Holmes Over Foreman - Who Agrees?

[Russell]

The more I think about it the more comfortable I am ranking Holme's above George in the great grand scheme of HW, all time rankings. Maybe not by much, but I feel a good case can be made for it.

Foreman's win over Moorer was a significant one... But was it an impressive one?

A ex-175 lb'er with chin issues who never accomplished anything after losing to Foreman.

Meanwhile, at age 42 Holmes schooled the unbeaten gold medalist that was Ray Mercer.

A legitimate heavyweight. One of if not the best jab of the 90's for the heavyweights. Absolute granite in his chin. Would go on to in many peoples eyes beat Lennox Lewis in a razor thin loss, a loss against just about everyones top 90's heavyweight.

I personally feel Mercer was a far tougher assignment then Moorer, and Holmes performed far more impressively to boot.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beyond that, what other points can be made?

I think Larry Holmes best "win" may trump Foreman's as well.

Most feel he beat Michael Spinks in their second match. Many feel comfortable that Spink's is a top three LHW of all time.

Would that be considered a better win then Foreman's over Frazier, all things considered in the events leading up to Frazier being annihilated? Spink's was certainly in better condition and better prepared in the second Holmes fight.

Holmes had more longetivity then Foreman, fighting a few years past the age of 50.

I personally think very highly of consistent title defenses, and no one except Joe Louis had more at HW then Holmes.

I also consider his wins over said 80's fighters, often called "embyro" fighters because of the stage in their careers Holmes fought them in, extremely impressive.

Larry was a marked man in the 80's, and these so called embryo fighters all came to fight, in unusually good condition on average for themselves and on the whole very focused.

When did we ever see a better Witherspoon then the night he fought Holmes? When did he ever come closer to achieving his potential then that?

How about Snipes? Cooney? Carl Williams?

Many of these men were undefeated. They did not come for a paycheck, they came determined to keep their 0's and to claim the prize on Holmes head that only grew as those 7 years rolled by.

[Stevie G]

I feel that beating Joe Frazier was worth more kudos than an arguable victory over Michael Spinks. Frazier in 1973,may have been passed his 1969-71 best,but not too much so. Whereas Spinks was a light-heavy who had only recently moved up. As far as H2H goes,Holmes had all the tools to beat Foreman,but George would always stand a puncher's chance. If Foreman decks Larry with the kind of right hand that Shavers did,then I could imagine him finishing the job.

[he grant]

I simply think straight up Holmes was a better fighter.

[KO KIDD]

I think Holmes would give him the same trouble Ali gave him. Mobile, good defense, great jab. Only problem with Holmes is that Ali put in the bravado and took some nice shots and stood in to win. I dont know if Holmes could do that as well as Ali.

[Stevie G]

I think Holmes would give him the same trouble Ali gave him. Mobile, good defense, great jab. Only problem with Holmes is that Ali put in the bravado and took some nice shots and stood in to win. I dont know if Holmes could do that as well as Ali.
That's on my mind too.

[Legend X]

Yes. Holmes was better. Greater. Rank him higher.

[lefthook31]

I think Holmes would beat any version of Foreman, but I dont know if I would rank him higher. They are very close in accomplishments, and George did manage to win the title at an old age in one of his two shots. Holmes meanwhile failed both times, losing to Mcall which is probably a bit worse than losing to Moorer. I dont think Foreman would have lost to the Mcall that Holmes fought either.

[Duodenum]

Could Foreman have defended the title 20 consecutive times over eight calendar years under even the most favourable conditions? He was hardly matching that pace during either of his title reigns. Holmes sustained two decisive losses in his career, to Tyson and Holyfield. Foreman was clearly robbed against Briggs, but not against Morrison, Young and Holyfield.

Would Foreman have won decisions over granite chins McCall and Mercer? (Holmes came awfully close in the scoring with a McCall riding the wave of the Lewis starching.) Would Moorer have done as well over the first nine rounds against Larry as he did against George?

Head to head, Holmes wouldn't have bothered taking the shots from Foreman like Ali did, and I doubt he would have been pissing blood like Muhammad was either. Holmes at anytime from the first Shavers fight on would have been hell for George to deal with. Young got off first with his jab while retreating. Larry's jab was longer, faster and harder. Ali fought him off the ropes while taking some heavy punishment. Holmes drew Mercer into the corners while taking virtually no punishment at all.

I don't give Foreman much of a puncher's chance with Holmes. He was expending a lot of energy trying to finish off Chuvalo after stunning him, but the Canadian was riding out the storm when his own corner may have robbed him of a major upset by throwing in the towel. Years later, Jimmy Young's corner did not panic in the same situation, and George did shoot his bolt. As a finisher, he was not in the class of Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, or more significantly, Tyson. For Larry's part, he proved surprisingly difficult for a peaking Tyson to finish off. Mike needed 45 seconds between the second and final knockdowns, and a rusty Holmes came within five seconds (and an arm caught in the ropes) of surviving the round. (Mike would have eventually stopped Larry anyway, but Foreman shared neither his speed, or the speed and power of Shavers.)

Larry Holmes came back after Tyson, in 1991, because Foreman proved it was possible, starting with his own comeback win over Zouski in 1987. But George took seven and a half years between Zouski and Moorer. Larry schooled Mercer just ten months after his 1991 return.

[lefthook31]

Yeah your right. On second thought I think Holmes faced better fighters in his comeback career, just by facing Tyson Holy, Mercer, and Mcall and that probably equals or eclipses Foremans one punch knockout after getting his butt kicked most of the fight. Thats why I say its close very close and on paper just looking at win,losses and timing of the fights I think thats a fair call. Thats why I hate ranking lists.
Personally I think pre or post comeback Holmes beats any version of George.

