Larry Holmes speaks out about George Foreman ~ Listen In

I don't think it is quite that simple.

Larry Holmes was a great fighter but if we are honest about it he always struggled against the best contenders of his era.

He is not going to have an easy win over any all time great.

 

Holmes wins prime for prime imo......but Holmes is speaking out of his arse in that interview as he often does.....
The fight in the 90's was already signed and it was later cancelled because the would be promoter of the fight had no proof of where the money would come from to pay the fighters.

Essentially Foreman backed out of the fight because there was'nt any guarantee that two well past their prime fat geezers would sell PPV's.....
The person that was to promote the fight was counting on the fight selling so that he could pay the fighters.

......but had the fight not sold, which was a big possibility (a healthy PPV buy rate would have been neccesary to be able to pay the fight purse that exceeded well above 10 million dollars).......

Had the fight not sold, the fighters would not have gotten paid.


Old Foreman I feel would have knocked out old Larry Holmes.....
.....but boxing is a business, certainly I cant blame Foreman for backing out of a fight where there was a better chance he was'nt going to get paid for.






In the interview, Larry Holmes says that the promoter did'nt put down the money up front because he feared Foreman would walk out of the fight with the money in hand......

Thats ridiculous. The money could have been put in a fund where it stipulated the fighter collects after the fight.......in the meantime even the promoter who deposited the money could'nt even withdraw the funds unless the fight was officially cancelled.


In any regards, I remember reading about it way back then.....the fight was cancelled because the promoter did'nt have the funds to back up the promotion.

 

Much of what Holmes said was true.

Foreman probably did make the calcualation that Holmes was a bad stylistic match for him.

Holmes probably did want the fight, once he didn't have a title to loose.

I suspect though that Foreman was just making the kind of career decisions that Holmes made when he held all the aces.

 

Yeah, the question to put it in perspective was "Is twilight Holmes better than prime Briggs?". Granted, I think George got screwed in that fight but the point is that it was close enough that...well, look what happened.

In answer to the question above...I believe so.

 

I emailed him and asked him about Larry once. He replied something like: "Larry's just playing around. He's crazy."

 

I think it all depends on how much Holmes puts on his punches. At the end of the day, Shannon Briggs never was that great a fighter. His claim to fame is hurting Lennox Lewis on his way to hitting the wall by about the 3rd round and then getting sparked. He was one of the few fighters whose stamina was probably worse than George's. But, he did have certain moments when he used the jab and put something behind where he was successful. I think Holmes still had the jab, but it's a question of will he work off of it enough to slow down Foreman. I'd favor Holmes.

 

Saverese is C level and that is a compliment. A totally washed up stoned Tyson (training for two weeks !!!) iced him at around 90 sec...............Briggs is the jokes of jokes, HE NEVER BEAT A QUALITY OPPONENT PERIOD. A gift decision against a ancient Foreman and lucky crack that journeyman "Tame Wolf" are his only claim to glory...lol.

In his careful handpicked comeback Foreman always looked for opponents that are easy pickings, whenever he stepped up he struggled tremendously. The problem with him fighting Holmes, besides the obvious speed disadvantage, is that Larry would keep it at range with the jab and keep George with the right honest. If Foreman connects on the rare occasion Larry can braze himself because he will see the shot from a mile away .

Larry would make Foreman sooooooooooooooo old that is the reason the fight never materialized.

Holmes has also a excellent chin and even when old great recup powers. The reason he got his ass handed to him from Tyson was Mike's speed and akward angles aka he was hit from stuff he never saw.

 

Even more so was that he was over the hill irregardless of what he did later. Peak Holmes and Tyson would have been a fight of the century. I favour Holmes narrowly.

 

Perfect point. After his late title career dealings Larry has no right ever mentioning the word ducked etc.

 

I say Foreman wins in 99 because as old fighters, I actually thought Foreman's jab was just as good and had more power behind it than Holmes.......

Add to that, Foreman imo at that time was fighting a better class of opposition.......

Foremans last 5 fights of his career were against young fighters.....Michael Moorer, Axel Shulz, Crawford Grimsley, Lou Savarese, and Shannon Briggs.....3 undefeated fighters among them and the other two Shulz and Briggs, had only lost once.


Holmes on the other hand fought Brian Nielson, Maurice Harris, James Smith, Mike Weaver and Butterbean.

 

It's poetic justice that Holmes never got his chance to beat Foreman and the payday that goes with it. But at least it seems Foreman was ready in 1999 to fight if the money had been there. (and, seriously, that fight would have been horrible.)

When Holmes was world champion he was explicit in the last 2-3 years of his reign that he was looking for easy opponents, and guys like Greg Page and Pinklon Thomas were denied their chances and paydays.