Holmes Or Foreman -Whom Do You Rate Higher?

Holmes has a better record, was a considerably better champion and is more complete a fighter than Foreman which makes him better H2H.

Didn't even have to think twice about this one.

 

H2H? Foreman.

Overall greatness? Holmes.

 

You know what I was wrong. Holmes scored 1 more point(-15 v -14) and without the deduction it'd have been a tie. I have boxing history files I've been making and one of them is a list of HW decisions by margin and these 2 fights are right next to each other on said list so I must have mixed them up one day and stuck with that talking point. Foreman was still throwing away rounds trying to tire Holyfield out so a tie means Foreman did better but yes I made a mistake. Foreman at this point was still a power puncher while Holmes was trying to outwork Holyfield so the punch stats really isn't telling the story here.

We clearly view Norton, Young, Lyle and the 70s HWs differently. It is a constant theme in all our disagreements. I don't think Foremans prime ended before his first retirement. I see the Ali fight as an off night where Foreman was so off he suspected he was poisioned and take the Young and Lyle fights as what they are. The Young knockdown was a fluke because Foreman was hunting for the knockdown but that even without that and the point deduction its a draw.

I see the end of Alis prime being Frazier 3 but Alis decline was a slow thing as he fought long wars over and over. If you want to say Ali wasn't his absolute peak in 1974 at 32/33 okay I agree. That fight had more to do with Foreman being off than Ali having the night of his life. But generally the reason Alis fights were more competitive in the 70s compared to the 60s is the division was better.

The fact Ali beat Foreman so easily is the main reason I consider it a fluke. Either way Foreman, Louis and Ali all lost fights before they were 35? Who cares? Holmes comeback while adding little to his legacy washes away whatever asterisk there would have been on his Spinks and Tyson losses.

With Cooney its tricky. Foreman was 6 years older than him and Cooneys last fight was for the world title but Cooney hadn't fought in 2.5 years and hadn't really done anything since the Holmes loss. Its really arbitrary to gague how past it someone who doesn't fight often is from losing to the champ. What isn't arbitrary is that Cooney was the heaviest opponent of Foremans career and knocked out Norton, Young and Lyle when they were younger than George was. Bert Cooper and Qawi had a lot of power but were much smaller than Foreman, Cooney was the opposite end of that spectrum a 250+ modern superheavyweight.
And Foreman put him out in 2. Does it really matter how good Dunkhorst was or wasn't the fact Fitz knocked him out so fast still portrays his power in a great light.


Alex Stewart got knocked down twice and did not put Foreman down. Tyson is a better fighter than Stewart but Stewart is 5 inches taller and could actually carry his weight the whole fight and actually mount a comeback against Foreman when the fight was almost out of reach points wise. Thats off the table for Tyson. If Tyson goes down early once against Foreman its done never mind twice. Yes Foremans face looked like a martian he didn't go down. Stewarts Foremans size and actually has the best KO rate of these 3 but Foreman can hit harder is much better and more importantly more durable. Tyson getting Stewart out of there quick says nothing of his ability to do that with Foreman. Foremans power left him his last few years but even then its hard to pick Tyson to beat him because of Foremans durability.

 

Holmes slightly. Foreman admittedly has a better top tier of wins but Larry’s long title reign gives him a lot of depth

 

He beat a 28 year old who was the current Ring FotY.
Am I missing something?

 

H2H I'd take Foreman.

Legacy wise, it depends on what you prefer. As everyone stated Holmes ****s all over Foreman in terms of longevity, consistency, and resume depth.

BUT Foreman has 2 of the greatest wins of all time 21 years apart, and his third greatest win was a 2nd round demolition of a prime Norton, who would later take Holmes to the brink in an SD loss.

Foreman's 3 best wins individually are better than Holmes' best win.

Their's no wrong answer imo. It's a matter of preference.

 

Sure, if you don’t consider Foreman lost his title to Ali. At an equivalent point in his reign, Holmes’ challengers were…Ocasio & Weaver. Gee, I wonder how Foreman would have done in similar circumstances

 

A psychologically catastrophic defeat three years earlier, a year & a half out of competition as a result, a change of trainer & a complete overhaul, for the worse, of his approach to the sport.

