Foreman V Holmes 1977-One Of Boxing's Greatest What Ifs?

Kind of like X versus 1990 Tyson.

 

Roy "Tiger" WIlliams only stopped a handful of journeymen in his whole career with winning records. He really wasn't a big puncher any more than any other name from that era was. He was primarily a sparring partner who fought on the undercards of the guys he sparred for. Richard Dunn not only went the distance with Roy WIlliams, he beat him.

Also, Holmes got floored by Kevin Isaac in their fight. Holmes started slow (losing to Bobick in his final amateur fight) and he slowly got better over the years. I already said that.

He wasn't "better" in 1977. He wasn't there yet.

Watch the Horace Robinson fight. There are a hundred copies on Youtube. Holmes unloaded on Robinson, but Larry also got hit flush plenty, himself, and he was exhausted after only four rounds in those conditions.

If we're talking about Holmes fighting Foreman in 1977 ... then the San Juan card is as good as any, considering they both fought on it, they both turned 28 that year, it was 1977 ... and it was George's last fight in the 1970s.

That night, I'd take Foreman, and probably Jimmy Young, too, to beat Larry Holmes.

In 1977, Larry wasn't the "great" Larry Holmes yet. He just wasn't. Not yet.

He got better later.

 

I never tried to suggest Roy Williams was some H2H monster.

But he was a solid fighter and a very big Heavyweight for that era with an underrated jab.

He did test Holmes over 10 rounds and Holmes came on in the later rounds and finished the fight strongly.

So again that fight was before the Horace Robinson fight. And there was nothing to suggest over the 10 rounds vs Roy Williams that Holmes had stamina issues at that time.

Holmes got floored by Kevin Isaac in his 7th professional fight and he'd only been a professional for less than a year I don't see the relevance here.

Lastly you can't do what you're doing.

You're telling me Holmes wouldn't see George Foreman as a bigger threat than someone like Horace Robinson ?

And wouldn't come in better prepared and rise to the occasion against a much better opponent in Foreman ?

Holmes prior to the Shavers fight hadn't shown he could beat Shavers 12-0 and totally school him but he still did. Holmes rose the occasion against his best opponent he'd fought at that time.

There's no reason to think Holmes wouldn't be better against Foreman than he was against Robinson because Foreman is a much bigger threat and challenge.

So Holmes would know he has to be at his best.

 

I'm telling you Holmes wasn't the "great" Larry Holmes from the jump.

He started slowly. And he got better.

Great fighters aren't always amazing from their first fight to their last. Larry Holmes certainly wasn't.

He got humiliated by Bobick in his last amateur fight. He got his jaw broke sparring with Joe Frazier. He got floored by Kevin Isaac. Larry was a work-in-progress. Which is why Howard Cosell, who watched him for years on those undercards, was still dissing Larry in 1977.

He hadn't proved anything yet.

Larry first showed some greatness in 1978. He wasn't great in 1977.

Larry fought four times in 1977. Nobody lists Larry's fights from 1977 - against Tom Prater, Horace 'Big City' Robinson, Young Sanford and the Ibar Arrington - as great performances by Larry Holmes, because they weren't. He wasn't great yet.

And Larry arguably NEVER fought anyone as good as 1977 George Foreman in his whole career!

Watch the fight with Horace Robinson. That's a fight in 1977 - which is year this thread is specifically focused on - when Larry and George (who both turned 28 that year) fought on the same card.

They rarely did. But, in 1977, they did.

George wasn't quite at his best. Larry wasn't quite at his. George was on the way out. Larry was approaching his peak.

YET STILL, I'd take George to beat Larry in 1977 in San Juan. And I say that, because I can see them both in the ring that night.

The heat affected both George and Larry. It affected Larry more. And Larry wasn't out of shape. He wasn't rusty. He weighed the same he'd weigh against Shavers and Norton the next year.

But George Foreman wasn't Ken Norton or Earnie Shavers. He was George Foreman. Arguably better than anyone Larry would ever fight.

And 1977 Larry would've lost to 1977 George.

 

But you're talking about stuff that has 0 relevance.

Why are you bringing up Holmes’s amateur losses and a fight against Kevin Isaac in which was his first year as a professional ?

This is stuff that happened in the early 70s we're talking about 1977.

It was only 12 months from the Horace Robinson fight and Holmes’s stand out performance against Shavers.

I don't believe that suddenly Holmes becomes an ATG Heavyweight in 12 months after 3 more fights against no notable opposition.

The fact is Holmes was getting paid peanuts at that time and had no real stand out opponent to get motivated for.

You said yourself prior to the Shavers fight Holmes had not shown he could easily dominate Shavers but he did. Is it a coincidence that when Holmes fought his best opponent he rose to the occasion ? I think not.

It's silly to suggest Holmes would be exactly the same vs Foreman as he was vs Robinson.

Barring in mind it would be the biggest fight of Holmes’s career. And the incentive for him to rise to the occasion in a massive fight would be huge motivation.

