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

How can you not comprehend that fighting George Foreman compared to Horace Robinson. That Holmes wouldn't have a totally different preparation and mindset ?

So you're telling me Holmes would be exactly the same vs Foreman ?

I guess Holmes would be winging punches trying to KO Foreman really ?

Yes the discussion is who would win in 1977.

But not taking into account that Holmes would have a totally different mindset and preparation fighting in the biggest fight of his life is baffling.

And BTW Foreman lost his fight to Young quite clearly. So the fighter you're so confident in winning is in a fight he lost BTW.

Not the best logic to use IMO.

 

Do you not understand that fighters GET BETTER and they GET WORSE OVER TIME?

Jesus Christ.

I don't think you had ANY idea that Larry Holmes and Earnie Shavers had sparred hundreds of rounds together before they fought ... or that Larry Holmes had little time to prepare to fight Shavers before their first meeting, but he knew Earnie like the back of his hand, due to all the rounds they previously shared ... until yesterday.

I think you just thought Holmes was bored and didn't try (even though there is ZERO evidence of that), until he finally got an opportunity against Earnie.

So, Larry would naturally beat Foreman just as easily as he beat Shavers, even a YEAR EARLIER, if he was motivated.

And all that is WRONG.


Larry Holmes tried really hard, even when he was fighting nobodies on the way up, he just gradually got better.

But, in 1977, he wasn't THAT GUY you are describing in glowing terms yet.

Howard Cosell sat ringside watching Holmes fight numerous times, going back to Holmes losing in the trials in 1972 on up to 1977, when Holmes was fighting on undercards to ABC televised main events. He saw him progress. He gave Larry props in 1978, AFTER SIX YEARS OF WATCHING SLOWLY GET BETTER, and praised Larry Holmes when Larry turned the corner and started putting it all together.

But that wasn't Larry in 1977.

I don't know how many times I CAN SAY THAT. So, I'll stop.

 

Again great fighters rise to the occasion in big fights.

A fighter will not have the same mindset fighting against a mediocre opponent compared to the biggest fight of their life.

Again did Holmes look like a great fighter vs Ibar Carrington 4 months prior to fighting Shavers ?

So how comes in Holmes’s next 2 fights he suddenly out of nowhere went up level ?

It's not because he suddenly magically improved in 4 months. The talent was always there it's just Holmes needed the big fight to show his talent and rise to the occasion.

It's as simple as that.

Holmes IMO is all wrong for Foreman a durable outboxer who Foreman doesn't have physical advantages over.

 

In 1977, when George Foreman was 45-1 with 42 knockouts, Larry Holmes was the mediocre opponent.

Not a guy who had just gone 15 with Ali and beaten Ron Lyle twice via decision, like Jimmy Young was

So, maybe George Foreman doesn't fight cautiously, like Larry Holmes did not fight cautiously against Horace Robinson. Because Larry would've been George's "Horace Robinson."

In that case, why should George fight cautiously, like he had to do against a distance fighter like Young?

Maybe it's not tactical at all. Maybe it's a total shootout.

Maybe George walks out and to steamroll Holmes, and Larry has to run ... the same Larry who got gassed after four from the pressure of a guy with no pop.

If George came out like he did against Frazier and Norton and started bombing the inexperienced Holmes early, Larry gets wiped inside four, like he did against Tyson, who also had no interest in playing it safe.

You assume Larry would fight tactically, as if George would be fighting tactically, too. George fought tactically because he was fighting Young.

He wouldn't be concerned about Holmes, because Larry in 1977 was nothing to George.

 

Holmes unloaded what looks to be more than 100 punches in the fourth round going all-out for the KO, most of them loaded up for power.

He wasn’t exhausted on the verge of defeat (like George at the end of the Young fight) or Moses Ituama last time out. His head was down when he was in the corner getting his breath, but I don’t see a completely spent Larry Holmes answering the bell for the fifth. (Which Horace wisely retired in his corner).