 

Holmes.

 

Holmes obviously has the deeper resume.

H2H, I wouldn't bet on the outcome whether it be prime versions or in the 90s in their later careers. Foreman's losses to Ali and Young suggest a stylistic issue that could work in Holmes' favour, but geez, Larry could get dragged into dogfights and get hit and hurt by guys nowhere near as dangerous as Foreman.

 

Foreman vs Holyfield was a more exciting fight but Holmes was more competitive vs Holyfield, not that it really matters in the grand scheme of things because both men ultimately lost. But the way you were describing it is that it was an advantage for Foreman because you were insinuating Foreman did better against Holyfield and that's not the case.

Holmes actually landed 50 percent of his punches vs Holyfield which is a very good statistic.

If you don't think Foreman's prime ended before his first retirement then surely you must view the immense struggle vs Lyle and the comprehensive points loss to Young as a negative then ?

As for Young vs Foreman being a draw one judge had it 118-111 another had it 116-112, so Young still would've won a decision although it would've been a majority decision. But let's be real the fight was not in anyway debatable it was a clear win for Young and the one judge who had it 115-114 was a terrible scorecard. The majority of the scores i've seen from fans is that Young clearly won in the region of 4 or 5 points i myself had it 116-111.

The issue i had when you brought up Cooney is that in your original post you didn't add any context you just said "well both fighters fought Cooney but Foreman did better against Cooney so that means Foreman is better"

And that's not really an accurate statement is it without the added context ? the fact is Holmes fought a prime Cooney 8 years before Foreman when he was undefeated, active, and highly rated.

Foreman fought Cooney 8 years after who was completely past it at that point and hadn't won fight for almost 4 years and was coming a long lay off. So trying to compare Foreman's win over Cooney to Holmes's win over Cooney is not really a fair comparison.

Especially when in another sentence you will discredit Holmes for beating an older Norton, even though Norton was a champion at that point and the ranked number 1 Heavyweight in the world coming off numerous notable performances. But yet you will credit Foreman for beating a completely past it Cooney who hadn't won a fight for almost 4 years that's not fair to me.

You're not taking into account Holmes fought Tyson after an almost 3 year lay off and only had 4 weeks to train. Put Foreman in the same situation with a long lay off and little time to prepare against a prime Tyson and see how that goes.

Stewart got blown away by Tyson, Moorer finished him in 4 rounds, he could hit but his KO ratio is also inflated. Stewart never stopped one notable Heavyweight his best win is probably Ezra Sellers who spent most of his career as a Cruiserweight.

I don't know why you don't think Tyson couldn't survive a knockdown vs an older Foreman, it's a myth Tyson couldn't win in a tough fight as the Ruddock fights showed. The reason why Tyson never cameback from getting knocked down is because he was taking a beating in the fights he lost and the fights were already over at that point. For example Douglas battered Tyson for 10 rounds and then knocked him out with a brutal uppercut.

So unless Foreman is giving Tyson a prolonged beating i don't see 1 knockdown out of the blue being to able finish off Tyson who definitely has a better chin than Stewart and is probably 2 or 3 leagues above him.

 

Foreman gets a pass for losing twice comprehensively in his 20s but Holmes gets discredited for losing at age 35 after 20 world titles go figure.

 

And Shavers, whom Foreman had a chance to fight in between his winning the title and facing Ali in Zaire but reportedly turned down. That's my biggest issue with Foreman's first reign: he could have squeezed at least two fights against solid contenders before his loss to Ali but he didn't, and thus his entire first championship reign is defined by one solid defense (Norton). Imagine if he fought and defeated the likes of a Quarry, Bonavena, Bugner or Shavers before his loss to Ali. One or more wins against those guys and his first reign would be held in considerably higher regard.

 

Holmes didn't have the quality of opposition, but to me H2h he was far more of a nightmare to George than Jimmy Young ever could be. Holmes also held the title ridiculously longer and defended it so many more times...

ATG:
1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Holyfield
5. Lewis
6. Foreman

 

You only say he wasn't prime because he lost.