WAS George Foreman Greater than Larry Holmes?

WTF are you talking about here, Chok ?

He beat the linear champion. Didn't just beat him, KO'd him.

It's pointless having any discussion with someone who makes up whatever $hit he feels like to justify his own biases and prejudices.

And " $hit " is exactly what it is. Upon defeating Moorer he became the lineal heavyweight champion of the world.
Full stop.

This last sentence takes the cake.

OF COURSE it boosts his stock as a fighter, and precisely because of his age at the time of the victory.

And what's with the WE ? Why are you referring to yourself in the plural ?

 

I would not argue with anyone who has Holmes over Foreman,,,and vice versa

 

No, Moorer was not better than Spinks? Spinks as in Michael? Frazier was a good style matchup for George but he won. That is true. He has power. but Holmes beating Norton and all those fights and defenses? I don't think George has a better career than Larry. Greater wins maybe. But not a better career. No. I don't think George would stop Larry in 2 rounds.. The Holmes from 1980 to 1983 was one of the best. George would have trouble with him.

 

I don't think beating Moorer should be the variable which puts anyone ahead of Larry Holmes.

 

At heavyweight ?

Of course Moorer was better.

 

No. Moorer did not beat Larry Holmes when Larry was undefeated and still a decent fighter. Not close. How was Moorer better? Spinks being knocked out by Tyson? Moorer was knocked out by Tua.

 

Spinks has a total of five bouts at HW.

Two wins over an ageing past prime Holmes (one of which was dubious)

a win over Steffen Tangstad

a win over a completely shot Cooney

And a brutal KO loss at the hands of Tyson.


That's it ! His complete HW record.



Moorer has 35 bouts at HW (30-4-1) with wins over Alex Stewart, Bert Cooper, James Smith, Holyfield, Axel Schultz, Franz Botha and Vassily Jirov.

He had a much better career at HW than Spinks.

 

all those people you mentioned had more fights at heavyweight besides maybe Jirov, so are they better than Spinks just on that?. None them have a win over Holmes except Holyfield years later. What makes Spinks significantly better at heavyweight than Moorer is the win over Holmes in 1985, which was a good win. At the time very impressive, which today is underrated. At the time Holmes was undefeated..I think it is safe to say Moorer would have never beaten Holmes at any time at heavyweight in 1985 or 1986. Hearns had a few fights at light heavyweight, but are you saying someone with 20 fights with a 15-4-1 record who never fought for the title was a better light heavyweight? Moorer was not a good heavyweight and he had a weak chin. Very inconsistent. Head to head could he beat Spinks? He has a better chance beating Spinks than Holmes even though Spinks beat Holmes. Yet I think Spinks knocks out Moorer at heavyweight. Completely shot Cooney. Gerry was not shot since he barely fought in the 1980's after Holmes, he was inactive and was not a top fighter and not motivated to fight everyone- he wanted the big fights or nothing and he got them and lost. I think that was a case where Spinks was so much better than Cooney as was Holmes as was Foreman. Cooney was always overrated but he had a great left hook.

 

Foreman by a tad. Foreman beat better fighters than Holmes. Beating ATG Frazier twice in the fashion he did and then winning the title at 45 gives him the edge. Holmes had longevity but his wins weren’t as great.

 

Pea, this is hardly controversial.

You will find VERY FEW who will rank Spinks as having had a greater HW career than Moorer.

You would have a bit of an argument if you opined that, best for best, you would favour Spinks over Moorer at HW. But that a man with five bouts altogether , including two weak wins and a devastating loss, can be considered as having a better career than Moorer at HW is borderline absurd.

Did Douglas have a better HW career than Witherspoon or Wlad ? His win over Tyson is better than anything on their resumes.

You are arguing exactly opposite to what you were arguing re: Foreman and Holmes. As you pointed out, Foreman had better wins but over the whole career, Holmes had more good wins, and had a longer career at the top echelons.

Spinks might have had a better win at HW (debatable, given that Moorer beat Holy), but even if he did, Moorer's overall career at HW was better than Spinks.

I rank Foreman above Holmes but I have no problem with having Homes ranked higher.

Moorer was a greater HW than Spinks. Little or no room for reversing that take.

 

I am not a follower. I believe what I believe. Controversial or not. Spinks was better than Moorer ever was at heavyweight. That was Larry Holmes. Douglas? Was he a champion and a legendary one at another division? Foreman had good style wins.. Holmes won against everyone. That win against Holmes. Holmes was still hard to beat then. Undefeated and Spinks did it moving up in weight. What did Moorer do close to that at heavyweight?

 

no WTF are you on about? when did I deny Foreman beat the linear champion? Hold onto that point then get back to me.

What I said was he did not deserve the shot at the title.

Yes he deserved to win since he knocked moorer out.

But Did he deserve the shot in the first place when he could not beat any of the other contenders?

Could Leon Spinks beat any of the contenders he leapfrogged to the title?

again, when did I deny this? Here you are trying to ridicule my opinion for something I have not said? What rule am I making up here?

Foreman is a great fighter. There. I have said it. Again.

George really proved he was the best in the world in his first reign. Genuine ATG that time.

It was also remarkable that he knocked out a linear champion as an old man. There. I said that too. Again.

Two separate things.

So historians don’t use the best of the best version when making ATG comparisons?

I can’t remember the last time somebody said Ali the night he lost to Leon Spinks was still good enough ATG #5 at that moment. Probably because nobody ever said that or used that version.

If Jack Dempsey came back and knocked out Jimmy Braddock (after losing his last fight) it would be a remarkable feat. Would it enhance anything that already made Jack Dempsey great? Or would it be an interesting tidbit that reinforced how great he had been?

If he then avoided Max Schmeling and Joe Louis, went on tour against handpicked guys who he could barely beat on points... could anyone say second time around Jack Dempsey, like George Foreman second time around, as linear champion, was not only the best in the world but a great champion? Of course not.

This with joe Louis out there, like Lennox Lewis And Bowe And Holyfield were all out there when Foreman beat Moorer?

 

Foreman's argument to be over Holmes would rest mainly on his destruction of a prime Norton (who, in an older incarnation, is Holmes's best career win for a close decision) and his decimation of undefeated reigning champion Frazier.
Also, factor in that he only lost the title to an inspired Muhammad Ali, who is argubaly #1 all time.

Then, combine those facts with the fact that Holmes's dominance of "20 defenses" in a 7 year reign included several guys who weren't even better than much of the "padding" on Foreman's record.

 

Well I guess that’s a fair enough basis. George did beat a better Norton and there was absolutely no dispute that Foreman was the best in the world at that time whereas Larry had the ridiculous alphabet soup to deal with.

As for Larrys challengers, there were more Jose Roman types than George had, but he did seem to fight enough relevant ones too. Especially among the ones that were good enough to pick up an alternative belt after losing to him.