Put Larry Holmes in place of Foreman?

Frazier that fought Foreman in the first fight was complacent. He came in relatively out of shape and although Foreman was a ko artist, his opposition had been weak so Frazier and his team thought they could walk through him.

I suspect Joe would have taken Holmes more serious than he took Foreman. Frazier did come back very strong post Foreman 1 and regained much of his lost form.

Even a post FOTC Frazier is a nightmare for Holmes. Holmes did not throw combinations as well as Ali and Ali could barely keep Frazier off him. Ali absorbed body shots better than anyone and IMO Frazier's body work would cause Holmes major issues.

Lets say Holmes beats Frazier. It will be a competitive fight with Larry taking tons of damage.

Then Holmes fights Norton. A fresh prime Norton. You can make the bicep injury case and that is a reasonable argument but i think Norton being 4 years younger evens out the bicep injury. Norton was a brutal body puncher and Holmes can't dance away from him for 15 rounds.

Let's say Holmes beats Norton in 1974 in a tough hard fought fight. Again he would have taken tons of damage here. He isn't beating post FOTC Frazier nor Norton without taking tons of damage and being mentally exhausted.

Then he fights an in shape highly motivated 32 year old Ali. Ali actually displayed amazing footspeed for the first half of the Norton 2 fight. He regained his legs extremely well for that brief time period. The only reason he slowed vs Norton 2 was because Norton used tremendous pressure + body shots to slow him down a bit. And even though Ali absorbed body shots better than anyone, even he would slow down with Kenny's brutal body shots.

Ali of 74 still had quicker hands than Holmes, was a better combination puncher, had more experience, etc. And Ali would still dance and move like his younger version though not for 15 rounds. But can Holmes slow Ali's legs with pressure + body shots? No. So if Ali could dance vs Norton for 5-6 rounds, he could dance and move and out speed Larry for at least 8-10 rounds.

After 2 back to back tough fights vs Frazier and Norton, Holmes faces an in shape highly motivated Ali who still has quicker hands than him and the big brother mentality. IMO this Ziare version of Ali beats Holmes by a close decision.

 

I would add we can't infer anything from Foreman's annihilation of Frazier for the purposes of this exercise. George and Larry are two very different fighters.

 

exactly. Holmes had a good uppercut but Joe would walk through Larry's uppercut. No comparison between Foreman and Holmes power wise.

 

Even Joe seemed to concede that no iteration of himself could have beaten George, after their two matches of course .

 

Why would Frazier have taken Holmes more seriously than Foreman ? Holmes had an unremarkable amateur career and he wasn't highly thought of as a professional in the early part of his career.

Foreman was an Olympic gold medalist and a KO artist so i don't see why Frazier would come in way lighter for Holmes and not Foreman i think that was just his mentality at that time.

This is the issue with hypothetical timelines it gets messy and a bit confusing.

Are we having a peak Holmes say when Holmes entered his prime in 1978 and putting that version of Holmes in with all these opponents ? so realistically Holmes would've had to start his career in 1968 because it took Holmes 5 years to reach his prime as a professional.

If we are following the timeline of Foreman's opponents at the exact weight and form they were at then i think a prime Holmes would be favoured over the version of Frazier that Foreman fought.

You're not taking into account Frazier's vision was starting to deteriorate in the 70s and he was never the same after the FOTC that performance took alot of him and we never see him close to that level again.

Well i think Holmes being a champion instead of the challenger against Norton would also add a different mentality to the fight.

Whilst i don't disagree they would be tough fights i don't see why a prime Holmes wouldn't be favoured vs an out of shape Frazier who was no longer in his prime. And whilst Norton is always going to be a tough match up i still feel Holmes should beat Norton again. I mean he did virtually shut out Norton for like 8 rounds in their actual encounter with a torn bicep.

A few things to point out.

When Ali fought Norton in 1973 and danced away from Norton for 5 or 6 rounds as you said he was lighter at 212 pounds.

Ali was a bit heavier vs Foreman and his gameplan wasn't to use his legs and i don't believe he thought he could use his legs for a long sustained period which is why he adopted the rope a dope tactic.

So i don't see that version of Ali having the movement at that stage in his career to really trouble Holmes.