[PowerPuncher]

My thoughts

1. Foreman was never the no1 HW in the world, he was linear champ twice but throughout both reigns there were men who could beat him. Holmes was number 1 in the world for many years.

2. Holmes racked up a ton of defenses, Foreman made 3 successfully 1s, 1 of them being a gift

3. Holmes would always beat Foreman with his skills, Foreman knew it and never fancied the fight

4. Holmes is better against more styles than Foreman and beat far more ranked opponents

[red cobra]

I tend to think that the bitter, badmouthing, nasty old Mr. Holmes would have had the stuff to beat big George.

[red cobra]

For that matter, I think that vintage '78 thru '83 Holmes would have beaten Mike Tyson as well. That ko loss would have never occured in Holmes' prime.

[Stevie G]

My thoughts

1. Foreman was never the no1 HW in the world, he was linear champ twice but throughout both reigns there were men who could beat him. Holmes was number 1 in the world for many years.

2. Holmes racked up a ton of defenses, Foreman made 3 successfully 1s, 1 of them being a gift

3. Holmes would always beat Foreman with his skills, Foreman knew it and never fancied the fight

4. Holmes is better against more styles than Foreman and beat far more ranked opponents
As I have previously said,Holmes defnitely had the tools to beat Foreman,but regarding your first point. In his first reign,Foreman may have only had three defences,but with the exception of Joe Roman he certainly made up in quality what he lacked in quantity. Larry Holmes never had to defend against a four year younger version of ken Norton. The same one that Foreman beat. Or a 32 year old but still very dangerous Muhammad Ali. That version of Ali was the best he'd been since 1967.

[McGrain]

Easy one for me. Holmes.

[turpinr]

i wouldn't disagree with holmes over foreman

[Bioyhh]

Could Foreman have defended the title 20 consecutive times over eight calendar years under even the most favourable conditions? He was hardly matching that pace during either of his title reigns. Holmes sustained two decisive losses in his career, to Tyson and Holyfield. Foreman was clearly robbed against Briggs, but not against Morrison, Young and Holyfield.

Would Foreman have won decisions over granite chins McCall and Mercer? (Holmes came awfully close in the scoring with a McCall riding the wave of the Lewis starching.) Would Moorer have done as well over the first nine rounds against Larry as he did against George?

Head to head, Holmes wouldn't have bothered taking the shots from Foreman like Ali did, and I doubt he would have been pissing blood like Muhammad was either. Holmes at anytime from the first Shavers fight on would have been hell for George to deal with. Young got off first with his jab while retreating. Larry's jab was longer, faster and harder. Ali fought him off the ropes while taking some heavy punishment. Holmes drew Mercer into the corners while taking virtually no punishment at all.

I don't give Foreman much of a puncher's chance with Holmes. He was expending a lot of energy trying to finish off Chuvalo after stunning him, but the Canadian was riding out the storm when his own corner may have robbed him of a major upset by throwing in the towel.Years later, Jimmy Young's corner did not panic in the same situation, and George did shoot his bolt. As a finisher, he was not in the class of Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, or more significantly, Tyson. For Larry's part, he proved surprisingly difficult for a peaking Tyson to finish off. Mike needed 45 seconds between the second and final knockdowns, and a rusty Holmes came within five seconds (and an arm caught in the ropes) of surviving the round. (Mike would have eventually stopped Larry anyway, but Foreman shared neither his speed, or the speed and power of Shavers.)

Larry Holmes came back after Tyson, in 1991, because Foreman proved it was possible, starting with his own comeback win over Zouski in 1987. But George took seven and a half years between Zouski and Moorer. Larry schooled Mercer just ten months after his 1991 return.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at is that Foreman was going to kill Chuvalo if the fight wasn't stopped. When this fight took place the sports world was buzzing about the savagery of the beating Forman dished out that night. Perhaps Foreman was punching himself out, but it certainly looked he was punching Chuvalo out.

The pre-Zaire Foreman was a different fighter than he was afterwards. He hit harder than any heavyweight ever, and wasn't that bad of defensive fighter. I mean, if we want to compare common opponents look at how a prime Foreman crushed Norton, who took everything that a prime Holmes could dish out for 15 rounds. Foreman and Holmes were both born in 1949, and I've always believed that Holmes was exceedingly lucky that Foreman basically lost his marbles after Ali schooled him, because if he hadn't, Holmes may never have held the title. Holmes was a great heavyweight, but in their primes I believe George would have ko'd him. If Larry avoided getting floored he could have taken a decision from Foreman, but I just don't think he could have avoided gettng caught and clocked by Big George.

[red cobra]

I think the worst had blown over in that 3rd round with Chuvalo...it's very possible that the iron chinned Canadian would have riddeen it out and gotten into the fight in the later rounds..and it could have been a touch and go thing for Foreman..if his stamina issue had surfaced.

[Duodenum]

I think the worst had blown over in that 3rd round with Chuvalo...it's very possible that the iron chinned Canadian would have riddeen it out and gotten into the fight in the later rounds..and it could have been a touch and go thing for Foreman..if his stamina issue had surfaced.During the interview after their match, Chuvalo seemed to be in full control of his faculties, nothing like Marlon Starling after getting coldcocked by Molinares. Against Frazier, Chuvalo knew when to turn away. Against Foreman, he wasn't punching back, but neither was he foundering blindly around the ring like Lyle with Ali. It looked like a controlled and calculated retreat to me.