There’s nothing on the film that makes me think Larry couldn’t have finished a distance fight on that day.

Imagine if George had unloaded like Larry did in the fourth and tried to keep that up for a whole round. They’d have had to stretcher him out after … if he didn’t collapse mid-round.

Yes, this very Larry Holmes on that day in that place would beat George Foreman.

 

Because Foreman after the loss to Ali changed his style and fought in a more measured approach to pace himself better.

So no Foreman wouldn't go out all guns blazing because that wasn't his style after the loss to Ali.

And if Foreman did try that approach in very hot weather which is unlikely and he failed to stop Holmes.

Foreman himself would be in big trouble in regards to tiring himself out.

Holmes also wouldn't be winging punches against Foreman trying to take him out like he did vs Horace Robinson.

And again I don't know how many times I have to say it.

Great fighters rise to the occasion and have different mindsets and preparation in the biggest fights of their life.

For some reason your convinced Holmes would turn up exactly the same as he did against a mediocre opponent for the biggest fight of his life against Foreman ?

And for all the talk of this Horace Robinson fight which you're so fixated on.

Holmes won his fight in dominant fashion.

Where as Foreman got beaten decisively and clearly in his fight.

And how do you know Holmes couldn't of got a 2nd wind ? He unloaded alot of punches in the 4th round which would tire anyone out in that type of weather.

Holmes could of took a round off and easily regrouped he was dominating the fight.

Since when did Holmes have trouble going the distance ?

It was Foreman who was known to be suspect going the distance.

 

I think you've previously made some good points and raised some useful questions, but we're entering the roundabout stages now.

The core of the case you're putting is still based on an assumption that Holmes was close to being at his peak, sometime before most would consider him to be so, and that he would raise his game accordingly, due to the scale of the event.

And, while that's not unreasonable, in principle, I've explained why I find your take to be problematic.


On some of the points you've made, in your post above:

Young was listed as having a 79" reach on two separate broadcasts (Ali and Norton), so I'm not sure from where you're getting the 74" reach from.

Holmes was not the biggest of punchers anyway, and what power he did have had not fully crystallized by early '77. Again, it seems you rely on a peak Holmes entering '77, when it was more like he exited '77 and made a splash in early '88.

For sure, Holmes would develop an ATG jab. Foreman's jab wasn't too shabby either.

I'm not sure why you think Holmes having better control of range helps him against Foreman. I wrote a couple of notes in response to @JohnThomas1 on the matter of range, which explain my query here. Suffices to say that even a peak Holmes would have trouble managing the distance against Foreman.

No one has said "

This content is protected

," whereas you have previously made clear that you are baffled by why people would have any confidence in Foreman beating an early '77 Holmes, given his loss to Young.

You also emphasize that Holmes' would become transformed, with Foreman as his opponent, but are happy to use Foreman's performance against Young, exactly as it was, to benchmark how a Foreman/Holmes fight would go. Foreman could just as easily change his tactics against Holmes and probably would.

Also – At what point did I state that Foreman should be viewed as a 'considerable favorite'?
I have certainly not been trying to convince anyone of that.

And, regardless of someone's will to raise their game for the big occasion, one still needs to have developed the level of skills required to deliver on that will.


Finally, I think I have been more than fair in my appraisal of this speculative bout and that you are, of course, entitled to stand by what you've said. I've not stated otherwise – but I have disagreed with your position and for good reasons.

 

What i'm trying to say though MM is this.

If we take the Shavers fight for example had Holmes shown prior to that fight that he would become the fighter that he become ?

Holmes went up a level in the Shavers fight and i truly believe that it was because it was his first real big fight.

Great fighters normally rise to the occasion in big fights and i think he'd see Holmes rise to the occasion against Foreman aswell.

Yes i know it is a bit of speculation on my part, but surely even you must agree Holmes's mindset would be different fighting against a great fighter in the biggest fight of his life at that time.

I got it from his wiki page that lists his reach at 74 inches so i'm not quite sure what one is nearer the truth TBH.

Agreed Holmes is not a big puncher but he did have 15 stoppages in world title fights during his title reign.

Young was definitely getting Foreman's attention aswell in the later rounds with his punches as Foreman was tiring. So i do think Holmes could definitely get Foreman's attention with his right hands especially in the 2nd half of the fight.

The way i see it MM is that i don't believe a boxer can magically improve that much and go up a level in 4 months so the talent must already be there.

The reason i'm saying 4 months is because Holmes's fight 4 months prior to the Shavers fight against Ibar Carrington. There was no indication that Holmes had gone up level during that fight. It was only during the Shavers fight we truly witnessed what Holmes was really capable of at world level.

So i'm assuming Holmes simply rose to the occasion against Shavers and i believe he could do the same vs Foreman.

I don't think the gap in the timeline is that huge where i think it's unreasonable to believe that Holmes could rise to the occasion in a big fight in 1977.

I think Holmes's faster jab, quicker hand speed, and better movement, would be the key.

Aswell as Holmes being better equipped to winning a decision he won many fights that were extended late on.

The reason i say this is because as you know Foreman fought more measured after the loss to Ali.

I also think the heat plays a part in regards to how Foreman would have to pace himself.

I can't see Foreman going out all guns blazing but i could be wrong of course it's just speculation on my part.

My apologizes for insinuating you was viewing Foreman as a considerable favourite.

All i want people to acknowledge MM is that great fighters will have different mindsets depending on their opponent.

The other poster i am debating with in this thread keeps fixating on the Horace Robinson fight. And i just find it a bit puzzling that he doesn't think Holmes's mindset wouldn't be totally different fighting in the biggest fight of his career against Foreman.

If people want to believe the fight was a bit too soon for Holmes and Foreman would win i have no issue with that. Because there is no right or wrong answer in a mythical H2H match up between two great fighters.

But i do believe great fighters rise to the occasion. So i just want people to have that thought in the back of their head when assessing this match up.

 

I read this differently. I've not seen anyone suggesting Holmes was at or near his peak in '77; I don't think he was 'peak' in the epic Norton fight. People are saying that '77 Holmes could have beaten '77 Foreman. A very specific temporal window and set of circumstances.

The point has been made, rightly, that Holmes struggled with the heat and conditions and didn't look stellar v Robertson albeit stopped him in 5 I think? Might be wrong on that. And then we are into conjecture. Some have made the point that the likes of Cosell didn't buy into Larry until Shavers when he hit his stride, others have countered with the fact he knew Shavers well, so he was gonna look good...we have a lot of fact, opinion and conjecture in this thread.

The most intangible thing is the OP question. Could Holmes have raised his game if he was fighting Foreman. 2 things. He'd have had to. And it would have happened at some point. If facing his most dangerous opponent and having a chance to make his mark on the 'scene' was not enough to get his conditioning, his relaxes, hone his game and prepare for war in a wholly different more serious way than fighting the likes of Robertson, I don't know what might have. I think it is an acceptable intangible to argue.

The George who fought JY was on his way out the door mentally. He was at his lowest ebb, he was post Douglas Tyson if you like. His aura was gone and his self belief waning, I have heard him say this himself although id have to go searxh through all the footage I've watched of the great man over the years.

I think Larry COULD have beaten him in 77, and wonder, how would Holmes place in the ATG list if he had?

Really interesting chat and some compelling points from both sides.

Peace and love all, Px

 

I’m uncertain as to exactly how focused and prepared George Foreman was to continue at world level by 1977. Larry Holmes was still an up and comer but developing quickly and would be champion within a year. With what we have to work with I’m guessing Holmes would have won at that junction.

 

I would also counter that Earnie knew Larry as well as Larry knew him, so I don’t see why that’s an advantage to Holmes … just because he won?

 

To clarify... ...I used a figurative shorthand rather than re-explain an argument being made that Holmes didn't suddenly become much better between the Arrington and Shavers I bouts; the implication being, therefore, that Holmes already carried within him the latently honed skills that Shavers, in their first contest, would bring out in him.

I think this is an outsized assumption and risks becoming a quasi-circular argument. Everyone agrees that Holmes displayed markedly better form against Shavers than he had ever shown before.

Thus, one view sees the absence of comparable form, at an earlier point, as evidence of rapid improvement in a short space of time; the other viewpoint considers the Shavers' performance itself as evidence that the skills must have already been invisibly present; that only the right event was needed for them to be brought to the fore.

My perspective is that, there's probably some unquantifiable measure of improvement that could be attributed to the scale of the occasion, but, unless there is independent evidence that those skills were already fully developed, the Shavers I performance cannot by itself establish that they were present beforehand.

I would agree that Holmes could have beaten him at that time in '77. But I'd still take a punt on Foreman – all things considered.

 

No way to prove it either way, of course, but I do think it’s pretty evident from Holmes’ career that he had something in him that makes it more likely that he could and would rise to the occasion.

When he had to dig deep — against Norton, against Weaver, Shavers II, even later rallying vs Witherspoon — he did.

That’s in addition to raising his game against Shavers to dominate their first encounter.

I look at that and see a pattern.

One thing with Foreman was the intimidation factor — he was in a class with Sonny Liston and Mike Tyson in this particular area — and I just don’t think Holmes was the type to be intimidated by him … or anyone. By this point, he had sparred countless rounds with Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier and Earnie Shavers, among others. You don’t keep that company on practically a daily basis for some years and put even a guy like Big George on a pedestal.

George was wandering through the wilderness at this point, so I think a primed Larry Holmes, given the opportunity for his breakthrough moment, is in a far better place psychologically. He’s going to be focused, whereas George was a mess. And every round that goes by buoys Larry’s confidence while George’s is slipping away (as it did this day).

I also think stylistically he’s better suited than Jimmy Young to make this version of Foreman look bad. He had a better jab and better footwork for when it was needed.

 

George Foreman wasn't Earnie Shavers.

You're basing your ENTIRE ARGUMENT on the idea that Earnie Shavers and George Foreman were comparable - and they were physically and stylistically NOTHING alike.

And you're basing it on Larry Holmes' performance IN A YEAR OTHER THAN 1977, having boxed hundreds of rounds with Shavers over the years ... and assuming he'd have just as easy of a time against Foreman. Even though we're talking about guys who didn't spar, and we're talking about a completely different year.

I'm just basing it on how they looked in 1977.

Hell, after 1977, Holmes didn't have an easy time with Norton, or with Weaver, or with Shavers in their rematch. And NONE of those guys were nearly as ferocious a fighter as George Foreman. Weaver was a club fighter himself. And Larry was a better fighter then, better than he was prior to 1978.

Everything in your argument is based on the first Shavers fight in 1978 (which, again, wasn't in 1977) ... which was essentially a one-off performance by Holmes because he knew everything Earnie was going to do before he did it.

George Foreman wasn't a short guy, who put his gloves over his face, and took two or three punches to land one, like Earnie.

Foreman was still George Foreman in 1977.

And he didn't, contrary to what is stated here, have trouble going the distance. He went the distance before that and after that. And he went the distance THAT NIGHT.

George Foreman went the distance 12 times in his career and was only stopped once in 81 pro fights.

In San Juan, he was severely dehydrated to the point of hallucinating, and he still finished the fight.

Foreman and Young fought 10 times, Jimmy loses the other nine.

 

I swear, I've never argued with someone before on a topic of who wins between two guys in a SPECIFIC year ... and the guy I'm arguing with bases everything on how one opponent looked and performed in any year but the one we're supposed to be discussing.