Larry Holmes vs George Foreman

I want to make something clear. I don't believe this is an easy win I am just confident Holmes wins.

Let's try this from another angle. Who did Foreman beat to suggests he stops or catches Holmes? the only opposition that were remotely similar dominated George. Now you will say "Worst outing, Clancy, he couldn't take the punishment Ali did" but that's all we have to work with here Ali or Young where as we have plenty of instances of Holmes beating a huge variety of guys to analyse. Your argument seems to rest on the RIJ because you seem to think the Young fight is voided okay there was stuff going on fair enough with the pacing. But tell me how does the Ali-Holmes comparison work?

He cornered Ali who wanted to go to the ropes, who couldn't dance anymore because of the wrong ring and a bad climate (He also didn't exactly look mobile after this fight either). Ali wasn't a fool he chose to lay there early and he didn't take that many shots either again you can quote the man or watch the fight and see most of Foremans huge shots get blocked, intercepted or rolled with. This is why I use the Jimmy Young fight as an example it's the only fight we can work with to show Foreman chasing down a mover without so much stuff obscuring what was going on.

Now onto the highlighted secrtion above. Do you really think Norton is anything like Foreman? unlike Foreman he was always in a position to punch, never off balance and caught everything on the way in most of the time. He jabbed with Holmes, chased Ali around 3 times and had stamina for 15 rounds... Larry also really wasn't trapped along the ropes I remember him controlling the centre of the ring yes, but Holmes largely darting in and around him for a majority of the fight.

Why would I put him in that bracket every boxer is unique, there is no X fits into tier Y. Foreman would be stopped for different reasons despite being able to potentially beat all those guys. If he isn't then it's a very easy UD to judge? When I talk about his stance I am just referring to how open it was I am not saying Holmes is just going to go out and pour in shots LMAO it's just a brief description of a potentially 12-15 not a silver bullet at all and yes- like usual do you want a paragraph long description of how Holmes fought? we all know what he does and considering your own responses I want you tell me how you think Foreman will do?

 

I am not sure why you choose to make this point clear now, having initially posted:

“

This content is protected

”


And having since asserted:

“

This content is protected

”


The above gives every indication that, in your view, Foreman is an easy win for Holmes. But, moreover, it is entirely devoid of any credit for Foreman. This is telling.

But let’s just say, for argument sake, your initial statements were just exuberant hyperbole. What challenges do you think Holmes would face against Foreman?

So far, I have not seen you mention any of Foreman's advantages in this fight - literally nothing that goes in his favor. Quite the opposite, in fact.

You can try any angle you like, it won’t change the fact that Ali was both a superior heavyweight and athlete to Holmes and the worst version of Foreman ever, entered the ring against Young.

Excluding any other of Foreman’s fights seems an unnecessary constraint - albeit a convenient one for backing Holmes.

None of whom were on Foreman’s level. So, a better question would be, who did Holmes beat to suggest he could withstand an offensive threat like Foreman?

It doesn’t but, even if it did, why shouldn’t it? That fight showcased both the best and the worst of a prime Foreman against the greatest Heavyweight to ever live. It is also a fight you have referenced to make Foreman look, in your words, “silly”.

And you seem to be dismissive of any factors about the event itself, which place into question Foreman’s effectiveness, at this point. Why use the worst ever performance of a boxer, before he then goes into retirement, as the benchmark of said boxer’s best?

Indeed, why use Foreman/Young as a comparative measure for how a Foreman/Holmes fight would go, given that Holmes fought nothing like Young?

Well - I didn’t make the comparison. You did, as related above.

I’ve made clear that I do not believe Holmes would be able to employ the same strategy as Ali and survive it. I’ve also maintained throughout that Holmes would be at as much risk, if not more, of being shepherded into Foreman’s strike zone, as was Ali (and as were Norton and Frazier).

This represents a significant challenge to Holmes.

No. I don’t - as was pointed out. Norton falls somewhere short of being the offensive threat of Foreman.

And, again - Norton was not nearly the offensive threat of Foreman - nowhere near as good at cutting off the ring as Foreman but still, after a while initially stalking Holmes, just went on to plainly start walking Holmes down.

In other words, if Norton could find Holmes; Foreman would.

