Underrated reason why Holmes was the best of his era

Apologies for being a pedant, Swag, but Norton didn't avenge his KO defeat to Garcia until after his loss to Foreman.

That isn't an attempt to detract from your valid points, it's just, well I'm a pedant.

 

So... Holmes detractors are comparing both guys' wins over Norton to try and drag Larry down, who would've known?

 

Tbf, no version of Holmes would be anywhere near as formidable for elite pressure fighters as the Foreman that faced Frazier and Norton.

Equally, no 7-year long version of Foreman would have been able to beat the varied styles and sheer volume of ranked contenders, on good nights and bad, that Holmes did between 1978 and 85, without a single defeat. That's even allowing for Holmes's risk averse opponent selection towards the end of that reign.

 

Oh **** off.


Nah I'm just kidding mate.

Thank you! I always had it in my head, that Norton avenged his KO loss to Garcia by the time of the Foreman fight, but also off the top of my head that 2nd fight was in '75 I reckon? Not sure why I wasn't able to put it together.

Thank you for that. I'll concede that point.

 

Haha, no problem mate, it was a bit of dick move to point it out, as it was irrelevant to the excellent underlying points you were making.

 

Oh go on, surely there's room to debate it

 

Cheers mate!

Don't feel bad. It was the one time in my 10+ years on this forum, I'd ever gotten something wrong. I'd want to rub it in to.

 

That's an opinion I've always subscribed to, it's a matter of styles, and the Norton comparison should be meaningless here- But is instead being used as a major point against Holmes when Norton's performance in ring mattered completely on the type of opponent he faced.

 

Come now, Swag. ONE time? Don't you think that's a bit generous for yourself?

 

You're right. I once considered you a good poster. Make that two.

 

Whilst I don't consider the comparison as literally meaningless, I agree with your other points.

Foreman has advantages over Holmes, accomplishments and capability against elite pressure fighters are amongst them.

Holmes key advantage over Foreman, is consistent dominance (in terms of wins vs losses, obviously not every win was dominant) and longevity, during their respective prime years, over a high volume of ranked contenders, with a wide variety of styles.

 

I'll stand with Cummings till the day I die. It can't be a joke post without me making a fool out of myself!

 

Pretty spot on that's what I've been trying to say for pages and pages.

Foreman for a short period had a higher peak in regards to stand out wins vs Norton, Frazier, in which Holmes wouldn't be as dominant as Foreman was.

But Foreman also wouldn't be able to consistently beat ranked opponents going 20-0 in a 7 year period like Holmes did.

Both have strengths and weaknesses but I prefer Holmes's consistency.

 

Trending isn’t a strong enough word to describe the phrase, “Ranked contender” regarding Holmes lately

Nor is misleading.