[Bummy Davis]

I think both men had the style to beat one another. I think a lot of Holmes but he fought the biggest bunch of bums as champ and avoided the tough rematches, unifications and #1 contenders. Foreman walked through a younger version of Norton and an older version of Cooney more efficiently but that is a matter of styles. The Frazier,Lyle,Moorer,Norton,Cooney fights were Foremans best wins, While the Cooney and Shavers fights were Holmes best. I drop Holmes down a bit because of his avoidances but Foreman also had a padded record. I put both men in and around the top 10 but I think they have highly overated on this site.

[red cobra]

During the interview after their match, Chuvalo seemed to be in full control of his faculties, nothing like Marlon Starling after getting coldcocked by Molinares. Against Frazier, Chuvalo knew when to turn away. Against Foreman, he wasn't punching back, but neither was he foundering blindly around the ring like Lyle with Ali. It looked like a controlled and calculated retreat to me.
Chuvalo, in his postfight explanation after the fight had been stopped, said that he had been thrown back against the ropes by "the force of the punch alone", and not due to his legs giving out of any "chicken dance" sort of reaction, and that he knew where he was, and knew to ride out the followup assault of Foreman's, and was fending off Foreman's rather wild barrages...none of which coming close to that first left hook that started it all. I just believe that that unusually dense skull structure of Chuvalo's had ridden out the storm..and that he may have had a chance to endure with big George, and those latter rounds may well have looked quite different concerning Chuvalo's chances against the then "stamina challenged" Foreman.

[mr. magoo]

I think Foreman had a few select wins that were better, along with some decent statistics like oldest champion, two time lineal claimant, highest win/Ko ratio, olympic gold medalist, etc... Holmes had consistency, better winning streak and fewer losses to lesser fighters..

As for head to head, it is a valid assumption to make, that Holmes should be the favorite, given Foreman's track record against the likes of boxers like Ali and Young, but make no mistake, this is not a forgone conclusion and nor is this an easy fight for Holmes. For as many similarities as Holmes shared with Ali and Young, neither of those men were quite as prone to getting bamboozled by right hands as Larry was, and Foreman would have been potentially his most dangerous foe in that department.

There is also some discussion about Holmes doing better against a wider range of styles than Foreman, but I'm not sure that I'm completely sold on the notion. An aging Ken Norton gave a prime Holmes a hell of a lot more trouble than a peak version gave Foreman.. I will also reasonably speculate that even a 1973 rendition of Joe Frazier could have given Holmes fits at any point in his career, whereas this was hardly the case against Big George. At age 45, Foreman laid out a 25 year old Michael Moorer who was a 35-0 professional and a hard punching soutpaw - something I don't recall ever seeing Holmes fight. It's valid to say that George struggled a bit with a former light heavyweight, but in all fairness, Moorer had just beaten a string of top heavys along with holding the lineal title. How is Foreman "struggling" for 10 rounds before knocking out Moorer at age 45 any worse than a 35 year old Holmes LOSING the title to a man who was in his first heavyweight match EVER?? This is where I think some people have lost site of certain things.


Lastly, Foreman is regularly criticized for his lackluster selection of opposition both in his first and second career.. Okay, let's break this down a bit. If we draw some of the names out of the hat who George took on following his loss to Ali, the list looks something like this: John Denis, Ron Lyle, Scott Ledoux, Lou Savarese, Adilson Rodriguez, Pierre Coetzer,Alex Stewart, Shannon Briggs, Axel Schultz, Crawford Grimsley, Jimmy Ellis, etc. Are these men really worse than a lot of the guys Holmes DEFENDED HIS LINEAL TITLE AGAINST??? How about Scott Ledoux, Ossie Ocasio, Alfredo Evangelista, Lucien Rodriguez, David Bey, Scott Frank, Lorenzo Zanon, Marvis Frazier, Leon Spinks, Tex Cobb or an ancient Muhammad Ali?? For those of you who rate Holmes higher on the basis of a longer title reign and a pretty looking winning streak, I just listed about 11 of his 19 defenses. And for anyone who wants to touch upon Foreman dropping the title rather than rematching Axel Schultz, let's not forget about Holmes dropping a belt rather than facing about half of the worthy challengers available from 1983 onward.

[mcvey]

The more I think about it the more comfortable I am ranking Holme's above George in the great grand scheme of HW, all time rankings. Maybe not by much, but I feel a good case can be made for it.

Foreman's win over Moorer was a significant one... But was it an impressive one?

A ex-175 lb'er with chin issues who never accomplished anything after losing to Foreman.

Meanwhile, at age 42 Holmes schooled the unbeaten gold medalist that was Ray Mercer.

A legitimate heavyweight. One of if not the best jab of the 90's for the heavyweights. Absolute granite in his chin. Would go on to in many peoples eyes beat Lennox Lewis in a razor thin loss, a loss against just about everyones top 90's heavyweight.

I personally feel Mercer was a far tougher assignment then Moorer, and Holmes performed far more impressively to boot.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beyond that, what other points can be made?

I think Larry Holmes best "win" may trump Foreman's as well.

Most feel he beat Michael Spinks in their second match. Many feel comfortable that Spink's is a top three LHW of all time.

Would that be considered a better win then Foreman's over Frazier, all things considered in the events leading up to Frazier being annihilated? Spink's was certainly in better condition and better prepared in the second Holmes fight.

Holmes had more longetivity then Foreman, fighting a few years past the age of 50.

I personally think very highly of consistent title defenses, and no one except Joe Louis had more at HW then Holmes.

I also consider his wins over said 80's fighters, often called "embyro" fighters because of the stage in their careers Holmes fought them in, extremely impressive.

Larry was a marked man in the 80's, and these so called embryo fighters all came to fight, in unusually good condition on average for themselves and on the whole very focused.

When did we ever see a better Witherspoon then the night he fought Holmes? When did he ever come closer to achieving his potential then that?