Perhaps a better example is: If Shavers could find Holmes; Foreman would - with the added disaster for Holmes in that he wouldn’t survive the round, as he was able to against Shavers.

Sure. And whilst it might not be an exact science, there are recognizably distinguishable levels of class between fighters.

Since you appear to have no problem aligning Holmes with other boxers (Ali, Young) to create what you think are useful analogies, why can’t you align Foreman with any one of Holmes’ opponents.

The guys Holmes was ‘gunning down’ were the likes of Shavers, Weaver, Snipes and Cooney. It is perfectly reasonable for me to ask if you think Foreman is on the same level of these guys, given that you predict Holmes would ‘gun down’ Foreman.

So, given that Foreman was only ever stopped by one man in an 81-fight career, I am just trying to fathom why you think Holmes would replicate that same one-off feat. Especially, since he is not really on the same strata as Ali and never beat anyone on Foreman’s level.

But at the top of the page you state: "

This content is protected

".

You have LITERALLY stated "

This content is protected

"

I am honestly not sure that you do.

I made my points about how I think this fight might go, in my very first post in the thread - and I did so with respect for both fighters.

Let me know when you have a good word to write about Foreman. As it stands, currently, it seems to me that bringing yourself to do so would be quite difficult for you.

 

I am going to highlight this and break it down the best I can.

(Highlighted in red)
I truly believe Foreman looked silly in there with Ali and Young. Utterly baffled and really showed his low ring IQ. I think that over the course of the fight Holme's right hands would just keep making there mark because of how Foreman's lacking defence. I don't think Foreman would get lucky enough to catch Holmes with the way he threw his best shots and I think Holmes would have the heart and chin to bounce back if he was caught.

(Highlighted in Cyan)
It's meant to be telling I don't think much of "70s Foreman" at all. I don't think George has a lot to offer in this match up he is durable, mentally tough and a strong guy but mostly it would be a case of dealing with slippery dynamite . A convincing UD or a late stoppage is my pick I really don't care if you think I am being too bias in in my head this fight is a no brainer.

(Highlighted in yellow)
The worst version of Foreman ever? really. He was young, in his physical prime and looked in good shape to me- better then the Lyle fight. He didn't look any worse or better then usual he just went in with a different game plan he was making sure he didn't blow his wad early because he knew what type of fighter Jimmy was and it almost paid off in the seventh (Or was it eighth?).

How am I ignoring any of Foreman's other fights which other ones are relevant when talking about Holmes vs Foreman? I am just using the Young fight as an indication that Holmes had enough to keep away off the ropes. The Ali fight is in void IMO when talking about him chasing Larry to the ropes I have explained why it isn't a way to predict how this fight will go. Again even when he had Ali on the ropes what happened? Holmes looked good on the ropes when he was forced to go there so I am not sure it matters.

He was silly, what was the best of Prime Foreman in the rumble? he fought a dumb fight and thought he was winning right up until he was stopped. He swung wide and ate shots like candy and hardly landed anything good, after a few rounds he was finished. Again he looked silly his plan was nonsense.

I think that Holmes beat and boxed smarter, big guys then George in his career. Plenty of them none where a 1-1 no one is. let's be serious here for a minute Larry was the much, much, much better boxer I have to ask you again who did 70s George BEAT to convince you he could beat Larry Holmes?

(Green)
"Falls short of being the offensive threat of Foreman"
What does that mean? THEY FOUGHT NOTHING ALIKE lol. That's just nonsense you can't seriously watch Ken and George and say that he was a bigger "offensive threat" then Norton in this scenario and again in this scenario yes Norton is better at cutting the ring off for his own reasons they don't compare at all Norton was better for the job.

"If Norton can find Holmes" Okay... "If Young can find George" and round and round we go.
Shavers lost just about every single round he caught Holmes coasting to a win have you seen the fight?
He got up and won that's all that matters he had one bad moment in a perfect fight and he slipped and slid his way to the bell that round and looked fine shortly after.

(Pink...)
I think that he's better then them in different ways none of which would be helpful here.

(Orange)
Good thing he never fought Holmes in the 80s then lucky Young retired him otherwise there would be 2 KOs on that record. I can fathom it because I can watch film of both fighters. Holmes outlasts and stops him late or UDs a lot of people would agree.


