Holmes Over Foreman - Who Agrees?

I feel that beating Joe Frazier was worth more kudos than an arguable victory over Michael Spinks. Frazier in 1973,may have been passed his 1969-71 best,but not too much so. Whereas Spinks was a light-heavy who had only recently moved up. As far as H2H goes,Holmes had all the tools to beat Foreman,but George would always stand a puncher's chance. If Foreman decks Larry with the kind of right hand that Shavers did,then I could imagine him finishing the job.

 

I simply think straight up Holmes was a better fighter.

 

I think Holmes would give him the same trouble Ali gave him. Mobile, good defense, great jab. Only problem with Holmes is that Ali put in the bravado and took some nice shots and stood in to win. I dont know if Holmes could do that as well as Ali.

 

That's on my mind too.

 

Yes. Holmes was better. Greater. Rank him higher.

 

I think Holmes would beat any version of Foreman, but I dont know if I would rank him higher. They are very close in accomplishments, and George did manage to win the title at an old age in one of his two shots. Holmes meanwhile failed both times, losing to Mcall which is probably a bit worse than losing to Moorer. I dont think Foreman would have lost to the Mcall that Holmes fought either.

 

Could Foreman have defended the title 20 consecutive times over eight calendar years under even the most favourable conditions? He was hardly matching that pace during either of his title reigns. Holmes sustained two decisive losses in his career, to Tyson and Holyfield. Foreman was clearly robbed against Briggs, but not against Morrison, Young and Holyfield.

Would Foreman have won decisions over granite chins McCall and Mercer? (Holmes came awfully close in the scoring with a McCall riding the wave of the Lewis starching.) Would Moorer have done as well over the first nine rounds against Larry as he did against George?

Head to head, Holmes wouldn't have bothered taking the shots from Foreman like Ali did, and I doubt he would have been pissing blood like Muhammad was either. Holmes at anytime from the first Shavers fight on would have been hell for George to deal with. Young got off first with his jab while retreating. Larry's jab was longer, faster and harder. Ali fought him off the ropes while taking some heavy punishment. Holmes drew Mercer into the corners while taking virtually no punishment at all.

I don't give Foreman much of a puncher's chance with Holmes. He was expending a lot of energy trying to finish off Chuvalo after stunning him, but the Canadian was riding out the storm when his own corner may have robbed him of a major upset by throwing in the towel. Years later, Jimmy Young's corner did not panic in the same situation, and George did shoot his bolt. As a finisher, he was not in the class of Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, or more significantly, Tyson. For Larry's part, he proved surprisingly difficult for a peaking Tyson to finish off. Mike needed 45 seconds between the second and final knockdowns, and a rusty Holmes came within five seconds (and an arm caught in the ropes) of surviving the round. (Mike would have eventually stopped Larry anyway, but Foreman shared neither his speed, or the speed and power of Shavers.)

Larry Holmes came back after Tyson, in 1991, because Foreman proved it was possible, starting with his own comeback win over Zouski in 1987. But George took seven and a half years between Zouski and Moorer. Larry schooled Mercer just ten months after his 1991 return.

 

Yeah your right. On second thought I think Holmes faced better fighters in his comeback career, just by facing Tyson Holy, Mercer, and Mcall and that probably equals or eclipses Foremans one punch knockout after getting his butt kicked most of the fight. Thats why I say its close very close and on paper just looking at win,losses and timing of the fights I think thats a fair call. Thats why I hate ranking lists.
Personally I think pre or post comeback Holmes beats any version of George.

 

My thoughts

1. Foreman was never the no1 HW in the world, he was linear champ twice but throughout both reigns there were men who could beat him. Holmes was number 1 in the world for many years.

2. Holmes racked up a ton of defenses, Foreman made 3 successfully 1s, 1 of them being a gift

3. Holmes would always beat Foreman with his skills, Foreman knew it and never fancied the fight

4. Holmes is better against more styles than Foreman and beat far more ranked opponents

 

I tend to think that the bitter, badmouthing, nasty old Mr. Holmes would have had the stuff to beat big George.

 

For that matter, I think that vintage '78 thru '83 Holmes would have beaten Mike Tyson as well. That ko loss would have never occured in Holmes' prime.

 

As I have previously said,Holmes defnitely had the tools to beat Foreman,but regarding your first point. In his first reign,Foreman may have only had three defences,but with the exception of Joe Roman he certainly made up in quality what he lacked in quantity. Larry Holmes never had to defend against a four year younger version of ken Norton. The same one that Foreman beat. Or a 32 year old but still very dangerous Muhammad Ali. That version of Ali was the best he'd been since 1967.

 

i wouldn't disagree with holmes over foreman