Holmes Over Foreman - Who Agrees?

Yes, I most definitely do believe Larry Holmes must rank higher than George Foreman.

 

Foreman will always win the popularity contest, but he'd lose the actual fight with Holmes in the ring....
:deal

MR.BILL

 

I rank Holmes slightly ahead on my list but Im not at all sure about a primes H2H match, very hard call.

 

If Holmes schooled him for 9 rounds how did he lose? I never hear of this being a ripoff, more a close fight and excellent effort. The judges don't go back on the previous 9 rounds and say, well Olly has finished better and that's what i like to see so i will go back and change 4 of those previous rounds to his favour and make him the winner

 

:-( Holmes would not lose a round en route to a cavernous UD.

 

Are you serious ?

Im talking the best of each version, peak Foreman was stopping guys like Chuvalo & Frazier, in fact pre-peak GF stopped Chuvalo.

Look at the performance Ali had to come up with to overcome Foreman & while it is a myth that Ali took a beating for 7 rds, he still conceded some rds, no way Holmes comes anywhere near shutting out the monster that was early 70s Foreman.

Ali could take a better shot than Holmes, had quicker reflexes than Larry too, he took a few clean ones, GF might have finished Holmes off if he caught & stunned him (quite likely in a 15 rder)

Foreman was a monster that could cut the ring off extremely well & pressure you into trading, if Larry trades, its all over, believe that ****.

 

Nope, Foreman is better and has a much more legitimate claim to a higher ranking. H2H is another thing, although Foreman at his best does better than most would think. Holmes shouldn't be ranked higher than Foreman. Holmes may have been steady, but toward the middle of his run he took the easy way out and became lazy. I'd take the guy who decimated legends and became a title holder on the two most dominant decades. Added to the fact that Foreman comp is superior, even if Holmes may have more good names it definitely goes to Foreman's edge. Winning is winning, and Foreman planned that win against Moorer. Whether you believe it or not, he wasn't an idiot thinking he could out-box the 26 year old. Holmes doing well against Mercer was good, but Holmes was all wrong for Mercer, and Mercer is pretty limited. Moorer is better, and a more accomplished fighter too.

I don't want to argue much more. It seems really clear to me. I just think people are flat out wrong in ranking Holmes ahead of Foreman. Foreman can be arguably a top 3 Heavyweight of all time as far as I'm concerned. But people will inexplicable rank Liston ahead of him. It's almost disgusting.

 

I'd label Homes a 8-5 fave. It's like this - we saw the greatest of Holmes in the two Shavers matches. Shavers won about 1 single round in two fights yet still went very close to stopping Holmes in that round. Odds are Foreman will tag and hurt Holmes, he's plenty better than The Acorn on multiple levels. He's also going to be more dangerous when he does hurt Holmes. It's whether Larry gets thru these anxious moments that determines the winner. Holmes has a hell of a lot of skill and determination.

 

Holmes got careless on BOTH occasions that he was dropped by "Shavers and Snipes" in '79 and in '81........ Holmes was winning BOTH fights handidly (What Else Is New?) when he was dropped for day-dreaming / loss of focus in them fights.........

Also, Shavers and Snipes both had heavy rights that were sneaky........ Shavers and Snipes were hardly sharp punchers; both looped and winged punches from all angles and that's why they sometimes got through on a seasoned pro like Holmes......

I don't think Holmes would day-dream or lose focus with Foreman.... I see Holmes keeping his distance and sharp-shooting from the outside with quick left & rights.... Holmes' jab would connect easy on Foreman's face, and I see Holmes also tagging Foreman with quick right crosses that are sharp and stinging... Foreman would chug forward trying to land to the body and head of Holmes with both hands, but he'd pay the Piper for that, too...... I see Holmes clearly edging Foreman over 10 rds with ease and still winning on points too in a 12 rounder...... "The Homer" wins..........

MR.BILL

 

Mr. Bill, always like your take on the 80's heavies and agree most of the time. Im curious how you viewed the Tyson win over Holmes.

 

I'll stick with George, but it really is too bad that they never met in the ring. The heavyweight division was certainly stacked in those days. A Golden Age indeed.

 

Holmes was rusty and his heaviest ever in '88 at 227 pounds.... BUT! He looked good for THREE rds while keeping his distance and tying up an onrushing Tyson...... However, in round 4, Holmes made the mistake of standing right in front of Tyson, and Tyson slipped Holmes' guard and nailed Holmes right in the forehead with a wicked overhand right to drop Holmes' ass.......... 'Twas the beginning of the end for the 38 year old Holmes......... At that point, the fight / night was over for Larry Holmes..... He never fully recovered from the initial knockdown.........
:-(
It is obvious to me that Holmes was rusty with slowed reflexes by that time, cuz, Larry Holmes actually had his hands up and was looking right at Tyson when he was tagged and dropped for the first time in round 4........
:nono
The second knockdown was caused cuz Holmes was still wobbly and had no balance... Holmes basically dropped again from a glancing shot there....
atsch
The final knockdown which left Holmes sprawled on the floor was wicked.......:shock:

MR.BILL:|

 

That was an awesome shot Tyson landed. How much different would it have been had Holmes had a few tuneups prior? Maybe a few more rounds and a few less excuses for the Tyson haters, but most likely the same outcome?
Tyson had one thing that would always trouble Larry, speed and power, not to mention a pretty good skill set at that time. Still ranks as a pretty decent win in my book, noone ever crushed Holmes like that. :good

 

Holmes had a very good 15 rds in April of '86 against Spinks on HBO. By the time he faced Tyson in Jan. 1988, Holmes had been inactive less than "2" yrs....... Not all that bad.... But Holmes was 219 for Spinks and a softer but still decent 227 for Tyson......... Larry Holmes needed to train better and earlier on in 1987........... Holmes claimed he only got 90 days to train for Tyson..... It wasn't enough.........

Holmes could've done better against Tyson in 1988 had he been better prepared, but Holmes still probably would've lost either way in '88........ Tyson was too young and primed in '88...........

MR.BILL:deal