Greater fighter? George Foreman or Larry Holmes

Both men were giants in their eras and both are all time great fighters. I myself rank Holmes a bit higher on the basis of his long reign and numerous title defenses, while I have Foreman not far behind with his incredible comeback effort and wins over Frazier, Norton, Lyle and Moorer. I take no real issue with anyone having Foreman higher. My current rating is Holmes at #4 and Foreman usually at around #7

 

Pretty fair assessment.

Holmes takes it on overall skill and longevity in his title reign. While Foreman takes it,quality wise,in his first tenure as world champion. None of Larry's opponents,except for a slightly faded Ken Norton, match up to Frazier,prime Norton and Ali. Even though Foreman lost convincingly to Muhammad,he was still dangerous for the first five rounds or so.

 

Larry for me, although probably not by a lot. George's comeback did really enhance his legacy, and poses a lot of 'what if's' regarding his initial career. Without the comeback, he'd be way lower than Larry.

Still, Holmes was much more dominant and consistent. But George had a much better and more successful comeback.

 

larry holmes is probably the best boxer in the heavyweight division.

 

Foreman. Gold medal, destroyed 2 atg champions Frazier was undefeated,
cameback 10 years out of retirement! Regained title was still elite in comeback.
Higher ranking historically and H2H imo. Holmes was phenomenal though.
Both arguably top 5of legacy wise.

 

Foreman.
Holmes comeback autdid hiz praim.
Foreman destroyd praim Norton , Holmes strageld wiz e dan Norton.
4man olso autdid Holmes vs Cooney & LeDoux

4man woz protekted during hiz veri irli karir (jast laik most wer) & during hiz l8 eij kambak , bat Holmes woz protekted from bows Duane Bobick & Nick Wells .

Wenever Holmes got problems hi ider chited (Shavers #2 & Holyfield) or got e gift from DKP & never rimatcht (Norton , Witherspoon , Williams)

4man reprezented ze US in ze Olympics & won gold , Holmes woz not iven ze #2 HW in hiz krop (if Lyle kawnts zen Holmes woz #4 @ best) .

 

Larry Holmes IMO

He was a dominant champion for a sustained period. There wasn't one style Holmes couldn't handle.

George Foreman was a more devastating offensive fighter and puncher but we usually overate them as boxing fans. We over rate punchers.

 

I often think about what would have happened had Holmes come along a few years earlier. Say a 28 year old Easton Assassin competing with a prime Norton,Ali,Frazier and Foreman in the early/middle seventies. His unbeaten record would n't have lasted as long as it did in real time,but he would have mixed in well.

 

This one is a tough call and your answer above is pretty much in keeping with my thoughts.

 

I've managed to decipher SOME of your Klingonese,Frankie I don't think that Bobick and Wells would have been a threat to Holmes as a pro,anyhow.

 

Foreman in career 1 beat the better fighters impressively Frazier,Norton but styles had a lot to do with it and IMO Frazier was already past his best form FOTC. In the comeback George corrected a lot of his weaknesses but did win a title over well regarded Michael Moorer and fought some young lions and held up win,lose or draw

Head to Head prime I think both men had the tools to win, Foremans big right hand and Larry's jab and movement if he can survive 5-8 rounds or Larry could take it late if he can with the better stamina....Big G did have that right hand though.....toss-up

Old Foreman had some very good wins as did old Holmes (who was younger) While Evander beat both men, George had a good win over Moorer and Holmes over Mercer but Holmes got bombed out badly by Tyson so again more fuel for the Foreman right hand

I tend to rate George higher because of Larry's never unifying as champ and avoiding the best of his era but on skill and styles I can see it going either way

 

Holmes. By a fair margin, though I take nothing from George.