Holmes Over Foreman - Who Agrees?

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at is that Foreman was going to kill Chuvalo if the fight wasn't stopped. When this fight took place the sports world was buzzing about the savagery of the beating Forman dished out that night. Perhaps Foreman was punching himself out, but it certainly looked he was punching Chuvalo out.

The pre-Zaire Foreman was a different fighter than he was afterwards. He hit harder than any heavyweight ever, and wasn't that bad of defensive fighter. I mean, if we want to compare common opponents look at how a prime Foreman crushed Norton, who took everything that a prime Holmes could dish out for 15 rounds. Foreman and Holmes were both born in 1949, and I've always believed that Holmes was exceedingly lucky that Foreman basically lost his marbles after Ali schooled him, because if he hadn't, Holmes may never have held the title. Holmes was a great heavyweight, but in their primes I believe George would have ko'd him. If Larry avoided getting floored he could have taken a decision from Foreman, but I just don't think he could have avoided gettng caught and clocked by Big George.

 

I think the worst had blown over in that 3rd round with Chuvalo...it's very possible that the iron chinned Canadian would have riddeen it out and gotten into the fight in the later rounds..and it could have been a touch and go thing for Foreman..if his stamina issue had surfaced.

 

During the interview after their match, Chuvalo seemed to be in full control of his faculties, nothing like Marlon Starling after getting coldcocked by Molinares. Against Frazier, Chuvalo knew when to turn away. Against Foreman, he wasn't punching back, but neither was he foundering blindly around the ring like Lyle with Ali. It looked like a controlled and calculated retreat to me.

 

I think both men had the style to beat one another. I think a lot of Holmes but he fought the biggest bunch of bums as champ and avoided the tough rematches, unifications and #1 contenders. Foreman walked through a younger version of Norton and an older version of Cooney more efficiently but that is a matter of styles. The Frazier,Lyle,Moorer,Norton,Cooney fights were Foremans best wins, While the Cooney and Shavers fights were Holmes best. I drop Holmes down a bit because of his avoidances but Foreman also had a padded record. I put both men in and around the top 10 but I think they have highly overated on this site.

 

Chuvalo, in his postfight explanation after the fight had been stopped, said that he had been thrown back against the ropes by "the force of the punch alone", and not due to his legs giving out of any "chicken dance" sort of reaction, and that he knew where he was, and knew to ride out the followup assault of Foreman's, and was fending off Foreman's rather wild barrages...none of which coming close to that first left hook that started it all. I just believe that that unusually dense skull structure of Chuvalo's had ridden out the storm..and that he may have had a chance to endure with big George, and those latter rounds may well have looked quite different concerning Chuvalo's chances against the then "stamina challenged" Foreman.

 

I think Foreman had a few select wins that were better, along with some decent statistics like oldest champion, two time lineal claimant, highest win/Ko ratio, olympic gold medalist, etc... Holmes had consistency, better winning streak and fewer losses to lesser fighters..

As for head to head, it is a valid assumption to make, that Holmes should be the favorite, given Foreman's track record against the likes of boxers like Ali and Young, but make no mistake, this is not a forgone conclusion and nor is this an easy fight for Holmes. For as many similarities as Holmes shared with Ali and Young, neither of those men were quite as prone to getting bamboozled by right hands as Larry was, and Foreman would have been potentially his most dangerous foe in that department.

There is also some discussion about Holmes doing better against a wider range of styles than Foreman, but I'm not sure that I'm completely sold on the notion. An aging Ken Norton gave a prime Holmes a hell of a lot more trouble than a peak version gave Foreman.. I will also reasonably speculate that even a 1973 rendition of Joe Frazier could have given Holmes fits at any point in his career, whereas this was hardly the case against Big George. At age 45, Foreman laid out a 25 year old Michael Moorer who was a 35-0 professional and a hard punching soutpaw - something I don't recall ever seeing Holmes fight. It's valid to say that George struggled a bit with a former light heavyweight, but in all fairness, Moorer had just beaten a string of top heavys along with holding the lineal title. How is Foreman "struggling" for 10 rounds before knocking out Moorer at age 45 any worse than a 35 year old Holmes LOSING the title to a man who was in his first heavyweight match EVER?? This is where I think some people have lost site of certain things.