You also said big brother mentality but that wouldn't be the case because we are altering the timelines.

Holmes wouldn't of been Ali's sparring partner because remember Holmes is the opponent for the rumble in the jungle not the sparring partner helping him prepare for Foreman in the rumble in the jungle.

 

Eh, Roman probably takes him the distance... (See Lucien Rodriquez)

That's if Larry felt comfortable taking on that kind of risk.

 

No way, no way is Larry's team voluntarily putting 1973 Larry in the ring with 1973 George. That was the Larry who had to bring himself off the canvas against Kevin (Who) Issac.

 

Can't wait to see what Larry injured weeks before or what illness the doctors told him not to fight through when he picks up a loss.

 

Boom!

 

Yet another fine thread,Fergy.

Prime Holmes edges 1973 Frazier.

50/50 with Norton.

Ali edges out Holmes. As has been said already,Muhammad at this point in time is still faster than Larry with feet and hands.

 

Source? I'm highly doubtful someone as prideful as Frazier would make such an admission. He himself stated regarding their first fight, he saw a lot of mistakes that he made and would be sure to fix them upon a rematch. No chance in hell that ever happens, but that was his thought process, not "I can't ever beat this guy".

 

He'd be a favorite against any of them, but it's hard to imagine that such tough fights—Frazier, Norton, Ali—may not exhaust him several times. He'll remain focused in each of them and always be 100% ready. Someone would have beaten him. Who? I'd bet on Norton in Caracas. But that's highly debatable. Perhaps Holmes, born a few years earlier, would be called The Greatest today. Or maybe we'd have forgotten about him.

 

True Frazier knew Foreman was an Olympic medalist. The issue was that as a pro, Foreman had not fought many top guys despite being 37-0. On top of that, Foreman was seen as just a big puncher who lacked skills and as such, Frazier and his team assumed they could wear George down.

Holmes was a master boxer and Frazier likely knew that Holmes can't be worn out that easy. If Frazier shows up out of shape, sure, he loses. But given the 2 soft touches he faced in 72, i think his team wouldn't even have allowed a Holmes fight unless Joe got back in good shape.

So i believe Frazier would have taken Holmes more seriously than he took Foreman due to the skills gap between Larry and George.

Frazier's decline post FOTC is vastly overstated. He had a bit of a down period in 72 and then got clobbered by Foreman. He came back extremely well in 1974 and the 74 Frazier was still fighting at an ATG level. The idea that Frazier had declined drastically is vastly overstated.

Ali was in tremendous shape for Foreman. The idea he couldn't use his legs isn't true. Ali said he chose to go to the ropes because Foreman was too good at cutting the ring. Ali chose to fight off the ropes but if he was fighting another opponent, he would likely use his legs.

George Foreman

In his autobiography The Greatest My Own Story Ali said, “All during training I had planned to stay off the ropes…but now I’ve got to change my plans. Sadler and Moore have drilled George too well. He does his job like a robot but he does it well…I’m famous for being hard to hit in the first rounds, but no fighter can last fifteen if he has to take six steps to his opponents three.”

So its not that Ali wasn't in shape. He was in the shape of his life. He felt Foreman was far too good at cutting off the ring and that it was a waste of energy to try and dance away from him for 15 rounds.

I am enjoying this discussion. You are a good poster so i am happy to go back and forth and agree and disagree on certain things.

 

After thinking it through, watching the Thrilla, and especially reading DMT's comment, I've changed my opinion, even a post-FOTC Frazier wins against Holmes. Yes he didn't look good against Foreman but as DMT said he took Foreman lightly, and more importantly Foreman had a major styles advantage Holmes would not be able to bank on.

Rewatching Manila, it's clear Frazier can still fight at a high level, even if not quite FOTC level. I see no reason to believe Holmes could've kept up with him in Thrila. He had inferior durability to Ali, wasn't as fast, and more specifically couldn't handle body shots like Ali did. If Frazier's body attack was able to wear Ali down, and out, it would be much easier to do the same for Holmes.

"But but but, that's Thrilla Frazier not '73", Frazier proved he could still fight at a high level post-FOTC. I've no doubt a fresher Frazier from two years prior (without the Foreman debacle no less) would've been able to surpass his performance at Thrila, especially with a styles clash more viable to him.