Who would have won if the 1999 fight between Holmes and Foreman came off?

Foreman lost a lot of snap in his punches and no longer had that killer instinct by the late 90's. However, his jab and defense had improved tremendously and he got better at winning rounds by the time he fought Briggs.

I think by 99 he wouldn't have a very good chance of beating Holmes. Foreman had gained more finesse and ring savvy, but his best chance in this matchup would be to use his power and strength. Holmes had also lost his best asset (speed), but he never relied solely on his speed and athleticism and was more well rounded than Foreman. Thus when they're both older and without their best assets, I would have to favor Holmes. Only way Foreman could win is by KO (hell of a long shot), or if he can manage to outjab Holmes (good luck with that). Holmes should take it 7/10 but it would be an interesting clash between seasoned veterans.

 

Indeed, George was mostly about his jab at the end, and though it was still a very fine punch it's silly to think he could have outdone Larry in that dept. I think George's wife envisioned him getting Stewart-eyezed again and wisely vetoed it. I don't see George losing badly, but definitely not looking good at all during the decision reading. Holmes takes 9 out of 12 rounds, with George getting lucky with a shot or few along the way. They're both my favorite fighters.

 

I would have rathered that Foreman had came back and fought Holmes sometimes between 1978-1980, when it mattered.

 

I have always thought big George wins this

An older Holmes gets walked down eventually. I do not see Holmes dancing more than 5 rounds He tires out then gets caught in a slugfest and loses.

George had the exact right style for his age

 

The Battle Of The Oldies. It all depends who has the better chin and stamina. Both George Foreman and Larry Holmes did have a good chin, but Larry did have better stamina. A very close fight, Holmes by a majority decision.

 

We didn’t see a 99 Foreman. But the Briggs George had more left then Larry at that stage when he was fighting Butterbean.

 

Tough one to call by the end of Foreman's career, he started to lose some of that famous power. His last 4 fights all went the distance, and 2 of those opponents wern't the most sturdiest of fighters, Crawford Grimsley had been stopped in 10 seconds vs Jimmy Thunder, and Lou Savarese got blown out in 1 round by Mike Tyson and 5 rounds against David Izon.

But on the flip side Larry Holmes also had problems vs Jesse Ferguson, Quinn Navarre, Maurice Harris.

I mean as others as said we didn't see Foreman in 1999, and by 1997 which was his last fight. He hadn't stopped his last 4 opponents. And 2 years could make a big difference especially at Foreman's age, and he could of eroded even further.

But i think i'd favour Larry Holmes, i feel like he had the style to beat George Foreman, at any point in there career's IMO.

 

The fact that he was 52 might've had something to do with it.

 

I think Larry would have trained his butt off for that one and been very motivated, and won a decision with his speed and timing.

 

I think by that point Foreman would have had the edge but honestly with the two of them being around 50 it wouldn’t have meant anything

 

Foreman was like a mummy towards the end. I thought he deserved losses against Schulz and Savarese but thought he did enough against Briggs. Larry was also pretty far off from even his Mercer performance, I thought he lost the Harris fight and I never watched the late 90s Bonecrusher and Weaver fights. I think Holmes would of won a close decision that may have been sad to watch.

 

You're in your prime at 52. Or is that 25? Whatever it is, Holmes was in his prime.

 

Prime...grandfather age?