Foreman also fought a very measured 6 rounds vs Young with very little action in the first half of the fight. A cautious cagey boxing match would suit Holmes down to the ground, and allow him to work himself into the fight.

 

So, when did he become an all-time great, then? The Tom Prater fight? When did he become "great" in your eyes?

All, I'm saying is Larry Holmes took time to get great. I don't know why that is so hard for you to understand.

The question isn't could Larry beat George Foreman when Larry was champion?

It's could Larry - who got better later, I think everyone agrees - defeat George Foreman in 1977?

I say, no.

Because I saw them both that year. I saw them on the same card that year.

And that's the year we're talking about. I'm basing that off performances I can actually see.

I like Larry Holmes. I was defending him in a thread last week. This is no insult to Larry Holmes. But he wasn't "great" yet in 1977.

If it makes you feel better, I wouldn't pick 1977 Ken Norton or 1977 Earnie Shavers to beat George Foreman in 1977 in San Juan, either.

 

Yes I'm well aware it took time for Holmes to come into his own.

But you're bringing up Holmes’s amateur fights and a fight where he'd been a professional for less than a year that have 0 relevance.

I might aswell say the Foreman who struggled vs Peralta in their 1st fight early in his career would lose to Holmes aswell.

You're too focused on Holmes vs Robinson and not taking into account that a different opponent would make a difference.

If Holmes is fighting Foreman instead of Robinson who would be his first stand out opponent at that point in his career.

Holmes’s preparation and mindset would be totally different than fighting someone like Horace Robinson for peanuts on an undercard.

That's the big context that you're not taking into account here.

As I've said numerous times already was there any suggestion prior to the Shavers fight that Holmes could dominate him ? No.

But what happened ? Holmes rose to the occasion in his first real big fight of his career.

There's no reason to think Holmes wouldn't be considerably better against Foreman than he was against Robinson because the incentive is there for his first real big fight.

 

I only brought up Holmes' early struggles to show he wasn't great from the get-go. I thought I was very clear about that.

There wasn't a suggestion Holmes would dominate Shavers before their first fight because THEY WEREN'T SUPPOSED To fight. Lyle was supposed to be the opponent. So, Larry didn't have a ton of time to prepare for Shavers physically, and vice versa, although they'd both regularly sparred each other over the years.

Which is the BIG context you're not taking into account.

You're also not taking into account George Foreman wasn't Earnie Shavers.

Holmes had a lot of preparation for Norton in 1978, and he barely won. (Maybe because he didn't have a hundred rounds of sparring with Norton to fall back on, like he did with Shavers.) Which you're also not taking into account.

Just like you want to ignore the fight in 1977 where they fought on the same card and Larry suffered worse from the heat than George did, and Larry never looked like a world beater prior to 1978. He certainly never looked like one in 1977.

Regardless, I'm not going to argue in circles today. It's a mythical matchup. There's no right answer.

Based on their ACTUAL performances on the same card in 1977, and the fact that Larry wasn't as good as he'd become, and the fact that Larry gassed out quicker than Foreman against a worse opponent than George was facing, and considering Larry never fought anyone as good as George anyway, I just don't see him winning in 1977.

I'll take George.

 

Yes as I said I'm well aware that Holmes had losses in the amateurs and it took time for him to establish himself as a professional.

But you're talking about stuff that happened 4 or 5 years prior to 1977.

Where as I'm saying it was only 12 months from Holmes fighting on the undercard of Foreman/Young to dominating Shavers.

My point is I don't think 12 months suddenly made Holmes into an ATG. And the 2 unranked opponents he fought between Robinson & Shavers weren't going to make a difference to his development.

Holmes just went up another level vs Shavers because it was his first real big fight and he rose to the occasion.

Yes Shavers isn't Foreman but that's not the point the point is Holmes had a stand out performance in his first real big fight. And Holmes had never shown prior to the Shavers fight he was capable of dominating someone like Shavers but he did.

As I said the incentive and motivation was there just like if Holmes had a big fight vs Foreman instead of fighting someone like Horace Robinson.

Yes Holmes barely beat Norton but it was one of the best Heavyweight fights of all time. And Norton for a short period was considered the best Heavyweight in the world at that time and was poison for boxer types.

For example Foreman destroyed Norton but lost to Young.

But yet Norton beat Young.

Styles make fights Foreman is more likely to struggle vs an upper echelon durable outboxer. Compared to an aggressive come forward fighter like Norton or Frazier.

 

Larry sparred hundreds of rounds with Shavers over the years. Earnie even hired Larry as his sparring partner to get ready for Ali. Larry was a late sub in the first Shavers fight. Earnie wasn't an unknown for Holmes. Holmes didn't need a long camp to prepare for him. He usually sparred Earnie in training camps and was quite comfortable sharing the ring with him at that moment in time.

