bugs wrote:I think Lewis had a longer jab, and IMO it was just as hard. Cant really see Holmes getting close to him, Lewis to outbox him at distance and win by UD is my call, but not without some hairy moments.
Holmes and Lewis had the same reach.
There is no doubt that Holmes had the better jab, it was quicker, more consistent and was thrown with more authority. Lewis used his jab as a rangefinder more often than not, and often just kept it out there like a pole. He used it to good effect to set up his right hand, but Holmes used it to set the tempo of the fight and to peck away at his opponents' resolve.
No contest on that front.
I agree... Holmes had by far the quicker more authorative jab, he was also much quicker on his feet and was a much better tactical fighter... which is why he was able to mix with the Likes of Holifield and Mercer well into his 40s. I think the Holmes that fought Mercer would have had a good chance of outfoxing Lewis... and Holmes in his prime would have stopped Lewis.
I was interested to hear Holmes talk candidly about Foreman not being the cuddly nice guy he makes out, i am sure Steve Holdsworth was saying the same thing and someone else as well remarking on George being not such a nice person away from the cameras.
Last edited by steve689 on 30 Sep 2004, 19:05, edited 1 time in total.
Gil Clancy who trained Foremen for a time in the 70s said in the book 'Ringmasters' (great book!) that George was a peculiar individual.
George has also named all his children after himself.... girls and boys!... theres George the second, George the third, Georgina, Georgette...etc..... maybe he's got a bad memory and is afraid he'll forget their names!...
Slapsie Maxie wrote:I know of one person who encountered Foreman at QVC when he was promoting his grill.
he spent a day with him and was very excited before hand. afterwards when I asked him what he thought of him he just said "C**t"
Are you sure that he was talking about Foreman whne he said that rude word???.. .... perhaps he was just irritated by your line of questioning! :x :x :x 8) 8) 8) 8)
silkov wrote:Gil Clancy who trained Foremen for a time in the 70s said in the book 'Ringmasters' (great book!) that George was a peculiar individual.
George has also named all his children after himself.... girls and boys!... theres George the second, George the third, Georgina, Georgette...etc..... maybe he's got a bad memory and is afraid he'll forget their names!...
thats the reason foreman gives in his autobiography!!
I agree with Holmes that Foreman ducked him... Holmes had the perfect style to beat Foreman both in his prime and when he got older... even a mid-40s Holmes would've been able to out-fox Foreman I believe.
bugs wrote:I think Lewis had a longer jab, and IMO it was just as hard. Cant really see Holmes getting close to him, Lewis to outbox him at distance and win by UD is my call, but not without some hairy moments.
Holmes and Lewis had the same reach.
There is no doubt that Holmes had the better jab, it was quicker, more consistent and was thrown with more authority. Lewis used his jab as a rangefinder more often than not, and often just kept it out there like a pole. He used it to good effect to set up his right hand, but Holmes used it to set the tempo of the fight and to peck away at his opponents' resolve.
No contest on that front.
I agree... Holmes had by far the quicker more authorative jab, he was also much quicker on his feet and was a much better tactical fighter... which is why he was able to mix with the Likes of Holifield and Mercer well into his 40s. I think the Holmes that fought Mercer would have had a good chance of outfoxing Lewis... and Holmes in his prime would have stopped Lewis.
I agree that Holmes had a better jab than Lewis, the Holmes jab had a lot more snap and was quicker and more accurate than pawing, range finder of a jab that Lennox had.
However I'm not sure if a prime Holmes would have stopped Lennox.
:x :x :x 