Could George Foreman make it undefeated through Larry Holmes title opponents?

Right. Because he ran into Muhammad Ali. At a comparative point in his reign, Holmes was running into…Ossie Ocasio & Lorenzo Zanon. Total non-factors according to you. LOL.

 

If we're tracking chronologically, 1978 to 1985...
The 1st Shavers fight would be great while it lasted, Foreman in 5.
I see George having a little trouble with Weaver but the latter slaughtered in 6.
Shavers would go quicker 2nd fight.
The Cooney who fought Holmes would probably score a knockdown but get massacred shortly after.
And now the decline: Witherspoon gives serious trouble with his jab and size, but George sloppily stops him in 8 at the latest.
Both Carl Williams and Bonecrusher nearly win 12 rounders, benefit of a doubt given the champ.
Blows out Spinks in 1 round, retires him in 1985. George retires with the belt.
Is pressured into Tyson, gets stopped in 3 after nearly stopping Tyson himself in the Fight of the Year.
Wins the title again later, at best an alphabet belt after the wars he has been through.

 

You are too thick to bother with, frankly.

 

Larry Holmes never once beat a single all-time great fighter in all his career, so there’s nothing to suggest he could hang with any of them.

Does this finally spell out to you how braindead your logic is?

 

He also lost convincingly to Jimmy Young 8-4 and was in a life and death struggle vs Lyle who Quarry and Young both beat comfortably as I said all before the age of 30.

 

Norton wasn't great?

 

Not remotely.

 

Foreman only has 1 win against an ATG fighter and that was an out of shape Frazier past his prime.

The other two ATG's Foreman fought were Holyfield, Ali, and he lost convincingly to both Ali was past his prime. Holyfield was in his prime but Foreman was in his 40s so that can be overlooked. But I still think Holmes in his 40s was more competitive than Foreman was vs Holyfield.

There's also nothing to suggest Holmes couldn't beat ATGs though ? I don't see what's so brain dead about it ? Foreman has the better single wins but he wasn't as consistent as Holmes hence that's why I don't believe Foreman could replicate Holmes's reign.

 

That was after the Ali fight, which proves the point that I was making. He wasn’t as consistent as Holmes due to the Ali loss which took his confidence, had Holmes fought someone that good, he could easily have gone in the same direction as Foreman post-Ali fight, momentum is everything and there wasn’t anything like Ali in Holmes era to defeat prime Foreman and take his confidence and momentum.

 

Not one thing here refutes the fact - fact - that Holmes never bested an ATG. By your own logic, there is now, “nothing to suggest” he could beat any ATG fighter. Is that true? No, it isn’t true, is it. Because a ten-year-old could deduce he was a great fighter regardless. Just like they could figure out Foreman can probably go on a long run as champion with trash like LeDoux, Zanon & Snipes in his way.

 

I don't believe Foreman’s loss to Young was due to him losing his confidence he lost to Young based on styles that was a convincing loss and there's no evidence to suggest Foreman could beat a tricky defensive fighter like Young at any point in his career.

 

Somehow this has been made to feel like explaining nuclear physics to a golden retriever.

 

The Peralta fights featuring a green Foreman who had not yet learned ring-cutting are just a figment of your imagination, folks.

 

But tbf, Holmes didn’t beat anyone as good as prime Young until Michael Spinks other than Norton, who Foreman beat years earlier.

 

Beat Ali, who went on to beat Frazier twice and prime Foreman.

Beat Young, who beat 26 year old Foreman and had a pretty close loss to Ali.

Gave prime Larry Holmes the fight of his life.

I'll agree to disagree, you seem to just not like Holmes. Nothing wrong with that.