How about Snipes? Cooney? Carl Williams?

Many of these men were undefeated. They did not come for a paycheck, they came determined to keep their 0's and to claim the prize on Holmes head that only grew as those 7 years rolled by.

Decent post! You make a rational argument for Larry ,and I agree with it, I put Holmes marginally in front of Georgie boy.
Holmes allways wanted to fight Foreman ,but George was less keen, maybe he knew something?

[KO KIDD]

For that matter, I think that vintage '78 thru '83 Holmes would have beaten Mike Tyson as well. That ko loss would have never occured in Holmes' prime.
I really agree with that. Holmes had the plan he blocked well and moved well. Not to mention his hand got stuck in the ropes. Holmes was way better than Tyson.

[MRBILL]

Holmes was schooling McCall after "9" rds, but then he sustained a welt / cut and he seemingly grew tired too......... Larry Holmes was in fine shape at age 45 and 236 pounds in 1995, but fizzling in them final three rds is what killed Holmes on the cards......

McCall had more energy in the end cuz he didn't do jackshit for the first 7 rds........ But McCall finished strong and that's what the judges like to see....... McCall was lucky against "The Homer."

MR.BILL

[apollack]

I absolutely agree. This fight is made for Holmes, who would be an absolute stylistic nightmare for Foreman. Way too much speed and footwork for George.

[The Morlocks]

I simply think straight up Holmes was a better fighter.
me too/ I feel Holmes is competitive w/ anyone in hw history.:hat

[Duodenum]

Chuvalo, in his postfight explanation after the fight had been stopped, said that he had been thrown back against the ropes by "the force of the punch alone", and not due to his legs giving out of any "chicken dance" sort of reaction, and that he knew where he was, and knew to ride out the followup assault of Foreman's, and was fending off Foreman's rather wild barrages...none of which coming close to that first left hook that started it all. I just believe that that unusually dense skull structure of Chuvalo's had ridden out the storm..and that he may have had a chance to endure with big George, and those latter rounds may well have looked quite different concerning Chuvalo's chances against the then "stamina challenged" Foreman.A medical scan of Chuvalo's head and brain (as well as LaMotta's) would yield some interesting and revealing results.

I just reviewed Foreman-Chuvalo, and while Don Dunphy may have expressed the belief that it was a timely stoppage, I still think Irving Ungerman should have kept himself seated in Chuvalo's corner and let Mercante make that call. Arthur was more than capable of using his own judgment in that situation. (And Chuvalo should have never let his wife at ringside for that one.:!:+:|=:censored)

After that first hook, most of Foreman's shots which landed cleanly were either to the body, or jabs to the head. Right after Ungerman started climbing up on the ring apron, Chuvalo fired back with a right and a hook. This was not Ali firing 46 unanswered punches at Lyle. (Mercante made a move to step in and break the action just as Chuvalo shot out his right, then stepped back to allow them to continue.) Foreman's wild haymakers to the head mostly missed or were deflected. (Again, very different from Lyle and a sharpshooting Ali.)

Speaking of Mercante, it bears reminding that he had Holmes locked up on his scorecard after ten rounds (commenting live with Cosell on ABC), and it was public knowledge that Larry was boxing with an injured left. The real controversy surrounding the official cards here was how the judges had it even after 14. The final score was close, but the decisive early portion of that match was not. (I was at a large graduation party with a throng mostly rooting for Norton, but we all agreed that Kenny needed to knock him out entering the championship rounds.)

How a healthy Holmes would have done against a young Norton is conjecture, but few who saw their complete fight in 1978 dispute that Holmes deserved to be the clear UD winner. (The disbelief was palpable when a split decision was announced.) As neither was at his best, I discount most conclusions based upon that outcome, nor would I have held a rematch defeat against an aging Norton.

[MRBILL]

I thought Holmes in 1999 at 250 bloated pounds looked pretty good in hammering a slobbish looking Bonecrusher Smith for the second time............ But, in all reality, was Holmes that good in '99 or was Smith really that lousy.?.?.? I tend to believe Smith was that lousy in 1999....

Still, all in all, I think Holmes outboxes Foreman over 10 rds easy..... 12 rds MIGHT've been a problem in 1999..... Who knows?????

MR.BILL

[TommyV]

Absolutely. Though I think Frazier was perhaps a better win then Spinks II if we are counting that, I think Holmes would beat him H2H, and as has been said, was the #1 in the world and for a long time.

[mr. magoo]

I think Holmes is receiving a tad too much credit for his efforts in the second Spinks match. I don't consider this an acutal victory so much as I do an indecisive loss. Yes, he was probably robbed, but that doesn't make the outcome a "W". We also have to ask ourselves how good was michael spinks truly at heavyweight? Holmes is getting points for a galant effort against an opponent who really did nothing at this weight class except beat Holmes himself, and we're supposed to belive that this showing was better or even on par with Foreman's anialation of Joe Frazier?!?!?!

[Popkins]

The more I think about it the more comfortable I am ranking Holme's above George in the great grand scheme of HW, all time rankings. Maybe not by much, but I feel a good case can be made for it.

Foreman's win over Moorer was a significant one... But was it an impressive one?

A ex-175 lb'er with chin issues who never accomplished anything after losing to Foreman.

Meanwhile, at age 42 Holmes schooled the unbeaten gold medalist that was Ray Mercer.

A legitimate heavyweight. One of if not the best jab of the 90's for the heavyweights. Absolute granite in his chin. Would go on to in many peoples eyes beat Lennox Lewis in a razor thin loss, a loss against just about everyones top 90's heavyweight.

I personally feel Mercer was a far tougher assignment then Moorer, and Holmes performed far more impressively to boot.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beyond that, what other points can be made?

I think Larry Holmes best "win" may trump Foreman's as well.

Most feel he beat Michael Spinks in their second match. Many feel comfortable that Spink's is a top three LHW of all time.

Would that be considered a better win then Foreman's over Frazier, all things considered in the events leading up to Frazier being annihilated? Spink's was certainly in better condition and better prepared in the second Holmes fight.

Holmes had more longetivity then Foreman, fighting a few years past the age of 50.

I personally think very highly of consistent title defenses, and no one except Joe Louis had more at HW then Holmes.

I also consider his wins over said 80's fighters, often called "embyro" fighters because of the stage in their careers Holmes fought them in, extremely impressive.

Larry was a marked man in the 80's, and these so called embryo fighters all came to fight, in unusually good condition on average for themselves and on the whole very focused.

When did we ever see a better Witherspoon then the night he fought Holmes? When did he ever come closer to achieving his potential then that?

How about Snipes? Cooney? Carl Williams?

Many of these men were undefeated. They did not come for a paycheck, they came determined to keep their 0's and to claim the prize on Holmes head that only grew as those 7 years rolled by.

Yes, I most definitely do believe Larry Holmes must rank higher than George Foreman.

[MRBILL]

Foreman will always win the popularity contest, but he'd lose the actual fight with Holmes in the ring....
:deal

MR.BILL

[Bill Butcher]

The more I think about it the more comfortable I am ranking Holme's above George in the great grand scheme of HW, all time rankings. Maybe not by much, but I feel a good case can be made for it.

Foreman's win over Moorer was a significant one... But was it an impressive one?

A ex-175 lb'er with chin issues who never accomplished anything after losing to Foreman.

Meanwhile, at age 42 Holmes schooled the unbeaten gold medalist that was Ray Mercer.

A legitimate heavyweight. One of if not the best jab of the 90's for the heavyweights. Absolute granite in his chin. Would go on to in many peoples eyes beat Lennox Lewis in a razor thin loss, a loss against just about everyones top 90's heavyweight.

I personally feel Mercer was a far tougher assignment then Moorer, and Holmes performed far more impressively to boot.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beyond that, what other points can be made?

I think Larry Holmes best "win" may trump Foreman's as well.

Most feel he beat Michael Spinks in their second match. Many feel comfortable that Spink's is a top three LHW of all time.

Would that be considered a better win then Foreman's over Frazier, all things considered in the events leading up to Frazier being annihilated? Spink's was certainly in better condition and better prepared in the second Holmes fight.

Holmes had more longetivity then Foreman, fighting a few years past the age of 50.

I personally think very highly of consistent title defenses, and no one except Joe Louis had more at HW then Holmes.

I also consider his wins over said 80's fighters, often called "embyro" fighters because of the stage in their careers Holmes fought them in, extremely impressive.

Larry was a marked man in the 80's, and these so called embryo fighters all came to fight, in unusually good condition on average for themselves and on the whole very focused.

When did we ever see a better Witherspoon then the night he fought Holmes? When did he ever come closer to achieving his potential then that?

How about Snipes? Cooney? Carl Williams?

Many of these men were undefeated. They did not come for a paycheck, they came determined to keep their 0's and to claim the prize on Holmes head that only grew as those 7 years rolled by.

I rank Holmes slightly ahead on my list but Im not at all sure about a primes H2H match, very hard call.

[JohnThomas1]

Holmes was schooling McCall after "9" rds, but then he sustained a welt / cut and he seemingly grew tired too......... Larry Holmes was in fine shape at age 45 and 236 pounds in 1995, but fizzling in them final three rds is what killed Holmes on the cards......

McCall had more energy in the end cuz he didn't do jackshit for the first 7 rds........ But McCall finished strong and that's what the judges like to see....... McCall was lucky against "The Homer."

MR.BILL

If Holmes schooled him for 9 rounds how did he lose? I never hear of this being a ripoff, more a close fight and excellent effort. The judges don't go back on the previous 9 rounds and say, well Olly has finished better and that's what i like to see so i will go back and change 4 of those previous rounds to his favour and make him the winner :lol:

[Popkins]

I rank Holmes slightly ahead on my list but Im not at all sure about a primes H2H match, very hard call.

:-( Holmes would not lose a round en route to a cavernous UD.

[Bill Butcher]

:-( Holmes would not lose a round en route to a cavernous UD.

Are you serious ?

Im talking the best of each version, peak Foreman was stopping guys like Chuvalo & Frazier, in fact pre-peak GF stopped Chuvalo.

Look at the performance Ali had to come up with to overcome Foreman & while it is a myth that Ali took a beating for 7 rds, he still conceded some rds, no way Holmes comes anywhere near shutting out the monster that was early 70s Foreman.

Ali could take a better shot than Holmes, had quicker reflexes than Larry too, he took a few clean ones, GF might have finished Holmes off if he caught & stunned him (quite likely in a 15 rder)

Foreman was a monster that could cut the ring off extremely well & pressure you into trading, if Larry trades, its all over, believe that shit.

[PetethePrince]

Nope, Foreman is better and has a much more legitimate claim to a higher ranking. H2H is another thing, although Foreman at his best does better than most would think. Holmes shouldn't be ranked higher than Foreman. Holmes may have been steady, but toward the middle of his run he took the easy way out and became lazy. I'd take the guy who decimated legends and became a title holder on the two most dominant decades. Added to the fact that Foreman comp is superior, even if Holmes may have more good names it definitely goes to Foreman's edge. Winning is winning, and Foreman planned that win against Moorer. Whether you believe it or not, he wasn't an idiot thinking he could out-box the 26 year old. Holmes doing well against Mercer was good, but Holmes was all wrong for Mercer, and Mercer is pretty limited. Moorer is better, and a more accomplished fighter too.

