WAS George Foreman Greater than Larry Holmes?

I love both of these fighters a lot, but (as I've probably mentioned way too many times...you people can be really polite sometimes lol!) Larry is my all time favorite fighter in any division, period.

I was thinking about this topic watching Larry's induction speech into the HOF. I wasn't entirely happy with that speech, and the main reason is because I felt LH didn't need to even bring up George...his future as an ATG is secured without all that.

George won the title twice, the first time against an ATG, the second time at 45. All I can say is a heartfelt WOW. Both his first title win (Frazier) and first title defense (against an Ali-beating, prime Ken Norton) were two of the most jaw-droppingly impressive victories in history.

On the other hand, George didn't make a whole bunch of defenses of the title either time, and it took a whole lot of time for him to get the title back (and that's not even counting his religious lay off). He was pretty lame against high quality boxers, and his knockdown by Jimmy Young was just plain embarrassing...not just for him. George also seemed to quit at the suspiciously right time in the 70s: his loss to Young meant he was at least on paper unlikely to beat Ali (not necessarily counting the fact that this was during Ali's decline), plus Larry was coming up and both him and Ali were in the same orbit style-wise to Young (though both of the former two punched a bit heavier, especially Larry).

Larry...geez he defended his title 21 times and only lost once among them. He had probably the greatest jab in heavyweight history (certainly the heaviest, witness the fights from '79 to '84) and a right uppercut that could probably qualify as a power punch. His footwork was great mostly early in his title reign, but he attenuated his use of the speedy steps because most of his opponents weren't worth implementing it. He took the best of prime Cooney and a Norton-destroying Shavers and came back to stop them both...handily. He was nearly knocked out by a fresh, young Tim Witherspoon (an eventual two-time champ) and came back to win the decision. As we all know, Larry

This content is protected

​

On the other hand, Larry lost for the first time to a crafty light heavyweight who turned out to be a kind of lame heavyweight (Spinks only looked even halfway good against a Holmes three years into a decline and a thoroughly washed up Cooney). Larry at times had serious trouble with any fighter whom didn't fight conventionally, and lost at least 40% of his effectiveness when fighters neutralized his jab (Witherspoon, Spinks, and to a markedly lesser degree Norton). He wasn't a great puncher, either, though his right hand was probably overall heavier than the average heavyweight's. Finally, Holmes lacked a vicious, accurate left hook in his arsenal since day one; he was for the most part a straight puncher with not much for variation besides the abovementioned uppercut.

FWIW (and that's very little), here's how I rank the ATG heavies:

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Holyfield
5. Lewis
6. Foreman
7. Marciano
8. Frazier
9. Wlad
10. Tyson
11. Dempsey
12. Johnson
13. Liston
14. Vitali
15. Bowe
16. Charles
17. Tunney
18. Walcott
19. Fitzsimmons
20. Norton


But I feel Holmes, though only a few numbers up on my list, was the significantly greater fighter overall. I also feel prime Holmes would have stopped prime George within 11 (though more than likely scraping himself off the canvas to do so), and (both fighters being equal in terms of age and experience) handily outpointed him in the 90s .

 

There's definitely a good argument for Foreman being above Holmes.

 

I agree, one of the strongest imo being that Larry didn't win that belt back. But, at the obvious risk of me being waaayy too biased for my favorite, Holmes beat Spinks that second fight handily, and I had him winning the McCall fight by one point (and imo he put in at least an equally good showing against Holy as George).

To me Holmes was a two time champion because of the Spinks fight; whenever I'm called on that I ask the challenging opinion to watch that second fight again.

 

Such different careers, you can make good arguments either way.

 

If Larry wasn't my favorite I'd have an even tougher time calling it. When it comes H2H I just can't see George beating Larry at any time in his career though.

When we're talking ATG, however...Larry was a fighting champion who took on all comers (I honestly don't see Page or Thomas beating him, even during his decline, so the ducking accusations are bs imo). And I tend to look at the competition of his day more respectfully than others do. I aggressively posit that from 1979 to 1982 he couldn't be beaten (the Weaver and Snipes fights were just proof of his champion's heart, and certainly don't take away from his legacy...he stopped them both).

However, NOBODY I knew gave George any kind of serious chances against Moorer...and look what happened. At 45(!!!!!!).

 

That's how I feel about it .Both great ,great fighter s ,way up at the top .But different styles and slightly different eras .Could Foreman copy Holmes and beat 78 Norton then make all those defense s ?
Probably not .
Could Holmes beat Frazier in 2 then smash Norton in 2 ?
Probably not .
But in their own time period ,they both proved they belonged at the very top .

 

It's what you put into it really. Achievement wise, yes, since first winning the title in such a dominant manner from a great champion and then winning it again more than 20 years later was just previously unheard of. One of the most unique achievement not only in boxing, but in sports in general.

But I tend to put more emphasis on how consistently good a fighter was in his best years. And not like "Bowe in ´92" or whatever, but over a number of years against a good number of quality opponents, preferably of different styles. And here Holmes outshines Foreman, I think. And let's not forget that Holmes comeback in his 40's was nothing to scoff at either. He did very well and it's not really far fetched to say that he could have won the crown from Moorer that night as well, given the chance.

So Larry, for me. Probably in the nr 3 slot.

 

A Holmes-Frazier bout (featuring let's say an Ali-beating Holmes and FOTC Frazier) would have been some fight. I can't see Frazier knocking Holmes down (Holmes' main problem was the overhand right), and if Holmes started landing the uppercut Frazier would have been in big trouble. The thing is, Joe was almost as relentlessly forward-moving as Tyson and certainly moreso than Norton. He would have eaten the jab up and down, but Larry tended to get hit too much...tough call on that one imo.

 

I imagine Larry outpointing Moorer as well, and can't forget that close fight against McCall.

There are some Larry fans even more sycophantic than I am whom would say that Larry was a de facto three time champion, beating both Spinks and McCall (just not on paper). And I know more than a few people who called that Holyfield fight at least a draw.

I had Larry behind only two points in the Holyfield fight. I had George behind by three.

 

Haven't seen the McCall fight and I do believe he earned a W over Spinks in the rematch, but a draw against Holy? ... Long time ago I watched it, but from what I remember that is just way off.

 

To be clear, I had Holy two points ahead of Larry. I thought the fight was a draw after ten rounds, but Larry just mysteriously gave it away after that. I felt the fight was pretty close except for the last two rounds...and that goes for the McCall fight as well. Much of that might be chalked up to Larry's age inhibiting his stamina, but I'm trying hard not to be attached too close to Mr. Holmes' lower anatomy (despite my unashamed LH fanboyisms).

He definitely lost to Holy, but I can't say that at all about the McCall fight.

 

Team Foreman

 

I'll perhaps watch the McCall fight. Was it any good?

 

Not really, in fact overall it was a bit of a snoozefest imo. Holmes made a really good showing for himself in the first three quarters of the fight (it looked to many people as though he was going to reclaim the title). He took a huge (Lennox Lewis-kayo-level) right from McCall later and after that wasn't the same. Just like in the Holyfield fight, Larry just didn't do enough in the final rounds to take the title. Again, at least part of this was attributable to age.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I'm a huge fan of Larry and even I had him winning over McCall by barely one point (and tbh I wasn't exactly shocked when McCall got the nod, it was very close but Larry just couldn't get up for the last few rounds like he should have).