Holmes or Foreman - Who's Comeback...

Foreman's comback takes the cake in terms of greater success. He beat Michael Moorer for the lineal title which was arguably a better win than anything Holmes did in his comeback. He also managed to rock Holyfield, something that Holmes couldn't do. In addition, he had a better list of second tier wins such as Savarese, Rodriguez, Grimsley and Stewart, whereas Holmes' only notable win was Mercer. Lastly, he retired with a much better overall comeback record, which was like 31-3-0-26, as opposed to Holmes 21-3-0-10, or something to that efffect.

 

Why didn't these 2 ever tangle during their comebacks???

 

Would have been ace.

 

Foreman feared Holmes!

 

Holmes BADLY wanted the fight, and it was signed in 1998, I believe. But the promoter wasn't able to raise the cash to pay the fighters their advances or something to this effect, and the whole thing fell apart

Here they are at the press conference for the fight:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I remember that as well, and yes I believe 1998 was the year it was supposed to happen.

 

grimsley......crawford grimsley:yikes

anyway, i would say pretty similar cause holmes beat mercer........who was less talented than moorer, but way tougher. and lets not forget that holmes really outboxed mercer...........george just landed a lucky punch.

AND his win over savarese was debatable...........the win over rodriguez was a robbery!!!

managing to rock holyfield however had more to do with foremans style rather than him being a better fighter.

so i would make it about even.

had the two met, i think holmes would have beaten foreman. his jab would have been in foremans face all night..........so he either beats him by ud or late tko due to eyes swollen shut.

 

Holmes come back started in 1988 vs a prime Mike Tyson. Foreman would have suffered the same fate vs Tyson.

I think Holmes did better vs Holyfield in terms of winning rounds, and managed to cut Holyfield. Did Foreman really defeat Savaresse and Stewart, or did his name get him the " W " ? I think Saveresse and Stewart beat Foreman on fair cards, so all of a sudden Foreman is not 31-3, but 28-6.

Mercer and Moorer to me are close to even. Holmes did reasonably well vs McCall and was robbed vs Nelsen. Holmes last fight vs Butterbean at age 53.

Foreman had more glory on his comeback, but never risked meeting Holmes in the 1990's. The fight was out there. The money was up. Foreman said no thanks. In all likelihood, Holmes UD’s Foreman in the 1990's or 2000's which is why Foreman never took the fight.

 

Not so certain Tyson would be Foreman old or not...I would put my money on Big George..old or Not!

 

1. Holmes did not do better than Holyfield. Both guys looked like **** in that fight. Foreman rocked Holyfield and made a better affair out of it.

2. Foreman beat Stewart convincing, as two knockdowns do not equate to a win for the otherside.

3. The savarese fight was close, but George still deserved it, plus was arguably robbed against Briggs. The Schultz fight, should have gone to Axel.

4. The Mercer fight was not an equally good win for Holmes as the Moorer win was for Foreman. Mercer had all but 18 pro fight as versus Moorer's 35, and Michael was a lineal world champion.

5. Holmes had fewer fights than Foreman did in his comeback, and beat worse opposition. Butterbean and a washed up Ferguson were likely the second best fighters he beat next to Mercer. Foreman, managed to beat several fighters who were at least ranked or undefeated.

6. Foreman did not avoid Holmes. It has already been discussed on this thread that the fight was signed and ready to go in 1998, but the party promoting the fight, backed out because they couldn't produce the necessary funds to make it happen.

7. Tyson beating Holmes in 1988, is irrelevant. This was not a true part of Holmes' comeback campaign in the 90's, and nor can we make the assumption that Tyson would have beaten Foreman in the same or similar fashion.

 

My replies are in >>

 

Holmes beat Mercer and did well for himself against Holyfield, McCall and Nielsen (not quite the same level as the others). But the rest of his resume were wins against journeymen and hasbeens, with a couple of dubious victories thrown in (Naverre and Mo Harris).

While Foreman most certainly fought his equal share of tomato cans as well, his standard of competition was generally better. Guys in their prime would include Holyfield, Morrison, Moorer, Schulz, Savarese and Briggs, with both Stewart and Coetzer being worthwhile opponents at the time as well.

But it's a pretty close thing. Foreman's losses were worse than Larry's, and if Holmes could've just had enough gas to win two more rounds against McCall...or if Holyfield had panicked and Ace Miranda screwed up his cut worse...

It's a thin line, but when you get right down to results I think Foreman did better.

 

I'm noticing that a lot of people on this thread are referring to the Foreman Stewart fight as a robbery. I have often assumed that this may be due to the widely displayed pictures and clips of Foreman's badly cut up and swollen face. While this may certainly give one the impression that Foreman had lost, for those of us who actually saw the fight, he did deserve the win. Stewart's face was messed up pretty badly as well, and I seem to recall him being down at least twice, plus staggered a number of other times.

Post edited:

My curiosity caused me to do a search to refresh my memory, and according to the article below, Stewart was indeed floored twice giving Foreman a 10-7 round early on, which ultimately led to him earning a razor thin decision. After the fight, Stewart was disapointed and felt that he at least should have recieved a draw verdict for his efforts.

[url]http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=6653&more=1[/url]

 

There's no way, Holmes takes out Foreman by TKO in the 1990's, and truthfully, if we look at how well improved Foreman's defense, jab, and ability to pace himself was, Holmes might likely be the underdog going in. I also don't know how you can call his fight with rodriguez a robbery seeing how Foreaman knocked him out in two rounds ( although I think you're mixing this fight up with the schultz fight.) As for your comment about George only rocking Holyfield due to his style, and therefore not deserving anymore credit than Holmes, well what the hell do you think makes fights? When Holmes fought Holyfield, the only fight that Evander had over the previous 14 months was with Burt Cooper. When he fought Foreaman, he was coming off a fresh win over Douglas for the title.