I don't want to argue much more. It seems really clear to me. I just think people are flat out wrong in ranking Holmes ahead of Foreman. Foreman can be arguably a top 3 Heavyweight of all time as far as I'm concerned. But people will inexplicable rank Liston ahead of him. It's almost disgusting.

[Russell]

I'd take the guy who decimated legends and became a title holder on the two most dominant decades.

I'll take Larry Holmes beating Norton over 15 as opposed to Foreman blasting out said fighter. Norton was finished sooner by two other huge HW punchers. Norton was absolutely guaranteed to crumple under pressure... But to outpoint him?

Holmes did so while injured.

Also, regardless of how good you feel the 90's were, Foreman decided to defend his title against the likes of Savarese and Schulz. :lol:

He lost against every notable 90's heavyweight he fought. Morrison, Holyfield (Whom Holmes also did better against)

I do find it funny how Foreman's greatest success came against brittle chinned fighters like Moorer and Norton.

He had zero adaptability and the majority if not entirety of his career was cherry picked to perfection.

Top ten heavy? Most definitely. But lets not say he proved himself against the variety of fighters that Holmes did.

[JohnThomas1]

I'd label Homes a 8-5 fave. It's like this - we saw the greatest of Holmes in the two Shavers matches. Shavers won about 1 single round in two fights yet still went very close to stopping Holmes in that round. Odds are Foreman will tag and hurt Holmes, he's plenty better than The Acorn on multiple levels. He's also going to be more dangerous when he does hurt Holmes. It's whether Larry gets thru these anxious moments that determines the winner. Holmes has a hell of a lot of skill and determination.

[MRBILL]

Holmes got careless on BOTH occasions that he was dropped by "Shavers and Snipes" in '79 and in '81........ Holmes was winning BOTH fights handidly (What Else Is New?) when he was dropped for day-dreaming / loss of focus in them fights.........

Also, Shavers and Snipes both had heavy rights that were sneaky........ Shavers and Snipes were hardly sharp punchers; both looped and winged punches from all angles and that's why they sometimes got through on a seasoned pro like Holmes......

I don't think Holmes would day-dream or lose focus with Foreman.... I see Holmes keeping his distance and sharp-shooting from the outside with quick left & rights.... Holmes' jab would connect easy on Foreman's face, and I see Holmes also tagging Foreman with quick right crosses that are sharp and stinging... Foreman would chug forward trying to land to the body and head of Holmes with both hands, but he'd pay the Piper for that, too...... I see Holmes clearly edging Foreman over 10 rds with ease and still winning on points too in a 12 rounder...... "The Homer" wins..........

MR.BILL

[lefthook31]

Holmes got careless on BOTH occasions that he was dropped by "Shavers and Snipes" in '79 and in '81........ Holmes was winning BOTH fights handidly (What Else Is New?) when he was dropped for day-dreaming / loss of focus in them fights.........

Also, Shavers and Snipes both had heavy rights that were sneaky........ Shavers and Snipes were hardly sharp punchers; both looped and winged punches from all angles and that's why they sometimes got through on a seasoned pro like Holmes......

I don't think Holmes would day-dream or lose focus with Foreman.... I see Holmes keeping his distance and sharp-shooting from the outside with quick left & rights.... Holmes' jab would connect easy on Foreman's face, and I see Holmes also tagging Foreman with quick right crosses that are sharp and stinging... Foreman would chug forward trying to land to the body and head of Holmes with both hands, but he'd pay the Piper for that, too...... I see Holmes clearly edging Foreman over 10 rds with ease and still winning on points too in a 12 rounder...... "The Homer" wins..........

MR.BILL
Mr. Bill, always like your take on the 80's heavies and agree most of the time. Im curious how you viewed the Tyson win over Holmes.

[Bioyhh]

I'll stick with George, but it really is too bad that they never met in the ring. The heavyweight division was certainly stacked in those days. A Golden Age indeed.

[MRBILL]

Holmes was rusty and his heaviest ever in '88 at 227 pounds.... BUT! He looked good for THREE rds while keeping his distance and tying up an onrushing Tyson...... However, in round 4, Holmes made the mistake of standing right in front of Tyson, and Tyson slipped Holmes' guard and nailed Holmes right in the forehead with a wicked overhand right to drop Holmes' ass.......... 'Twas the beginning of the end for the 38 year old Holmes......... At that point, the fight / night was over for Larry Holmes..... He never fully recovered from the initial knockdown.........
:-(
It is obvious to me that Holmes was rusty with slowed reflexes by that time, cuz, Larry Holmes actually had his hands up and was looking right at Tyson when he was tagged and dropped for the first time in round 4........
:nono
The second knockdown was caused cuz Holmes was still wobbly and had no balance... Holmes basically dropped again from a glancing shot there....
:patsch
The final knockdown which left Holmes sprawled on the floor was wicked.......:shock:

MR.BILL:|

[lefthook31]

Holmes was rusty and his heaviest ever in '88 at 227 pounds.... BUT! He looked good for THREE rds while keeping his distance and tying up an onrushing Tyson...... However, in round 4, Holmes made the mistake of standing right in front of Tyson, and Tyson slipped Holmes' guard and nailed Holmes right in the forehead with a wicked overhand right to drop Holmes' ass.......... 'Twas the beginning of the end for the 38 year old Holmes......... At that point, the fight / night was over for Larry Holmes..... He never fully recovered from the initial knockdown.........
:-(
It is obvious to me that Holmes was rusty with slowed reflexes by that time, cuz, Larry Holmes actually had his hands up and was looking right at Tyson when he was tagged and dropped for the first time in round 4........
:nono
The second knockdown was caused cuz Holmes was still wobbly and had no balance... Holmes basically dropped again from a glancing shot there....
:patsch
The final knockdown which left Holmes sprawled on the floor was wicked.......:shock:

MR.BILL:|
That was an awesome shot Tyson landed. How much different would it have been had Holmes had a few tuneups prior? Maybe a few more rounds and a few less excuses for the Tyson haters, but most likely the same outcome?
Tyson had one thing that would always trouble Larry, speed and power, not to mention a pretty good skill set at that time. Still ranks as a pretty decent win in my book, noone ever crushed Holmes like that. :good

[MRBILL]

That was an awesome shot Tyson landed. How much different would it have been had Holmes had a few tuneups prior? Maybe a few more rounds and a few less excuses for the Tyson haters, but most likely the same outcome?
Tyson had one thing that would always trouble Larry, speed and power, not to mention a pretty good skill set at that time. Still ranks as a pretty decent win in my book, noone ever crushed Holmes like that. :good

Holmes had a very good 15 rds in April of '86 against Spinks on HBO. By the time he faced Tyson in Jan. 1988, Holmes had been inactive less than "2" yrs....... Not all that bad.... But Holmes was 219 for Spinks and a softer but still decent 227 for Tyson......... Larry Holmes needed to train better and earlier on in 1987........... Holmes claimed he only got 90 days to train for Tyson..... It wasn't enough.........

Holmes could've done better against Tyson in 1988 had he been better prepared, but Holmes still probably would've lost either way in '88........ Tyson was too young and primed in '88...........

MR.BILL:deal

[AnthonyJ74]

Holmes had a very good 15 rds in April of '86 against Spinks on HBO. By the time he faced Tyson in Jan. 1988, Holmes had been inactive less than "2" yrs....... Not all that bad.... But Holmes was 219 for Spinks and a softer but still decent 227 for Tyson......... Larry Holmes needed to train better and earlier on in 1987........... Holmes claimed he only got 90 days to train for Tyson..... It wasn't enough.........

Holmes could've done better against Tyson in 1988 had he been better prepared, but Holmes still probably would've lost either way in '88........ Tyson was too young and primed in '88...........

MR.BILL:deal


Holmes' fought good defensively against Tyson, but his offense was pretty impotent. His jab was almost non-existent, at least until the 4th round, when he started snapping it out. That Holmes probably would have lost to Tyrell Biggs, who had just been squashed by Tyson.

[MRBILL]

Holmes was rusty and only in so-so shape physically and mentally in 1988 at age 38.....

Holmes was much better and sharper in 1992 against "Mercer & Holy" when aged 42 / 43...

I miss them Ole Tuesday night fights from the crappy USA network that use to air all the old fart fighters hanging on fighting "Hand-Picked" victims in tank towns, etc.......

ESPN2 and Versus really bites the rod deep down to the base.........

MR.BILL

[DudeGuyMan]

I loved the old Tuesday Night Fights on USA. Watching a fat old Roberto Duran punch out some local hero half his age in Ohio or Kansas or whatever was always fun.

[JohnThomas1]

Holmes got careless on BOTH occasions that he was dropped by "Shavers and Snipes" in '79 and in '81........ Holmes was winning BOTH fights handidly (What Else Is New?) when he was dropped for day-dreaming / loss of focus in them fights.........

Also, Shavers and Snipes both had heavy rights that were sneaky........ Shavers and Snipes were hardly sharp punchers; both looped and winged punches from all angles and that's why they sometimes got through on a seasoned pro like Holmes......

I don't think Holmes would day-dream or lose focus with Foreman.... I see Holmes keeping his distance and sharp-shooting from the outside with quick left & rights.... Holmes' jab would connect easy on Foreman's face, and I see Holmes also tagging Foreman with quick right crosses that are sharp and stinging... Foreman would chug forward trying to land to the body and head of Holmes with both hands, but he'd pay the Piper for that, too...... I see Holmes clearly edging Foreman over 10 rds with ease and still winning on points too in a 12 rounder...... "The Homer" wins..........

MR.BILL

Holmes didn't daydream or get careless vs Shavers, he simply got caught :huh

Like he's getting careless vs a freak like Shavers. He won something like 21 out of 22 rounds he fought with Shavers so he was hardly relaxing or resting in there.

Holmes is no Benitez, and the fact is they all get caught. It was a beautifully times shot by Shavers, lets give the poor bugger his due.

Rest assured Holmes is getting caught some vs Foreman, George is way better and more dangerous than anyone Holmes ever beat. This match is no foregone conclusion.

[Mendoza]

Holmes > Foreman.

[ChrisPontius]

Holmes achieved more in my opinion. I used to be very confident in picking him to beat Foreman prime-for-prime, too. However, while i stay favor him, i think Foreman has a good chance. I re-watched several Holmes bouts and notice that very often he gets sloppy or into seemingly unnecessary exchanges. Mike Weaver almost completely took over in the 5th i believe. It's impressive that Holmes dug deep and got the win, but i'm not sure how well that would've went vs Foreman..

[Bummy Davis]

I think Foreman had a few select wins that were better, along with some decent statistics like oldest champion, two time lineal claimant, highest win/Ko ratio, olympic gold medalist, etc... Holmes had consistency, better winning streak and fewer losses to lesser fighters..

As for head to head, it is a valid assumption to make, that Holmes should be the favorite, given Foreman's track record against the likes of boxers like Ali and Young, but make no mistake, this is not a forgone conclusion and nor is this an easy fight for Holmes. For as many similarities as Holmes shared with Ali and Young, neither of those men were quite as prone to getting bamboozled by right hands as Larry was, and Foreman would have been potentially his most dangerous foe in that department.

