Holmes Or Foreman -Whom Do You Rate Higher?

Definitely on the match up. Holmes also never faced a great puncher who was also a first-rate finisher until Tyson. By then, too late to glean much in either direction.

 

The details have been covered on this forum ad nauseum. The horse can only be led to water though.

Meanwhile we see lots of excuses for Holmes based on his age against Spinks from the same people who tear Foreman performances apart well into his forties

 

First I’ve heard of a Shavers fight. What’s the source?

 

Upon searching for one, I believe I misremembered him claiming to have ducked Shavers when in actuality he said he dodged Quarry. My mistake.

There are claims Foreman ducked Shavers but it's all third-hand stuff... nothing official.

 

Foreman by a country mile.

 

I don’t think Shavers was really in the picture until very briefly before Foreman retired.

 

As we used to say back in the day...WORD!

 

I have Foreman as greater, h2h is a bit of a mix up and depends on the styles they face

 

No more like people excuse Foreman's comprehensive losses/struggles in his 20s and sweep it under the carpet with excuses. But apparently a fighter aged 35 with 20 world title fights which is more than double the amount of title fights Foreman had in his entire career means Holmes was in his peak apparently and isn't allowed excuses.

That's called being a hypocrite.

 

He beat better fighters than Holmes. You have already conceded it on the other thread.

Boxing is about who you beat.

 

Yes i agree but as i said to you before i don't think Foreman has enough quality wins to overcome Holmes's longevity as champion.

The only thing i don't like and i don't mean you BTW is that i'm being portrayed as someone who doesn't like Foreman and that's not the case. I don't dislike him but i have my own views on both fighters careers just like everyone else.

Holmes has his faults like his questionable opposition after the Witherspoon fight which i've been vocal about in the past but Foreman also has his faults aswell.

 

Holmes for me, and I say that as a huge Foreman fan.

 

Foreman only has 10 world title fights and 5 defenses but Foreman has 18 fights against HW title contenders and 4 against LHW contenders. Contender meaning guys who fought for a world title. This isn't even counting Morrison.

In the 70s there was 1 belt given that WBA/WBC were unified the whole era and Foreman had an NABF reign which should be alphabet worthy given it was the 2nd most valuable belt. The guys he were fighting for it were Lyle, Frazier, Ledoux and Young who fought for the world title. Ali held this belt during Frazier and Foremans reign and his opponents were all world title contenders too. At this time it was sort of the subsidiary title for the lineal belt. Foremans NABF lineage actually becomes Holmes's world title lineage. Foreman loses to Young, Young loses to Norton and Norton loses to Holmes.

Hes also got 68 KOs and 76 wins despite taking a decade off. Only got stopped once. Hes amazing in every other statistical category you'd use to measure longevity except title fights. Foreman doesn't have the long world title reign but hes got enough quality for it not to matter.

 

I rank Holmes higher based on their respective career's.

H2H, peak for peak, I'd guess Holmes, without much confidence.

 

Holmes busts Foreman up H2H IMO that fight would be pretty close to one sided. P4P it’s whatever your flavour is.