I personally think George Foreman's comeback was a superior effort to Larry Holmes'

Foreman made more money and captured the World Heavyweight Title belt. So, yeah, his comeback was superior, in the sense that it was more successful...in my opinion.

 

The fight was very, very close. But I agree with you; Holmes just ran out of gas and petered out the last 3-4 rounds, especially after McCall's big 9th round where he hurt and cut Holmes. That was a fight that Holmes could have won. For some reason, I just never got the impression that the comeback Holmes really pushed himself to the brink in training for the big fights; he showed up in good shape, but not phenomenal shape. If he had trained very, very hard and showed up against McCall with better cardio conditioning, he could have won the title again. Fighting for a heavyweight championship should make a fighter train like there is no tomorrow in preparation; I don't think Holmes did that.

 

Holmes' ranking at #9 by the WBC was bogus. However, in his semi-defense, he was not gone from the sport for 10 years like Foreman. Foreman had a lot more to prove upon launching his comeback than Holmes did, simply by the sheer amount of years that Foreman was away.

 

"I'd have to say George..." ...but only by a couple of whiskers.

Two totally different styles, hence the face-damage difference after the respective bouts with Holy. Yet, this should not be considered much of a factor: after all, no one faults Marciano for looking a bit like hamburger at the end of some of his victories. Results, gentlemen.

I think Anthony brings up an interesting point: Holmes was not a shot fighter. Had he shown up in Evander-Holyfield condition for either of his post-Tyson title shots, he might very well have captured glory. I mean, even as an old champion, there was really no excuse for his chronic belly fat and less-than-stellar muscle tone in arms and legs. This was only exacerbated as a forty-something fighter. Holmes was always fueled by a burning deep-seated demand to be respected, a motivation that will only get you so far.

Foreman, on the other hand, was an inspired man on a mission, a happy warrior. From the beginning of his second coming, he intuitively knew exactly what to do and how to do it and he did it: work off a good jab and play to your tremendous power by bulking up for punishment absorption behind a huge-arm cross defense and develop a patient accuracy to deliver your thunderous missiles. Work your way up into contention slow and steady, like the first time, banishing all ring rust by fighting often, really regardless of opponent entity. Plus, work the media and the public with an always, always, always winsome attitude. George was in his element, more than he ever was as a youth: after 10 years of learning to inspire and touch others as a preacher, boxing public relations was now a piece of cake. And I believe he truly believed he was on a mission to "help others", which gave him that extra edge of greatness.

Thus, Foreman landed the "It Happened!" punch. Holmes never did anything more than school a young lion. Did Holmes show more skill? I wouldn't say so. Each man developed his skills according to his talents, and Uncle George delivered the goods.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you about the absurdity of Holmes' ranking. But Holmes was not nearly as inactive as was Foreman. Foreman didn't fight for ten years; plus, his last fight before that ten year layoff was a losing effort. Thus, Foreman's last win was what, sometime in 1976? Holmes was champion as late as 1985, and he was in the ring battling the heavyweight champion in 1986, in a close fight that many people though he won. He was inactive from April of 1986 until January of 1988 when he was blasted out by Tyson, again Holmes was on the championship stage as late as 1988. He then retired and came back in 1991. There were not huge blocks of time spent away from the sport like there were with Foreman. AGain, I'm not defending Holmes's #9 ranking upon coming back in 1991, but the comparison to Foreman in terms of inactivity before launching his comeback are not accurate; totally different preceding circumstances. Holmes shouldn't have been ranked until after the Mercer win.

 

Holmes got an absolute gift against Maurice Harris if Schulz being screwed against Foreman is fair game to bring up.

 

Thanks. I will say this. I think Foreman does not get enough credit for winning over the 12 round distance following the upset of Moorer. For the very first time in his career, he could go that limit, and sustain a sufficient work rate and scoring to carry it home. Moorer dominated him as John Tate had dominated Weaver. To his credit, George fought from then on as if he understood he had caught lightning in a bottle, and he should have gone out a winner as Holmes did.

 

Holmes still was the better overall fighter, but in terms of the money and newfound fame, well yes, Foreman by a landslide...

Kinda' like my "KISS vs. AC/DC" thread in the lounge... I know AC/DC has a fanatical fan base, as does KISS, but AC/DC still seems to come out on top in the popularity contest... Myself, I prefer KISS, but what can a guy do.?.?

In my book, Holmes is better than Foreman and KISS is better than AC/DC, but the world turns in mysterious ways...

MR.BILLhat

 

Harris would have definitely boxed circles around Foreman and most likely Shultz too. He was a tough customer. Lennox Lewis' main sparring partner.

 

You ever see Foreman Savarese? Impressive stuff on Georges part. I always get a kick of Dundee in the corner calling him son. Dundee was pretty much speechless himself, George was doing great the entire fight.

 

I thought "Foreman-Savarese" was a damn good HBO fight. I had Foreman winning a close fight over Savarese, but Harold Lederman gave the fight to Savarese by a point or two if memory is serving me correctly...

MR.BILL:bbb