Lastly, Foreman is regularly criticized for his lackluster selection of opposition both in his first and second career.. Okay, let's break this down a bit. If we draw some of the names out of the hat who George took on following his loss to Ali, the list looks something like this: John Denis, Ron Lyle, Scott Ledoux, Lou Savarese, Adilson Rodriguez, Pierre Coetzer,Alex Stewart, Shannon Briggs, Axel Schultz, Crawford Grimsley, Jimmy Ellis, etc. Are these men really worse than a lot of the guys Holmes DEFENDED HIS LINEAL TITLE AGAINST??? How about Scott Ledoux, Ossie Ocasio, Alfredo Evangelista, Lucien Rodriguez, David Bey, Scott Frank, Lorenzo Zanon, Marvis Frazier, Leon Spinks, Tex Cobb or an ancient Muhammad Ali?? For those of you who rate Holmes higher on the basis of a longer title reign and a pretty looking winning streak, I just listed about 11 of his 19 defenses. And for anyone who wants to touch upon Foreman dropping the title rather than rematching Axel Schultz, let's not forget about Holmes dropping a belt rather than facing about half of the worthy challengers available from 1983 onward.

 

Decent post! You make a rational argument for Larry ,and I agree with it, I put Holmes marginally in front of Georgie boy.
Holmes allways wanted to fight Foreman ,but George was less keen, maybe he knew something?

 

I really agree with that. Holmes had the plan he blocked well and moved well. Not to mention his hand got stuck in the ropes. Holmes was way better than Tyson.

 

Holmes was schooling McCall after "9" rds, but then he sustained a welt / cut and he seemingly grew tired too......... Larry Holmes was in fine shape at age 45 and 236 pounds in 1995, but fizzling in them final three rds is what killed Holmes on the cards......

McCall had more energy in the end cuz he didn't do jack**** for the first 7 rds........ But McCall finished strong and that's what the judges like to see....... McCall was lucky against "The Homer."

MR.BILL

 

I absolutely agree. This fight is made for Holmes, who would be an absolute stylistic nightmare for Foreman. Way too much speed and footwork for George.

 

me too/ I feel Holmes is competitive w/ anyone in hw history.:hat

 

A medical scan of Chuvalo's head and brain (as well as LaMotta's) would yield some interesting and revealing results.

I just reviewed Foreman-Chuvalo, and while Don Dunphy may have expressed the belief that it was a timely stoppage, I still think Irving Ungerman should have kept himself seated in Chuvalo's corner and let Mercante make that call. Arthur was more than capable of using his own judgment in that situation. (And Chuvalo should have never let his wife at ringside for that one.:!:+:|=:censored)

After that first hook, most of Foreman's shots which landed cleanly were either to the body, or jabs to the head. Right after Ungerman started climbing up on the ring apron, Chuvalo fired back with a right and a hook. This was not Ali firing 46 unanswered punches at Lyle. (Mercante made a move to step in and break the action just as Chuvalo shot out his right, then stepped back to allow them to continue.) Foreman's wild haymakers to the head mostly missed or were deflected. (Again, very different from Lyle and a sharpshooting Ali.)

Speaking of Mercante, it bears reminding that he had Holmes locked up on his scorecard after ten rounds (commenting live with Cosell on ABC), and it was public knowledge that Larry was boxing with an injured left. The real controversy surrounding the official cards here was how the judges had it even after 14. The final score was close, but the decisive early portion of that match was not. (I was at a large graduation party with a throng mostly rooting for Norton, but we all agreed that Kenny needed to knock him out entering the championship rounds.)

How a healthy Holmes would have done against a young Norton is conjecture, but few who saw their complete fight in 1978 dispute that Holmes deserved to be the clear UD winner. (The disbelief was palpable when a split decision was announced.) As neither was at his best, I discount most conclusions based upon that outcome, nor would I have held a rematch defeat against an aging Norton.

 

I thought Holmes in 1999 at 250 bloated pounds looked pretty good in hammering a slobbish looking Bonecrusher Smith for the second time............ But, in all reality, was Holmes that good in '99 or was Smith really that lousy.?.?.? I tend to believe Smith was that lousy in 1999....

Still, all in all, I think Holmes outboxes Foreman over 10 rds easy..... 12 rds MIGHT've been a problem in 1999..... Who knows?????

MR.BILL

 

Absolutely. Though I think Frazier was perhaps a better win then Spinks II if we are counting that, I think Holmes would beat him H2H, and as has been said, was the #1 in the world and for a long time.

 

I think Holmes is receiving a tad too much credit for his efforts in the second Spinks match. I don't consider this an acutal victory so much as I do an indecisive loss. Yes, he was probably robbed, but that doesn't make the outcome a "W". We also have to ask ourselves how good was michael spinks truly at heavyweight? Holmes is getting points for a galant effort against an opponent who really did nothing at this weight class except beat Holmes himself, and we're supposed to belive that this showing was better or even on par with Foreman's anialation of Joe Frazier?!?!?!