in 1977 holmes struggled with tom prater and looked lacklauster knocking out horace robinson ....so in 77 holmes isnt even close for a george foreman
At that point I don't think Holmes had been life and death with anyone of Foreman's caliber or even anyone on the elite level for that matter. Then again Jimmy Young beat Foreman that same year. This is a pretty tough pick but I have to go with Foreman as the safe bet because Holmes was too inexperienced. Although his ability to handle Shavers in '78 makes me have some hope for him. Foreman by KO but I'm open to be persuaded otherwise.
So Holmes was an unbeaten hwt until late in his first career. Foreman showed he could not handle cagey boxers losing big time to the two he actually faced. Yet he beats Holmes who in just about every way was Young's superior? Inferior logic. Foreman is not beating a boxer of Holmes caliber.
Holmes too good a boxer for 77 Foreman who often got off track and turned sloppy other than the 76 Frazier fight.
Going with Big George early inside 3 rounds to do what Nick Wells did twice to Larry Holmes in the amateurs. (Wells was a member of the US Air Force and already the four-time All-Air Force boxing champion when he won the 1972 US Amateur heavyweight championship. In that year, he knocked out future WBC and IBF heavyweight champion Larry Holmes twice. The first time was in the 3rd round of a National Amateur Athletic Union tournament; later that year, in the US Olympic Trials, he knocked Holmes out in the first round.)
I don't think I implied any of the things you are suggesting, if I did, that was not the intent. I may misread your tone, it seems rather abrasive, assuming I am misreading it, I will attempt to answer a few of the points you make. The statement I made about Georges stamina in his first career is pretty well demonstrated, and was well exposed by Ali, and Young, (and he was blowing like a bellows vs. Lyle for that matter), when George either went long periods, or had to struggle (i.e. exchange) he appeared to tire at a rate that would not serve him well should the fight continue into the dusty end of the scheduled rounds. Probably due to the fact he was relatively mesomorphic and he threw punches with murderous intent. He stopped throwing like that in his 2nd career. Norton, with his cross arm defence was and inability to fight going backward was destroyed by George, and I would wager he would always be. More that just a chin issue, it is that his style, while allowing him to give hell to Ali and Holmes, was made to order for Foreman. Holmes was happy to whip that jab in your face and could be very effective moving backward. Also, he was much less susceptible to looping punches. I hope that helps clear things up. Could Foreman win, absolutely, because he always has the ability to end it, but I just think if I was betting, based on what I think, I would favor Holmes. Sorry if we don't agree, but isn't that kind of the point, why have discussions otherwise?
We are talking Holmes of 77. Holmes first bout in 78 was a near shutout of Shavers. His second bout his win vs Norton. Holmes was certainly ready in 77 to not only beat Foreman but also knock him out. Powder puff puncher Young hurt and knocked down Foreman in 77. Holmes would have done much more.
Well yes Gil was working towards that and really messed George up in the process, he moved his legs closer together stopping his normal gate and taking away his leverage, his uppercuts once thrown by the book were now going sideways, his jab no longer had any body weight behind it and became taps, he was wide open for any punch and when he tried to move forward quickly his legs became crossed as in the Young bout. Gil was a great analyst and corner man but he was the worst thing that ever happened to Foreman.
I disagree. It was that style he came back with, relaxed and paced, that allowed him to rewin the hwt championship of the world. After he was koed by Ali it became no secret how to beat George. Certainly class B fighters would never be able to last but the top boxers....Ali, Young and Holmes all had his number.
I watched interviews with Clancy back in 75 where he did not hold back telling everyone what he was trying to do with Foremans style. Made sense at the time as stamina was then a huge Achilles heel for George.
In a word, no, although i do think Foreman 70/74 and the fighter who flattened Frazier and Norton and lost to Ali would have beaten Holmes, i firmly believe it was the ropes that saved Ali on that night and allowed him to win the fight. By 77' Foreman was full of self doubt whereas Holmes was entering his prime and i think Larry weathers the early storm to KO a tiring Foreman during the middle rounds but the earlier Foreman circa 70/74, would have won.