There is also some discussion about Holmes doing better against a wider range of styles than Foreman, but I'm not sure that I'm completely sold on the notion. An aging Ken Norton gave a prime Holmes a hell of a lot more trouble than a peak version gave Foreman.. I will also reasonably speculate that even a 1973 rendition of Joe Frazier could have given Holmes fits at any point in his career, whereas this was hardly the case against Big George. At age 45, Foreman laid out a 25 year old Michael Moorer who was a 35-0 professional and a hard punching soutpaw - something I don't recall ever seeing Holmes fight. It's valid to say that George struggled a bit with a former light heavyweight, but in all fairness, Moorer had just beaten a string of top heavys along with holding the lineal title. How is Foreman "struggling" for 10 rounds before knocking out Moorer at age 45 any worse than a 35 year old Holmes LOSING the title to a man who was in his first heavyweight match EVER?? This is where I think some people have lost site of certain things.


Lastly, Foreman is regularly criticized for his lackluster selection of opposition both in his first and second career.. Okay, let's break this down a bit. If we draw some of the names out of the hat who George took on following his loss to Ali, the list looks something like this: John Denis, Ron Lyle, Scott Ledoux, Lou Savarese, Adilson Rodriguez, Pierre Coetzer,Alex Stewart, Shannon Briggs, Axel Schultz, Crawford Grimsley, Jimmy Ellis, etc. Are these men really worse than a lot of the guys Holmes DEFENDED HIS LINEAL TITLE AGAINST??? How about Scott Ledoux, Ossie Ocasio, Alfredo Evangelista, Lucien Rodriguez, David Bey, Scott Frank, Lorenzo Zanon, Marvis Frazier, Leon Spinks, Tex Cobb or an ancient Muhammad Ali?? For those of you who rate Holmes higher on the basis of a longer title reign and a pretty looking winning streak, I just listed about 11 of his 19 defenses. And for anyone who wants to touch upon Foreman dropping the title rather than rematching Axel Schultz, let's not forget about Holmes dropping a belt rather than facing about half of the worthy challengers available from 1983 onward.


good post, facts are indeed facts

[Bummy Davis]

Chuvalo, in his postfight explanation after the fight had been stopped, said that he had been thrown back against the ropes by "the force of the punch alone", and not due to his legs giving out of any "chicken dance" sort of reaction, and that he knew where he was, and knew to ride out the followup assault of Foreman's, and was fending off Foreman's rather wild barrages...none of which coming close to that first left hook that started it all. I just believe that that unusually dense skull structure of Chuvalo's had ridden out the storm..and that he may have had a chance to endure with big George, and those latter rounds may well have looked quite different concerning Chuvalo's chances against the then "stamina challenged" Foreman.


good point

[northernstar83]

I think nearly everyone would rank Holmes over Foreman

[clark]

Ranking is one thing but head to head I see a Foreman victory.

[ironchamp]

I believe that from 1977 onwards Larry Holmes would have beaten George Foreman at any stage in his career. I also think that Holmes carries a better legacy. This of course is not a knock on George, Larry was just better.

[la-califa]

My thoughts

1. Foreman was never the no1 HW in the world, he was linear champ twice but throughout both reigns there were men who could beat him. Holmes was number 1 in the world for many years.

2. Holmes racked up a ton of defenses, Foreman made 3 successfully 1s, 1 of them being a gift

3. Holmes would always beat Foreman with his skills, Foreman knew it and never fancied the fight

4. Holmes is better against more styles than Foreman and beat far more ranked opponentsForeman destroyed the man who had just beaten Ali. Wouldn't that make Foreman the #1HW in the world? It was not known at the time if Ali could defeat Foreman. In fact Ali was the underdog, going into the fight. Holmes struggled against an aging Kenny Norton. Foreman blew Norton out in two rounds.

[MRBILL]

Holmes didn't daydream or get careless vs Shavers, he simply got caught :huh

Like he's getting careless vs a freak like Shavers. He won something like 21 out of 22 rounds he fought with Shavers so he was hardly relaxing or resting in there.

Holmes is no Benitez, and the fact is they all get caught. It was a beautifully times shot by Shavers, lets give the poor bugger his due.

Rest assured Holmes is getting caught some vs Foreman, George is way better and more dangerous than anyone Holmes ever beat. This match is no foregone conclusion.

Alright, I'll cut Shavers a little slack there in round 7..... But inspite of him landing the big bomb on an "A" grade fighter like Holmes, I was even more impressed how Holmes actually picked himself up and managed to regroup prior to the bell in round 7........ YES! Holmes was wobbly for a bit, but he still had his wits about him........ Shavers pressed Holmes like a rookie with no clue........ Shavers got too carried away and became much too wild after decking Holmes..... Then a few rds later, Ol' Holmes TKO's a gased and bleeding Shavers in round 11....... Good stoppage by referee Davey Pearl........
:deal:rasta

SR.BILL

[MRBILL]

More of the same for Holmes when he was decked by "The Sniper" Snipes in round 7 in 1981......... Holmes decked hard and gets up to stagger into the ring post, but remains upright on wobbly legs......... Snipes presses like a clueless rookie throwing wild and crazy shots into the night's air, while Holmes gathers himself to begin fighting back and taking control of the round in the final few seconds of the 7th stanza........ IMPRESSIVE performance by Holmes.........

Note:

Snipes can whine and cry like a baby here in 2009, but Holmes did stagger and land "3" solid rights to Snipes head before the ref halted the beatdown in round 11...... Again, Holmes won........

MR.BILL