Larry had a harder time with Norton because Larry and Ken didn't work together like Larry and Earnie did.

Also, you seem really hung up on how quickly a young fighter can get better. Michael Dokes fought Ossie Ocasio to a draw in San Juan, and two months later, knocked out Ocasio in one round in San Juan. So, Holmes improving over 12 months as he was climbing in his career isn't a jump you seem to want to make it out to be.

Young fighters can get better quite fast. Especially once they've shared the ring with a guy.

Regardless, if you like Holmes, fine. But, Larry showed nothing prior to 1978 to show he could beat Foreman.

And it took George gassing out in the heat for Young to get past him. I'm one of those people who not only thinks Foreman-Young was a lot closer than the official cards (which were ridiculously one-sided), but that Young would never beat Foreman again had they fought.

Young, another guy who improved over time, was riding the ultimate high at that point. And, only a year later, Young couldn't beat anyone. He fell off a cliff.

Like I said, just because someone beats a guy one year doesn't mean you're going to get the same results another year.

Larry got better as he went along. He wasn't there yet in 1977.

 

Holmes’s performance against Shavers was by far his best performance of his career at that point.

You quoted Howard Cossell in first post well this is what he said during Holmes/Shavers 1.

"Holmes looking like nothing we'd seen before, Holmes looks like a real fighter now".

So again there was nothing to suggest prior to the Shavers fight that Holmes was suddenly going to have a stand out performance.

Logically you'd have to assume Holmes simply rose to the occasion in his first big fight against against Shavers. And he simply didn't have the incentive or motivation against the likes of Horace Robinson or Tom Prater 12 months previously.

Holmes struggled against Norton because Norton troubled every notable boxer type of his era it's a simple case of styles make fights.

Norton destroyed counter puncher Quarry.

Norton gave an ATG outboxer in Ali all he could handle 3 times.

Norton beat Young who for atleast 3 years was a top notch defensive fighter.

And of course gave Holmes a great fight.

Norton's weakness was big punchers but Holmes didn't have devastating power like Foreman, Shavers, Cooney.

As for Dokes in their 1st meeting he chose to box with Ocasio which was the wrong tactic.

In the rematch he simply did a Weaver on him and swarmed all over him in the opening round never allowing Ocasio to get into to the fight.

As for Foreman vs Young I had the fight 116-111 for Young which for me is quite a clear win.

The first 6 rounds were close and cagey and Foreman may of had a slight edge on points after his big 7th round.

But Young distanced himself from Foreman in the 2nd half of the fight. As it appeared Foreman emptied his gas tank trying to finish off Young in 7th round.

We can agree to disagree and you're correct there is no right or wrong answer in a mythical H2H match up.

But I do wish you'd alteast concede 1 point in regards to a different opponent can make a difference in regards to how a fighter approaches a fight.

Surely you must see that if Holmes was fighting Foreman instead of Robinson he'd approach that fight differently.

If you still think Foreman wins that's fine but atleast see my side of the argument in regards to that 1 point.

 

I know. I keep saying that. There was nothing Larry had done prior to 1978 to suggest he was going to have a standout performance.

Have I not been saying this in nearly every post I type in this thread?

I KNOW he hadn't done anything prior to 1978. Larry looked nothing like that before 1978. I keep saying that. He got better over time.

You seem to believe that since he dominated Shavers in 1978, then he beats Foreman in 1977.

And I simply don't get that AT ALL.

Or, logically, you could just say Larry knew Earnie Shavers like the back of his hand, since Larry had been paid to spar with Shavers and held back as the employee of Shavers, and Larry simply put everything he'd learned over the years to use when he was called in as a late sub.

That's why he had such a star-making performance. Right?

Because Larry certainly didn't dominate Norton a couple months later. Then again, Larry wasn't sharing the ring with Norton in the gym like he had been for months with Shavers.

Right?

You seem to believe that since Larry dominated Shavers in 1978, then Larry beats Foreman in 1977. And I simply don't get that AT ALL.

George Foreman was miles better than Shavers or Norton. He proved that through the entirety of his career. And, in 1977, Larry Holmes hadn't shown in the ring he could do to Foreman what he did later to Shavers.

If Larry beating Shavers on points in 1978 is what you're basing this win over Foreman on ... that just makes no sense to me. You're ignoring the fact Larry sparred hundreds of rounds with Shavers over the years, even up to the Shavers-Ali fight in late 77. (I may be mistaken, but I think Holmes had been a paid sparring partner of Earnie's going as far back as the Shavers-Quarry fight in 73. I mean, they were friends outside the ring. They were very familiar with each other.)

Holmes didn't share hundreds of rounds sparring in the ring with George Foreman, for God's sake.

If you're basing it on George gassing out against Young, well, Larry was on the same card as George that night, gassed out quicker than Foreman did that night and Larry was fighting a worse opponent.

Sorry, I just don't see it.

 

This is a great discussion which shows the importance of timing, not just years, but some period actually shorter.