Michael Spinks (Holmes 1) vs 1973 George Foreman

Name them.

 

Ali and Young and lost badly to both and the absence of slicksters and spoilers on his record tells me his handlers knew this to be true about Foreman as well.

 

& Spinks lost to every puncher he fought not named Cooney.

 

Ali is a bizarre choice, as he won the fight with the rope-a-dope. Young beat a dangerous but plainly past-prime fighter.

I don’t dispute the Mover style is the best one against Foreman, but you need a world-class Heavyweight doing that to best peak Foreman. Spinks in a knee brace & shaking down to his boots wouldn’t get out of round one.

 

Ali didn't move at all. Have you seen the fight?

Young wasn't so much a mover as a slickster and was often in front of his opponent.

Any others?

 

Yeah its misconception that Jimmy Young was a mover he really wasn't he'd often stay in punching range and use his great reflexes and boxing skills to befuddle his opponents. Just look at all his notable fights vs Lyle, Norton, Ali, Foreman, etc. Young stayed in punching range in all these fights he certainly wasn't dancing around the ring.

 

Big George has got it.

 

I attribute a lot of that to Ali being older and knowing his body and choosing to fight that way. He still nullified Foreman's offense pretty easy and played the spoiler role the whole fight. Young nullified Foreman also, and didn't need to move a lot to do it, just jabbed and circled him and spoiled the fight. Those are things that Michael Spinks was great at.

 

Young was definitely a mover. He just didn't have fast feet.

 

This is my last reply because i've made it a rule not to waste my time going back and forth with numpties.

Yeah nothing to do with Holmes being noticeably slower in hand speed, foot speed, reflexes, and 35 years old who had fought 20 championship fights in 7 years. Yeah obviously Holmes was fresh as daisy and reminiscent of his peak between 78-82 you haven't got a clue have you ?

More like you need an eye test if you honestly think a 35 year old 220+ pound Holmes was the same fighter he was 5 years ago.

Admit that you're flat out lying and making up a false narrative aswell as talking out your behind ? yeah i will admit that.

10 pounds is a huge a difference my guy if you honestly can't see a difference between Holmes's in 78-82 & in 85 vs Spinks then as i said head to specsavers mate.

Only a troll or someone with bad eye sight would think Holmes was the same fighter he was vs Spinks. Literally no boxing fan who has any knowledge on Holmes's career would bother wasting their time trying to debate the obvious because quite frankly it's obvious to any boxing fan apart from you apparently.

Literally a waste of time continuing this conversation i can't believe i'm having to have a debate about a 35 year old Holmes not being in his prime anymore absolutely baffling.

 

Larry Holmes was undefeated, THE man in the heavyweight division, and was coming off an impressive 4 fight KO streak the SAME YEAR he fought Michael Spinks. Thats all true. You're the guy acting like Larry Holmes was on his death bed and have to resort to name calling and personal attacks just to avoid giving Michael Spinks any shred of credit.

 

I'm watching Foreman vs Young again right now and I can tell you flat out anybody who tries to claim Jimmy Young wasn't moving is a damn liar. I'm watching Young doing laps around Foreman. It looks quite like Foreman vs Peralta. Why couldn't Foreman cut off the ring on Peralta early in his career and still couldn't cut off the ring on Young later on? Explain that.

 

I never said it wasn't an honest mistake. I stated it wasn't factual, to which you replied that I "don't know what facts mean".

 

Sorry, swagdelfadeel.

 

Exactly....gotta watch fights to know that tho