(Purple)
He makes good grills

 

A lot of this^ is just circular opinion-waving and some of it is just nonsense that can't really be replied to, without painstakingly explaining the error in what I am sure you thought was a pithy comeback, at the time.

I think I've sufficiently demonstrated your phoniness when it comes to Foreman (and maybe just your all-round sanctimony - we'll see).

I don't much care what you think Foreman looked like. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But - so what?

Neither do I disagree that Holmes would land his straight right and with some frequency, I'd imagine. It is after all, in addition to his jab, Holmes' primary weapon. (I tend the favor Holmes' use of the jab to the maximum against Foreman and I see him being almost exclusively on the defensive).

What I do disagree with is the ease (despite your late, faux claim that you didn't think it would be an easy win) with which you think Larry would land the right. He would need to be constantly negotiating an advancing Foreman and the idea that, if Foreman lands, he is lucky...

Lesser men were "lucky enough" to catch Holmes but Foreman, whose sole purpose in the ring was to get his opponent out of the ring wouldn't be, according to you. Again - your opinion - you're entitled to it.

To imply your opinions are based upon the fight 'in your head' being a "no brainer" says it all really and puts on display how little you are able to see past your bias.

And, the problem with debating someone with such an extreme negative fixation towards all or part of the subject under discussion, is that it's difficult to tell where their irrationality ends and the stupidity begins.

Either way, it certainly makes discussing Foreman, in any context at all with you, quite pointless. So, I think I'll just leave it there, thanks.

 

You proved nothing and did a lot of the things you claim I am doing. I suggest you reflect on that.

 

Yeah - Like I need advice from an insanely biased, disingenuous and self-contradictory poster on an internet forum.

Thanks for the last laugh.

 

Jimmy Young embarrassed Ali as well. He was slick boxer, A "cutie" as Dundee called him. Not exciting but he was effective. He even took Kenny Norton to the wire.

 

I'm with you on SO much of your other points in this post, this is the one that just isn't quite convincing me. I really don't believe Zaire Ali was the level of the Holmes that beat him in 1980.

Overall YES Ali was the greatest in those areas. Not 1974 Ali, as indubitably sensational as his performance against Foreman was (especially in terms of beyond-genius ring IQ and durability)...no, not the level of 1980 Holmes.

But that's just my opinion, and you have some seriously excellent points on the subject.

 

That's fair enough. Let's take a look at what we have to gauge their respective form, for the years mentioned.

1980 Holmes:
- Lorenzo Zanon
- Leroy Jones
- Scott LeDoux
- Muhammad Ali (aged 38)

1974 Ali:
- Frazier
- Foreman

Also worth noting that Ali had, not long before his '74 rematch with Frazier, avenged his defeat to a peak Norton, as well.

I think 1974 Ali beats Holmes' 1980 opponents (including his 1980-self) in more impressive fashion than did Holmes.

1974 Frazier and Foreman (and Norton) plow through Holmes' 1980 opposition, as well.

When we hear and talk about a diminished Ali in 1974, we need to remember that he was being compared to his '60s self.

Ali was still the goods in '74 - in my opinion.

 

I think the difference would be Holmes use of the jab which was a primary weapon and one of the greatest jabs in the history of the sport.
If Holmes didn't posses that jab I think Foreman would win.

 

The opponents make for a REALLY good argument for Ali. But when I look back and see the way Holmes was fighting...even 1981 Holmes against Spinks was just a marvelous machine...

 

Ok Rules - I know you're a massive Holmes fan

And, Holmes was pretty special. No arguments from me there.

But, on this particular point, we'll agree to disagree (at this time, at least).

 

Holmes would have a rough time in the beginning too middle rounds but Foreman’s gas tank will fade and Holmes would take the win on the cards.

 

Taking away Holmes's jab is like taking away George's power. You'd have an entirely different fighter. Odd argument.

That said, I do think Holmes would win, assuming they didn't get a spongy ring like Ali was stick with against George, and also assuming George doesn't get off a lucky shot like Shavers did (but gets it off early in a round).

And if they did get the same ring... while Holmes wasn't quite as durable as Ali, old man Holmes could do a pretty good rope-a-dope, why would we think a prime Holmes couldn't?