Prime Holmes vs. Prime Foreman

No, I am winning.
You are just mad becasue you are losing.
BTW, Mayweather>Sweet Pea.

 

You could've just as easily said "I concede defeat", but I guess it's all the same.:good

 

Holmes would probably present problems for Foreman no matter what kind of fight it turned out to be.

Holmes by decision or late stoppage.

 

No, I'll take my victory.:good

 

How so? You made no solid points about the matchup, you just brought up different facets of Foreman's career, such as his win at 45 over Moorer, over and over, as if that had any bearing on the matchup.

Foreman had trouble against outboxers, and much lesser ones than Holmes. So bad that he actually lost in his prime to a B level Jimmy Young. He was getting outboxed by Frazier on the outside in their rematch. He got hurt by Ron Lyle who stood in front of him. He was being outboxed the entire fight against Moorer.

Holmes, when faced with a Foreman type puncher(bot more of a come-forward fighter to take a boxer off his game), outboxed him handily and took his best punch in Shavers.

Again, give me analysis as to how Foreman wins, or concede defeat. As of now, you've shown not only your lack of knowledge and analysis, but your ignorance as well. Won't get you very far against me.

Also, you realize you're the only one in the thread to vote Foreman?

 

If Holmes stays on his feet he would win, but thats a big If in my mind, to dismiss the posibility of Foreman knocking him out or significantly hurting him is a bit optimistic for Holmes.

I could see the fight turning out 3 different ways if it happened 3 times.

 

You say I kept mentioning Foreman's win over Moorer at age 45, yet you kept mentioning Jimmy Young's win over George Foreman.
Sounds to me like you think Jimmy Young is better than George Foreman.

 

Holmes would outbox Foreman.

 

Foreman's win over Moorer has nothing to do with this matchup. He was getting rhoroughly outboxed before landing a phantom punch on a natural Light Heavyweight. Foreman's loss to Young shows that he can be outboxed by a mediocre outboxer, so he can certainly be outboxed by Holmes.

Therefore, me making the comparison is for analytical purposes, you making your comparison is just to say "Foreman did this at 45, Holmes couldn't!" as if that has any bearing on a prime for prime matchup.

Based on styles, Holmes holds the clear edge, judging on the two's history. You're being ignorant, and you know this. You don't have to continue with an argument when you have no further arguments. It makes you sound desperate.

 

Not really, I just see Foreman winning this fight.
But that punch he landed was no phantom punch, he set that up.

 

Holmes was just a better fighter than Foreman. Yes Foreman had more power, but that's all he had on Holmes. Foreman was a counterpuncher who need his opponents to come to him to look devastating. He didn't look good when he had to come forward. Foreman also was not a one-punch kayo artist like people make him out to be. He was a clubber.
If Larry got up from the devastating punch Shavers landed on him, he could take Foreman's power.
Larry would easily outbox Foreman and stop him late in the fight. Foreman would have to come forward to win and would take a beating.

 

Holmes could outbox Foreman, if he got the chance. But if this fight is fought with the Holmes in existence between the First Frazier and Ali fight, I believe Foreman wins by an early KO.

 

You just see him winning because you thought vaguely about it beforehand and didn't put much thought into it, and then when all your points(which were not very much to begin with) got refuted, you had nothing else, but held onto it.

Style-wise, Holmes is a nightmare for Foreman. You continuing to choose Foreman over all reasoning is why, in the future, your opinions won't be taken as seriously. Then again, didn't you say Floyd was the GOAT? In that case, I should've realized that sooner.

 

Well yeah, considering he was a rookie then. This is a prime for prime matchup we're talking.

 

Holmes late TKO.