Holmes Or Foreman -Whom Do You Rate Higher?

Douglas beat a better fighter than Foreman and Holmes…

 

It is like that

 

Irrelevant - Foreman lost in his prime to Jimmy Young this is a fact lol.

 

Not a fact. That is a subjective opinion, & one poorly supported by the data.

An example of a fact: In a thirty year career, Holmes did not defeat a single great opponent.

 

[

No it’s a fact he lost in his prime years it ain’t that painful to accept… you’re wrong however all due respect it isn’t a fact lol as it’s well actually subjective. I also really don’t care, I can watch Holmes and see he’d beat Foreman - I make my judgements on the basis of what happens in the ring - I do not decide the outcome of make believe fights based on the forum greatness we sprinkle on a few under the supervision of Bert Sugars ghost… that just doesn’t concern me. Foreman beat A “great” a shot, one eyed, 5ft10 cruiserweight lol one who would be steam rolled (with all due respect) by tons of guys, In his prime years he got beaten with ease by Ali, beaten with ease by Jimmy Young JIMMY YOUNG and went life and death with Lyle who beat a contender? Or something.

 

There is no opinion who was better, they were both great. On Monday Foreman was better for me, on Tuesday I see more for Holmes. These are different careers, very different. There are many arguments for both. Larry more complete, versatile, consistent, George more dominant. George conquered higher peaks and Larry more of the lower ones, George stumbled on the lower ones and Holmes climbed them for a long time, a really difficult and subjective comparison.

Nevertheless, arguments of this type irritate me - prime Foreman lost decisively to Young... Kurwa, Georga lost in the first period to two truly outstanding boxers - the great Ali and the underrated Young. Both were style nightmares for Georg and both fights took place in unfavorable circumstances for him. Is every fighter a robot that he has to be in great shape all the time, has no bad days, doesn't make mistakes before or during the fight? Foreman dominated 2 ATG in a truly impressive way. This has to be appreciated. For me, they are both more or less on the same level, but if I were to throw a coin, it would hit George.

 

Holmes, both resume-wise and H2H.

 

Holmes.

 

Nice to see you posting again we need some of them unique threads again in the classic section from you.

 

“Ali was so fast and had so much courage. It just made him (Liston) fall apart.” This wouldn’t hold here despite coming from his own pupil, his top ten champions list good IMO I agree with a fair bit of it, I’d have dropped Foster IMO.

 

I might take a prime Foreman over a prime Holmes (but it'd be close to a 50/50) and I'd take Foreman's comeback heights over Larry's, but it would be a hard argument and a dumb one to claim that Foreman approached anything near Holmes' professionalism or consistency over his career though.

I think I'd lean toward Holmes.

 

Holmes easily

 

Holmes had 20 titles defenses of the HW crown over a 7 year reign. Had better longevity through his career and would have beat Foreman from Zaire IMO. Holmes was a bad man.

 

"The Infinite Brian London Theory" still makes me chuckle.

 

Who are the 18 names at Heavyweight ? not counting fighters who only fought Foreman for the title.

Chuvalo
Frazier
Norton
Lyle
LeDoux
Young
Cooper
Cooney
Morrison
Moorer
Briggs
Schultz
Wepner

So i have 13 unless i've missed some names ? you can't count fighters who only fought Foreman for the title because that's a misleading stat and some fighters like Roman, Savarese, Briggs, Grimsley, were not deserving of title shots and 3 of those names were not even ranked fighters.

Also looking at that whole list.

Chuvalo = Solid win.
Frazier = Great win.
Norton = Very good win.
Lyle = Good win but an immense struggle aswell.
LeDoux = Tough fighter but was more like a fringe contender/journeyman type fighter.
Young = Bad loss for Foreman a comprehensive points loss in his physical prime.
Cooper = Solid win.
Cooney = Cooney was no longer a relevant fighter 8 years past his prime had been inactive for years.
Morrison = A comprehensive loss over a chinny fighter who should've been a good style match for him.
Briggs = Good power but with a heavily inflated record i don't think he's that good personally Botha beat him up in his prime so did Wilson.
Schultz = Solid fighter but more like a European level boxer rather than world class plus this fight was also a robbery so that's a major asterisk.
Wepner = Not sure how to rate him to be quite honest ? a solid fighter i guess but a very sloppy fighter who cut easily.

As for the 4 Light Heavyweight contenders again who are they ? the only ones i know of are Qawi, Peralta, Williamson. Peralta was a solid win i guess because he was ranked but he never actually beat any notable Heavyweights. Qawi was way past his prime and overweight and didn't belong at Heavyweight. Williamson won a vacant title off of a very obscure name that i doubt many of heard of Prince Mama Muhammad ? and also ended his career at 26-16.

So some of these statistics you have listed are quite misleading without the proper context.

You're talking about something that has no relevance NABF is not a title belt and you're just throwing out a theory based on your opinion to make Foreman look better that's not how it works.

Holmes also won his belt the WBC title in the same era though regarding only WBA, WBC, titles only being available. Holmes beat Norton who was considered the number 1 Heavyweight in the world and arguably the best Heavyweight in the world at that time for a short period. Because most felt Norton had beat Ali 2-1 in their trilogy, Frazier was done as a top fighter, Foreman had retired, and Norton had beaten Young who had retired Foreman.

Holmes also beat Ali who was the WBA champion 1 year before he lost to Holmes before vacated. Obviously i can't give credit any real credit to Holmes for beating Ali based on the condition Ali was in. But still that is a fact even though i give Holmes 0 credit for beating that version of Ali.

Well having alot less wins over ranked opponents and having far less title wins is quite an alarming stat if you're comparing him with Holmes. I mean i think title wins and wins over ranked opposition is a good measure on how to rank a fighter.