Underrated reason why Holmes was the best of his era

Every fighter has his strengths and weaknesses, but 20 title defenses over 7 years against some pretty solid fighters is highly commendable, plus what he showed when old and past-it. Opponents aside, based on the eye test, I’ve always been impressed with Holmes. Height, reach, speed, footwork, reflexes, defense, chin, toughness/heart, durability, will-to-win, condition, excellent pace and volume for a heavyweight, underrated power and ability to break guys, there’s a lot there to like, appreciate, and enjoy watching.

 

Excellent post-agree 100%. Holmes was a GREAT boxer--(top 5 all-time HW IMHO)--and he absolutely could have been champion in other eras!

 

I think that's a bit harsh, lol.

 

Honestly I'm starting to get tired of you I've bit my tongue but you keep doing these snide comments about me in every thread so now I'm calling you out.

I do not "hate" Foreman it's my opinion that I personally don't see a case for Foreman over Holmes and that's an opinion I'm entitled to theres no reason for you to get butthurt over it. I don't know what your problem is but ever since we had a debate last week about Holmes/Foreman. You're in every thread gossiping about me but yet you won't quote me directly instead you do these little snide comments about me to other members which is weird to be quite honest.

As for hate ? You're the one that said and I quote about Tito "I'll be happy when he's dead" which is distasteful and not funny. And yet you're doing these sarcastic/hate troll like comments in every thread about fighters you dislike and as you can see in this thread multiple members are tired of it me included.

And quite frankly I'm tired of your little snide comments in every thread about me so as i said before if you want to hold a grudge on a boxing forum and keep arguing then don't bother interacting or mentioning me and just put me on ignore and I'll do the same. Or we can go into PMs and try and sort out whatever problem you have ? Regardless I'm asking you to stop this nonsense.

 

I think Holmes could have been the best of his era, unfortunately he avoided the biggest wins avoiding the best fighters John Tate, Weaver rematch primes, Page, Dokes, Thomas, Coetzee, and avoided rematched in controversial wins Williams and Witherspoon. Michael Spinks was the weakest challenge and never fought above 175lbs but beat Holmes for the title.

 

Great athletes that show supreme dedication to their craft usually excel over time whether it’s Mayweather, Wlad or Holmes. Guys with natural ability but not the dedication are more prone to inconsistency like Toney, Witherspoon etc.

 

Norton should have had a rematch, too.

 

I spared naming you that’s as good as I’ll offer.

 

Nobody who gives him a hard time gets a rematch those are Larry’s rules.

Unless they get the decision, mind. Then they have to jump back into the ring with him. Does the resident Holmes sycophant wish to argue Spinks would have got a rematch had he lost the first fight? Holmes would have had him jailed if he could after that fight

 

It’s pretty rich for you to call anyone a troll with lines like, “Foreman’s résumé pales in comparison to Holmes’ in pretty much any way you could measure it.”



That must be why about half of all lists you see have Foreman above Holmes historically. Possibly, even more than half.

 

You can "spare me" Don Corleone by stop gossiping about me to other members I've told you 3 times to stop doing it and yet you can continue to do it.

So I'm supposed to just sit back and let you continously have snide comments about me and you expect me to be fine with it ? I'm afraid not.

I don't know what your problem is but I find this baffling behaviour from a supposedly 40 year old man.

 

Frankly I could do a lot worse by addressing your posts directly. I have read nonsense points from you I haven’t addressed, because I’ve already learned it’s a pointless discussion where Foreman is concerned. That’s to your benefit. You have asked me not to address you & I haven’t been. In no reasonable manner does that preclude me mentioning anything you’ve said if I’m not attributing what I’m quoting to you, & here, I haven’t been. Your posts are public & subject to being mentioned just as much as mine or anyone else’s.

 

50% isn't much of a smoking gun. I can see arguments both ways but as I posited earlier in this thread, I think Holmes would have beaten Foreman. Both when they were old geezers and young lions. So I put Larry higher than George on my own 'list'. And yup, imagining two fights that never happened to make that decision isn't much of a smoking gun either...nor is the 50% of people who agree with me if your statistic is correct. It's really hard to gauge fighters on who they beat. The fact Foreman brutalised Frazier twice is only evidentiary sound for proving Formean had Joe's number. He also walloped Norton who gave Ali fits, and nobody would claim he was better than Ali based on that, would they? He was just better at beating Norton. I am a huge fan of Foreman, old and young, but for me, Holmes was the better, more complete fighter.

 

50% is a very big smoking gun IMO, if your argument is that one fighter destroys the other on accomplishments. If that is so, we should see an 80-90% swing in Holmes’ favour, shouldn’t we? You don’t see anywhere near that.

I don’t rate Holmes above Foreman, but is it outrageous to do so? No, it isn’t. The extremist viewpoints on this aren’t coming from my side of the aisle.

 

I can do alot worse aswell I choose not to because I have self respect for myself not to stoop down to your level of pettiness.

I've read plenty of nonsense posts from you aswell mostly every thread you're in all I see is troll comments about fighters you dislike I suppose that's really insightful/substantial posts.

What I exactly said is if your going to hold grudges over a simple debate and keep having digs at me then don't interact with me because I don't want to argue on the Internet.

And I've told you this multiple times but somehow you feel the need to keep doing it. Yes my posts are public but it's not acceptable to keep baiting and having digs at me to lure me into argument.

I've done absolutely nothing to you other than have a difference of an opinion on a Foreman/Holmes and you've carried this on for week and you think that's normal behaviour ?