Larry Holmes vs Riddick Bowe

If anyone said anything about Moorer being a big durable power house, then feel free to post the links of the conversation. I do however acknowledge the fact that he was a 20 something year old fighter in his prime who fought a south paw style, was undefeated in 35 pro fights and rightful claim to the lineal title. Sure he struggled with Cooper and Stewart, but so did other guys. Joe Frazier wasn't real keen on facing many of the big punchers of his era, was decked twice by Bonavena and knocked out early by Foreman. Does that mean he was **** too? I guess Foreman can't beat anyone who can fight according to you and some of these guys.

 

Barely lost, and yes, he was promoted by Don King who promoted Mcall. Why did George deserve a shot at Holyfield, and Morrison and Moorer? It was and always will be the politics of the sport. Big names make big paydays. Hell Tyson could come out of prison fight Peter McNeely and become the #1 contender in all sanctioning bodies. Did he deserve a shot after beating Buster Mathis and McNeely?

 

Wow! Such venom.......

Holmes at least beat his last opponenet prior to facing McCall, something that Foreman failed to do.

 

I still don't get what your gripe is about Holmes fighting Mercer after 4 or 5 fights during his comeback. Foreman could have fought a "big" fight early on in his comeback if he chose to. Foreman was a former heavyweight champion of the world making a comeback after a ten year hiatus - the guy drew headlines and put butts in seats. He could have chosen to fight a name opponent at any time; he chose not to. Since when does a fighter have to "earn" the right to fight a top ten contender? Or is it just the money part that bothers you about Holmes/Mercer? The bottom line is that Holmes took on and defeated a legitimate top ten contender in Ray Mercer. The opportunity presented itself to Holmes and he took it. Should he have not? Regardless of how limited Mercer was and how he had been outboxed by Damiani and for a few rounds by Morrison, Mercer was heavily-favored to trash Larry Holmes, who was past it when he lost both times to Spinks, was really past it when Tyson flattened him, and was no better 4 years later against Mercer.

And you can speculate all you want about how Holmes would have fought as long as possible to earn a sweet fight deal.....But the reality is, he fought 5 fights against relative bums and then stepped up drastically to fight Mercer. Larry Holmes beat a legitimate top ten fighter to earn, yes earn, his shot against Holyfield...Something that George Foreman did not do......

 

No it means he was very good at selecting certain kinds of opponents. Mostly flat footed guys who didnt like to move and had suspect chins. I think the resume speaks for itself. Morrison and Shultz both turned into boxers and whipped up on George. Even Crawford gave him hell, and he was a club fighter. Guys like Briggs, and Holyfield, Cooney, Savarese, and even Morrison were going to eventually stand in front of George and slug it out with him. Foreman could take the beating to land his shots. Look it was impressive that he was able to even compete at his age, but his accomplishments will always be overshadowed by his handlers savvy matchmaking, and the way he regained the title.
A guy like Holyfield could have taken a page out of Georges book on how to comeback. Fighting Chris Byrd, James Toney, and Larry Donald was moronic. Look what Holy was able to do with Lou Savarese..

 

LOL...Throwing up doesn't give you swollen eyes, a swollen cheek, and facial bumps and contusions.....Anyways, Foreman did little against HOlyfield but plod forward and ingest massive amounts of hooks, right crosses, and uppercuts to his rather prominent head and body.....Holmes at least fought smart and used his defensive skills to escape the massive amounts of punishment that Foreman took. And Holmes actually won more rounds against Holyfield than did Foreman.......But I agree it was a rather boring fight, but at least it didn't resemble an execution, a "virtual massacre" in the words of Larry Merchant.

 

I remember rewinding and watching the Holmes barf in slow motion, it was good stuff. :rofl

 

I don't think I've heard anyone say Moorer was a big, durable powerhouse, but he WAS an unbeaten, skilled, fast fighter with good power and coming off of a win over Holyfield. The Moorer win is a great win for Foreman.

 

Thank you. That about sums up the conversation.

 

There is no gripe. Only my pointing out that it was both a smart and convient move on Holmes' part and NOT an act of courageousness... Take any man on the comeback trail, place him in the ring with a fighter who is stylistically fit for his needs, write him a check for a million bucks, and promise him a shot at the title.......Any man would do it.......

I don't what you remember about that time frame, but I can tell you that no one took Foreman seriously upon coming back. Even as late as the Cooney fight, people were making jokes about the " Geezers at Ceasars. " It wasn't like Vitali Klitschko coming back and getting an immediate shot at Sam Peter. By the time Holmes had come out and launched a comeback Foreman had already paved the way and the public was more prepped for this type of novelty. Hell the same month that Foreman fought Holy, Holmes was scheduled to face Doc Anderson. Coincidence? Frankly, I think it was Holmes stealing someone elses ideas - something he's quite known for.

No, Kudos to him for accepting a big paycheck and a promise to fight fot the title. My only issue is why should Foreman get so much **** for not being offered the same opportunity...

