Larry Holmes and George Chuvalo talk about themselves & George Foreman (video)

I agree with Larry. I said the same thing. George lost to Morrison and Holyfield and Briggs,and wins against Moorer who has a weak chin and goes to 8?

 

Meaningless.

Holmes lost to Holyfield too. He likely would have lost to Moorer had they met in 1994 as well. Foreman fought Briggs when he was like 14 months shy of his 50th birthday and possibly got robbed. George also beat Frazier and a prime Norton - two better opponents than anyone Holmes ever defeated.. In any case I rate Holmes at #4 and Foreman around 7 or 8. But still.. Wrong argument on the part of Larry.

 

Bert Sugar was a G.

 

Holmes fought no one

He had skills but no legacy defining fights

Foreman destroyed a prime undefeated beast Frazier

It's not even close

 

What I would say in defence of Holmes, is that the characteristics necessary to sustain longevity, are much rarer than those needed to dominate an era over a short period.

You have to question how many other greats could have done what Holmes did.

 

Holmes avoided a lot of good fighters though, and in the first several years of his reign, he didn't have a lot of good opponents to choose from. But from 1983 onwards, Holmes held the title hostage by avoiding any major opponent. So, Holmes' 7 1/2 year reign as champion looks amazing on paper, when you dissect the quality of his reign, it doesn't look as spectacular. Quantity over quality.

 

Also destroyed Frazier a 2nd time just to prove it was no fluke.