving any HW trouble.

And I didn't say Frazier beats any version of Ali. But if you don't think the Frazier who whupped Ali's ass in the first fight wouldn't have given a prime Ali plenty of trouble you're crazy. I'm not saying that a prime Ali wouldn't have won more than he lost against a prime Frazier. But I'm sure Frazier would take some of those fights and that he'd be competitive in any losses to Ali.

This seems riduculous, not close at all. Lennox would have a much better chance than Evander.


Mark, I have a hard time believing you can have an objective opinion on Holyfield.

Lennox would present a different set of problems but Ali isnt getting by Holyfield without some difficulty. Evander had more speed than the average heavyweight. He also ripped combinations like a smaller man.

Holy's hook is shorter and tighter than Frazier's. You can make an argument that it was more technically correct than Joe's massive bombs from the pit of Hell.

"Who has the best left hook in heavyweight history?"

It's got to be one of these 3 names...

Frazier
Louis
Holyfield

Actually I favor his straight right and right cross.

They were all good. I think Louis actual hook was the best but Frazier got into position to throw his more effectivley. Frazier knew how to get into the blind spot against a standup fighter.

Indeed. He exploded into his. I don't think Holy's would be all that effective against Ali, unless he could get into exchanges where he could, and IMO, would beat Ali to the hook.

I don't think Ali gets too much credit. He faced a murderers row and beat a lot of them pretty easily. Saying he would beat Holyfield handily is a pretty valid opinion given the history of both fighters.

I actually think an old Ali does better against Holyfield than a young Ali, and also better against Frazier.

Both fighters, even if they lost, would catch him and catch him plenty. Against Frazier in particular, I don't see the guy who got seriously hurt by Cooper and Jones standing up to repeated left hooks. Sure, he was faster and moved better, but he wasn't nearly as strong and hadn't yet learned to be as effective at clinching.

If anything, I believe a pre-layoff gets too much credit (and is often thought of as unbeatable - and everyone can be beat) and a post-layoff Ali gets too little credit.

Whatever man. Frazier faced an Ali with a different style. A diminished defense and less ring generalship. Not to mention not as sharp or reflexive. His aggression would pose some problems but it's harder for him against a moving target.



The Ali who fought against Liston proved himself to be very strong. It's true he didn't clinch as often, he didn't need to. That was Ali's way of dealing with his loss of legs.

Do you honestly believe that Ali from Cooper 1 and Jones was the same fighter 2-3 years later? I'd never heard that one before. Of course anyone is beatable but that hardly means that a pre layoff Ali isn't tougher to beat than a post layoff one.

Frazier`s ability to cut the ring, his bodyattack, pressure, his ability to bob and weave and his endless stamina woud always give Ali a tough night. Not saying Ali shouldnt be favored but no way is he dancing all night without taking some damage. Hed have to come down off his toes eventually because of the constant pressure. Then it would always be a dogfight.

I still question whether Ali was physically as tough during his peak as he was in the 70's. Seems to me he wasn't, & that his being hit more produced a sturdier fighter, less capable of being hurt or floored, than when he was, overall, the better boxer.

That's what makes a bout between the Ali of, say, 1965-67, & the Frazier of 69-71, so compelling. Frazier would have a more difficult time finding (& timing) the younger Ali, but I believe he could do more damage when he did land. Could he do enough? I suspect the answer's no, & he loses a close decision.

Incidentally, anyone have their scores from their first bout? I kept tabs on this one recently, & found it a little closer than I expected --- 8-7, Frazier. I had it dead-even going into the final round, giving the incumbent a two-point victory. At the end of fourteen rounds, though, I obviously saw nearly all the momentum in Frazier's favour. Ali swept the first five rounds on my card, but Frazier, remarkably, won eight of the next ten.




I would name Dempsey (definitely) & Liston (to a less certain extent) as better left-hookers than Holyfield, but that's just the way I view it.

Liston came to mind.

While I`ve read a lot about Jack, I can`t say too much about him without having seen it myself. I do figure Holyfield would crucify him though.


Prime Foreman`s hook was as heavy a punch as has ever existed, I think.

Dempsey's left hook seemed to have better leverage than Holyfield's. Torque was always so important to the power in Frazier's hook, & Dempsey, though heavier-handed than Frazier, relied also on excellent execution (as opposed to someone like a David Tua, for whom raw power over-rode technique in the left hook). Like Holyfield, Dempsey had deceptively quick hands, which also contributed to the devastation that punch routinely produced. Unfortunately for Louis, though his left hook was outstanding, & worthy of being mentioned with the others here, the fact is he threw nearly every punch with such proficiency, it lessened the visual impact. If Louis' left hook was less potent than, say, Frazier's, it wasn't by much. It just so happens that Frazier's attack (at least, upstairs) centered around that one punch --- whereas Louis hurt you with everything he threw (to my mind, the best all-round jab in HW history, too).

I always felt Holyfield up against Liston or Dempsey were extremely difficult fights to project. I can see either man winning in those matches.

Completely agree.


I believe Holy-Liston has been done in here before. May be worth a look back. I agree, it's a tough call. Probably one of those fights that just comes down to has more on a given night. Not sure where the deciding edge lies in that one.


edit- What do you think about Dempsey vs Frazier for 15?


I'm all for Smokin' Joe on that one. No surprise there. He'd back Jack up. I see Joe landing very clean my about round 3...

I was discussing that very pairing only recently on another board, in fact.

I have to be honest. Even though they are very much in the same class as legends, & either could rate over the other, I think head-to-head between Frazier & Dempsey is a four-to-six round fight, preceeding a stoppage, dominated by Dempsey.

Why? The speed of Dempsey's assault from the opening bell shapes as critical. His power, I believe, was more than enough to traumatise Frazier. He wouldn't be able to keep him down, but he wouldn't miss a lot of punches, & he'd do an awful lot of damage on a sluggish starter like Frazier.

What would be most interesting is if Frazier survives that torrid opening --- most people would just assume that he would beat Dempsey down the stretch with conditioning & work-rate. Dempsey was teak-tough, dirty when he needed to be, & his endurance has always been over-looked (the Brennan fight is a great example). I think he'd match Frazier punch-for-punch for a long time, but, if it did become a war of attrition, just about nobody, Dempsey included, could do it better than Frazier. I think he'd win a tight decision, or maybe even produce a TKO, if he lasted late into the fight.

However, I see the more likely outcome as Dempsey's power & speed, coupled with his finishing ability, as simply too much in rounds one-through-five, & he does sufficient damage to Frazier as to force a halt. This is largely what I (unfortunately) see Tyson doing to Frazier. It's just a combination of speed, power, & aggression in the early going as being too much for Frazier.

Dempsey TKO5.

...

I agree it's a four to six round fight, but I think it's dominated by frazier. He would back jack up from the start and Jack wouldn't have an option from there. Joe is too much man.

Dempsey was plenty man, fella. What do you think of the Liston-Holyfield matching?

I've always favored Liston there. Both of them would treat dempsey like a sparring partner that got out of line.

Dempsey would do well against the Frazier post Foreman 2. Other than that, not so much.



You assume this and while possible it is not the only outcome. Frazier's ability to cut off the ring against an agile young Ali was never seen and it would have been rounds before he could even get going. By then he might have been quite discouraged and a little swollen. Im not sure why in both yours and Monzon's post you seem to disagree with some contention I never made. I don't think that Ali makes Frazier look like Williams but I think he beats him handily. Liston while not quite as aggressive as Frazier had more power, strength, skill, size and plenty of ability in cutting off the ring. That is when he wasn't facing a physical freak. Old or not, he still would have beaten Frazier. Also don't think Frazier could have stopped Ali from moving for most of the 15 rounds.

Marciano never existed I guess. Shit, Quarry had a great left hook

Marciano was not a noted left-hooker. His was a powerful hook, but it was somewhat under-used, & not on a par with the men I mentioned. Nor was Quarry's.

Really? Ok.

I would need some major convincing that dempsey's hook was better than Patterson's or Walcott's. Jack was the Tyson of his era. Very charismatic and loved, but not nearly the substance in the ring that people wish he had.

Definitely in my all time top 3 for overrated fighters. I think Razor Ruddock would rip Dempsey's head off.