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

I don't disagree, but that wans't what I was trying to say regardless.

 

Harris did impress against Holmes on the USA Tuesday night fights back around 1997 or so, but I didn't give Harris the win on my card... In my book, the fight was either a draw or Holmes by a **** hair... Harris was a live dog in that fight, but not the winner after 10 rds...

As for robbery, well, I've seen far worst...

MR.BILL

 

I know I was just adding that. You were right Holmes got a gift in that one.

 

Old Foreman had teh GREATEST come-back OAT in ANY sport.

 

Yup, 115:113 Holmes as he was clearly better fighter behind his jab in the first half of the fight. McCall hurt him around 9th or 10th and railled back but it wasn't enough on my card

 

if we are to make comparisons between holmes and foremans second careers the first one must be how many times did george realy win on points? stewart? shultz? grimsly? savarese? There is a good argument for foreman losing his last 6 fights!!

 

You can argue Foreman has a better comeback resume, but Holmes was the better comeback boxer.

 

:yep
You've been missed.

 

He lost to Schultz, the majority believe.

But most have him winning the others you listed.

 

That's how I see it.

 

I think they were all close enough to go either way and they were hardly decisive, conclusive wins. As happy as I was for George for beating moorer the way he did, he basically cashed in on his name, split the division and went on road hand picking people he could barley beat for the illegitimate "George foreman title". I think it would have shown more class if he had retired after Moorer.
In their second careers neither Holmes nor foreman were ever considered the best heavyweight in the world. Bowe, Lewis, hollyfeild and Ruddock were considered better than both - and they knew it!
Old Holmes and big George were just old stagers who had enough left to be awkward. They made things interesting for nostalgias sake and with all the titles floating about they were in with a chance to get lucky, that’s all. Both old timers were looking to cash in, steal the limelight and gatecrash the heavyweight scene without paying their dues. Their popularity carried them far further than either deserved to go.

 

i dont think it has to do with effort. More to do with adapting to a different style. Foreman didnt fight like the Foreman from the 70's even though he looked out of shape, he had great stamina at the older age. Holmes tried to fight the same way he did when he was 25 years old. gotta adapt.

 

I thought old holmes was more a counter puncher than before, fought off the ropes more and stopped dancing. holmes was still effective because he did adapt. george was also effective but neither was the best in the world at that time.

 

A few things.

Foreman: I think Saveresse edged Foreman. The Foreman Stewart fight was also very close. Perhaps Foreman's popularity, and ability to bankroll fights had something to do with the decisions.

Holmes: I think Holmes did enough to win on points vs. Nielsen.

Common opponents: Holyfield: Holmes had the better effort. He even cut Holyfield. Lakusta: Holmes easily beat Lakusta. Foreman did knock Lakusta out, but he was badly embarrassed because Lakusta visibly rocked and hurt him with a punch before the finish! Few people know this fact.

Missing fight: Foreman and Holmes was supposed to fight. Holmes tired many times. The money was up. Foreman balked in the late 1990's.

 

How did I know that you were going to say that ? :good