Agreed, however I have my doubts about him taking that fight if the eliminator was against a Riddick Bowe or Razor Ruddock. Or for that matter even Mercer, but for less money... Holmes should not be credited with some label as a courageous risk taker, while Foreman isn't. I have already made lists comparing their comp during their comeback efforts and am confident that Foreman both fought and beat better men during the 90's. For anyone to say otherwise, would be too foolish to even pass for revisionism.

Of course not. Foreman just had to fight in a measly 24 matches over 4 years before even being considered as a challenger.. You can criticize the quality of the comp all you want, but the fact is, when ex-champs want a title shot and have father time working against them, they look for the fastest path....Holmes was fortunate to get a ride on the fast track. Not only did Goerge have to take the long way, he likely made Holmes' accelerated trip to the crown possible.

 

Ultimately, in the books, yes, the Moorer victory was a great win for Foreman. Constant harping about Moorer being undefeated with a glistening record and wins over Holyfield were what I was poking at with the big, durable powerhouse thing. Harp on a guy's credentials to make him out to be a monster - that kind of thing.

 

It was a great win for Foreman to regain the title. Everyone was sleeping watching this sparring session and then boom it was over. That being said, I like to see what happens in the future before making a judgement on a fighter. Moorer was a really good fighter at LH, but really not the greatest heavyweight. His fight with Holyfield in my opinion should have been a loss. I watched that fight over and over and never could give it to Moorer, plus Evander was the title holder, so it was a bit suprising, even Teddy Atlas was shocked.
Its kind of like making a huge deal out of Razor Ruddock being blasted out by Lennox Lewis so quickly. Looking back, was it really that impressive? Ruddock had just come off of two complete beatings by Tyson. After losing to Lewis, he really never did anything again, besides the knockout loss to Morrison. Everyone just assumed Lewis would easily beat Bowe and Tyson, mainly based on that win and put Lewis on a plateau he really didnt belong at that time. It turned out Lewis really wasnt ready for the big time during that period, he struggled in the next few fights and got knocked out by Mcall, before he really developed into a great fighter under Steward.
When you watched Moorer turn heavyweight and get rocked in some of the early fights, there was always a question of whether or not he had a heavyweight chin. After losing to Foreman, and regaining the title against Shultz, (not a big puncher), he was hurt again by Frans Botha and almost lost his title before the late stoppage. After that, he was easily beaten by Holyfield in the second fight, and never really accomplished much more after that.
Now look at George, he held the title after beating Moorer, and then because he was now forced to fight mandated fights after his spoon fed Axel Shultz fight (which many thought he lost), he vacated, because he wanted to fight his chosen guys. He went on to face Crawford Grimsley, a C level club fighter who Jimmy Thunder knocked out in 19 seconds, and George had his hands full with him. He squeaked by Savarese in an entertaining fight and barely lost to Briggs, in a fight many thought George won. His win over Moorer was looking like a lot more of the same of what you expected from a younger guy taking on a slower older fighter, before the one and only shot that changed the fight. To me that has to be considered when calling it a "great accomplishment".

 

Talk about drinking in the MYTH of 90s Foreman.

Foreman took the long road to a titleshot (which he did'nt earn) because he believed it to be the safest route not because fights with ranked contenders where not there.

Holmes took the short route to a titleshot because he took the best fights to get him a title shot as soon as possible.

And yes if the titleshot would have meant having to go through Bowe or Ruddock he would have taken it.

Holmes wanted the titleshot and was willing to take the risks to get it.

Foreman did not take the risks and relied primarily on his name to get a titleshot.

Nothing you say will change the fact that Holmes earned his shot by beating a legit top 5 contender Foreman got his shot because of his name.

Foreman would NEVER EVER have taken the Mercer fight.

 

Lefthook31, you may be right about Lennox, but I have him rated higher than Bowe. The reason is Bowe ducked Lennox his whole career! This is because Lennox dominated Bowe in the amateurs and Bowe didn't want to risk his pro career by being blown out by Lennox. This is the problem with Alphabet soup championships. In the old days these guys would be forced to face each other!!!! I have Bowe getting beaten by Holmes because I respect Holmes way above Bowe. Bowe is an example of what is wrong with boxing, he never faced his demon --> Lennox. Hearns faced Leonard. Ali faced Foreman. Robinson faced Lamotta etc. That is the intrigue of boxing. If a boxer can overcome an obsticle in front of him to get the belt? not skip around contenders!

 

Sure overall you have to rank Lewis far higher than Bowe, but I believe had they fought after Bowe won the title, and Lewis fought Ruddock, Bowe would have put a serious beating on Lennox regardless of what happened in the amatuers. Bowe was a completely different fighter under Futch compared to his amatuer days. Lewis was not. He really didnt become the world beater he was until Steward took him over. He was very sloppy and reckless, and had some ugly wins.