View Single Post
Old 08-07-2007, 09:34 PM   #38
Belt holder
ESB Addict
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,593
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Originally Posted by prime
The fact that Larry Holmes and George Foreman in their geezer versions competed successfully in the 90s is definitely an indicator of the relative abilities of the two decades' best fighters.

We actually saw: Holmes/Holyfield, Holmes/Mercer, Holmes/McCall, and grandpa Larry never got blown away. He held his own. We saw: Foreman/Holyfield, Foreman/Moorer, with doughy George fighting twelve hard rounds against Holy and destroying Moorer with one punch. Foreman was 45! This speaks of the quality experience and technical resourcefulness of these legends, who learned firsthand from facing top competition to successfully exploit their diminishing yet first-class skills.
Agreed! Holmes and Foreman were both very good fighters who were able to compensate effectively for their diminishing skills. I think Holmes was a level above George in terms of skill, but George was tougher and more durable. I always thought Holmes could have done even better in his comeback if he had trained harder. I never got the impression that Larry ever really killed himself in training the way Foreman supposedly did. In the McCall fight, if Holmes had just a little bit more stamina, he could have regained the title.
AnthonyJ74 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote