Prime Larry Holmes Versus

[ThatOne]

Jack Johnson
Gene Tunney
Jersey Joe Walcott
Ezzard Charles
Floyd Patterson
George Foreman
Evander Holyfield
Archie Moore
Joe Louis

[The Great John L]

Holmes, close UD over Johnson
Holmes, SD over Tunney
Holmes UD over Walcott
Holmes, SD over Charles
Holmes, mid rounds TKO over Patterson in a close fight
Holmes late TKO over Foreman
Holmes, close UD over Holyfield
Holmes, UD over Moore
Louis, mid rounds over Holmes

All of these fights would be competitive, with Johnson, Tunney, Holyfield and Charles pretty much pick-ems.

[gambler49]

Holmes, close UD over Johnson
Holmes, SD over Tunney
Holmes UD over Walcott
Holmes, SD over Charles
Holmes, mid rounds TKO over Patterson in a close fight
Holmes late TKO over Foreman
Holmes, close UD over Holyfield
Holmes, UD over Moore
Louis, mid rounds over Holmes

All of these fights would be competitive, with Johnson, Tunney, Holyfield and Charles pretty much pick-ems.

I go along wiv these pix apart from Louis which goes the distance. And I think Holmes wins easy against Holy.

[The Great John L]

I go along wiv these pix apart from Louis which goes the distance. And I think Holmes wins easy against Holy.

Yeah, you're probably right about Holyfield, who did have trouble with guys with good jabs.

[Grimm]

Holmes, close UD over Johnson
Holmes, SD over Tunney
Holmes UD over Walcott
Holmes, SD over Charles
Holmes, mid rounds TKO over Patterson in a close fight
Holmes late TKO over Foreman
Holmes, close UD over Holyfield
Holmes, UD over Moore
Louis, mid rounds over Holmes

All of these fights would be competitive, with Johnson, Tunney, Holyfield and Charles pretty much pick-ems.

I agree with the winners except I see no SD's

[Goodnight, Irene]

Louis & Foreman favoured to knock him out.

The rest, to varying degrees, start underdogs to Holmes.

[gambler49]

Louis & Foreman favoured to knock him out.

The rest, to varying degrees, start underdogs to Holmes.

NO! Not Foreman

[The Great John L]

Louis & Foreman favoured to knock him out.

The rest, to varying degrees, start underdogs to Holmes.

NO! Not Foreman

Well, for some reason knocking out stationary targets seems to impress a lot of people on this forum.

[gambler49]

Louis & Foreman favoured to knock him out.

The rest, to varying degrees, start underdogs to Holmes.

NO! Not Foreman

Well, for some reason knocking out stationary targets seems to impress a lot of people on this forum.

Very True!

[Goodnight, Irene]

Louis & Foreman favoured to knock him out.

The rest, to varying degrees, start underdogs to Holmes.

NO! Not Foreman

Well, for some reason knocking out stationary targets seems to impress a lot of people on this forum.

As does Holmes' reign of terror --- over the likes of Scott Frank, Alfredo Evangelista & Marvis Frazier. Talk about underwhelming.

I actually would call Foreman-Holmes a near-even pick 'em. Pushed, I would take Foreman's quicker start & ability to push men out of their comfort zone (which Holmes despised), but I simply chose these results on odds. In this case, I'm thinking along the lines of 55-45 Foreman, or perhaps even tighter. I think Holmes has an extremely tight tussle with Walcott too, incidentally. I just happened to favour him there.

[gambler49]

NO! Not Foreman

Well, for some reason knocking out stationary targets seems to impress a lot of people on this forum.

As does Holmes' reign of terror --- over the likes of Scott Frank, Alfredo Evangelista & Marvis Frazier. Talk about underwhelming.

I actually would call Foreman-Holmes a near-even pick 'em. Pushed, I would take Foreman's quicker start & ability to push men out of their comfort zone (which Holmes despised), but I simply chose these results on odds. In this case, I'm thinking along the lines of 55-45 Foreman, or perhaps even tighter. I think Holmes has an extremely tight tussle with Walcott too, incidentally. I just happened to favour him there.

I would make it 80/20 Holmes. The styles don't match good for George. I think Larry would jab his head off and maybe stop him around 14 rounds or a clear UD. If u said you rate Foreman ahead of Holmes id say fair enuff. But Foreman would not beat Holmes the majority of time.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I will have to disagree strongly with it being a Holmes wash on the order of 80%. If you think Holmes couldn't be rattled in the early going, or that he was adept at dealing with men who got him off his pitchers' mound with aggressive, high-output assaults (the likes of which would be on another level entirely here), you rate the man higher than I do, I guess.

Styles don't suit Foreman, & Holmes was a great fighter --- but he would have his hands full containing Foreman from the outset. It's much dicier than 80-20, whoever your pick.

[dempseyfire]

Foreman doesn't have a chance vs a guy who had his hands full with Weaver, Witherspoon and Shavers?

I'm a big Holmes fan but a few months ago I rewatched a lot of Larry's fights and concluded I'd been slightly over-rating him (he's out of my ATG top 5 but remains in the top 8, so clearly I still rank him very highly). He had a great skillset, a remarkle recuperative ability and excellent ring-smarts. But the guy barely fought complete fights. Getting put down HARD by Shavers and Snipes is testament to this. Even vs Cooney he really had to dig down for the first 10 rounds.

I'm not saying I'd pick Foreman to win, but I think it's a great pick'em fight. Holmes's movement, jab and counterpunching would give George fits. But so would Foreman's own jab, pressure, and body punching. I'm just not sure Holmes can avoid standing flat-footed for stretches of the fight after receiving early body punishment. And once Larry decides to trade with Foreman that could be the end. But then it goes to how much Foreman has left later in the fight. A great style matchup.

[The Great John L]

Holmes hardly had his hands full with Shavers, since he probably lost one round in two fights.

George is a great fighter, but he had zero track record of beating fighters who could move and avoid punches, besides Peralta, and he was a good 3 or 4 years past his best. Most of his opponents were relatively stationary, and his second career was guided to avoid decent, quick boxers, unless they happened to hold a title.

Yes he did stop Moorer, who was a pretty fair boxer, but he was pretty much shut out before he was able to catch him.

While Holmes competition was not the best, he fought and beat all types of styles, showed excellent jab, movement and defense.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Holmes hardly had his hands full with Shavers, since he probably lost one round in two fights.

George is a great fighter, but he had zero track record of beating fighters who could move and avoid punches, besides Peralta, and he was a good 3 or 4 years past his best. Most of his opponents were relatively stationary, and his second career was guided to avoid decent, quick boxers, unless they happened to hold a title.

Yes he did stop Moorer, who was a pretty fair boxer, but he was pretty much shut out before he was able to catch him.

While Holmes competition was not the best, he fought and beat all types of styles, showed excellent jab, movement and defense.

Holmes' competition, "was not the best?" Not a one of his many defenses could hold a candle to Foreman.

I think a big mistake (a big mistake) people make, or are open to making, is observing two fighters in Holmes & Foreman & concluding that one has more obvious flaws & deficiences than the other, & is therefore probably much easier to beat. A few of Foreman's opponents from his first career have admitted to making the same judgement...& then, there he is. 225lbs. of the heaviest-handed Heavyweight champ God ever gave breath to. Using his under-rated jab & deceptively quick speed of assault from the opening bell to apply a level of pressure on his man let's just say the likes of Shavers, Frank, Witherspoon & the rest of the sub-pars Holmes feasted on could only dream of. A tremendous finisher, & a crushing hitter with either hand. There was no room to draw breath when you fought Foreman. The fact that he was less technically proficient than Holmes is extremely deceiving as to how easy he may've been to beat.

It's just about a pick 'em fight.

[BoxBuzz]

Holmes hardly had his hands full with Shavers, since he probably lost one round in two fights.

George is a great fighter, but he had zero track record of beating fighters who could move and avoid punches, besides Peralta, and he was a good 3 or 4 years past his best. Most of his opponents were relatively stationary, and his second career was guided to avoid decent, quick boxers, unless they happened to hold a title.

Yes he did stop Moorer, who was a pretty fair boxer, but he was pretty much shut out before he was able to catch him.

While Holmes competition was not the best, he fought and beat all types of styles, showed excellent jab, movement and defense.

Holmes' competition, "was not the best?" Not a one of his many defenses could hold a candle to Foreman.

I think a big mistake (a big mistake) people make, or are open to making, is observing two fighters in Holmes & Foreman & concluding that one has more obvious flaws & deficiences than the other, & is therefore probably much easier to beat. A few of Foreman's opponents from his first career have admitted to making the same judgement...& then, there he is. 225lbs. of the heaviest-handed Heavyweight champ God ever gave breath to. Using his under-rated jab & deceptively quick speed of assault from the opening bell to apply a level of pressure on his man let's just say the likes of Shavers, Frank, Witherspoon & the rest of the sub-pars Holmes feasted on could only dream of. A tremendous finisher, & a crushing hitter with either hand. There was no room to draw breath when you fought Foreman. The fact that he was less technically proficient than Holmes is extremely deceiving as to how easy he may've been to beat.

It's just about a pick 'em fight.

I think the fight with Holyfield is the fight that gives Foreman's second campaign the biggest boost of all. He put on one very serious demonstration of will and skill in that losing effort where Holyfield was at his best. The fact that he beat Moorer and happened into a championship is eyecatching, but that fight with Holyfield at their age difference....and the fight with Briggs in hindsight are the jewels of that run. I think he hits Larry with one of those punches that Ernie hit Larry with, but George would not let the fish off the hook the way Ernie did. I would bet on George....and yep it could have gone either way.

[dempseyfire]

Holmes hardly had his hands full with Shavers, since he probably lost one round in two fights.

George is a great fighter, but he had zero track record of beating fighters who could move and avoid punches, besides Peralta, and he was a good 3 or 4 years past his best. Most of his opponents were relatively stationary, and his second career was guided to avoid decent, quick boxers, unless they happened to hold a title.

Yes he did stop Moorer, who was a pretty fair boxer, but he was pretty much shut out before he was able to catch him.

While Holmes competition was not the best, he fought and beat all types of styles, showed excellent jab, movement and defense.

Foreman came within a punch of KO'ing Young (and I could see an argument that their fight was a draw), the great 'slickster' of his era- something Lyle, Ali, Norton, Tucker etc. couldn't do.


What 'guys who could move and avoid punches' did Holmes ever beat? Fat Leroy Jones?? Truth Williams who got robbed?

[Goodnight, Irene]

The bitter truth for Holmes' supporters here is he never laid a glove on anyone like Foreman, until perhaps Tyson...John L. is always quick to point out Foreman's failure to beat anyone of Holmes' style & class, but the reverse is every bit as true. Every bit.

[jezzamundo]

Larry Holmes SD15 Jack Johnson
Larry Holmes UD15 Gene Tunney
Larry Holmes TKO13 Jersey Joe Walcott
Ezzard Charles MD15 Larry Holmes (Holmes wins UD in rematch)
Larrry Holmes TKO10 Floyd Patterson
Larry Holmes UD15 George Foreman
Larry Holmes UD15 Evander Holyfield
Larry Holmes TKO12 Archie Moore
Joe Louis KO8 Larry Holmes

[Mr E]

My guesses:

W-Dec. 15 over Johnson
W-Dec. 15 over Tunney
L-TKO by 10 to Louis
W-TKO 13 over Walcott
W-TKO 14 over Charles
W-TKO 11 over Moore
W-TKO 12 over Patterson
W-Dec. 15 over Foreman
W-Dec. 15 over Holyfield

[Robinson]

I see him winning them all.

Though I do see a hard match with
Louis and Foreman.
Holy would be an interesting fight.
Different no doubt to the 1992 bout.

[The Great John L]

The bitter truth for Holmes' supporters here is he never laid a glove on anyone like Foreman, until perhaps Tyson...John L. is always quick to point out Foreman's failure to beat anyone of Holmes' style & class, but the reverse is every bit as true. Every bit.

Holmes fought and beat all styles of fighters during his career. George conveniently wasn't matched against quuality boxers unless he had to fight them for titles. He didn't beat Foreman, but Holmes beat a number of very hard punchers. During his career George didn't beat a single world class boxer, with the exception of the miracle against Moorer after being totally outclassed.

It's interesting how many posters on this forum criticize the Klitschkos for the lack of quality wins during their rise to contender status. Take a look at Foremans resume prior to Frazier. I grew up during this period, and there was a good reason why many were shocked by George's stoppage over Frazier. He was a frightening puncher, but he was protected becuase his team knew he was vulnerable.

Go ahead and list the world class boxers that George beat during his career. Not the stationary targets, but the guys that could avoid being hit. Unless he had to fight them for a title, George just didn't fight them. Well, except for that little tiff with Jimmy Young; and that didn't go too well for George. Oh yes, Shavers stopped Young and then dropped him in a rematch. George couldn't land a clean, solid punch on him over 12 rounds. Does everyone remember what Holmes did with Shavers?

I know I'm in the minority with this opinion, but no one seems to be able to point out a good example of George performing well arainst a world class boxer, and the evidence of his career supports my position quite well. Yes, George is an ATG, but he's also one of the most vulnerable of the ATG's, becuase of his inexperience with quality boxers.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Foreman, "couldn't land a clean, solid punch" on Young? LOL. The fight was actually quite competitive. It was no wash, & it came after Foreman's peak had expired. Why don't you start a poll on what everyone thinks about the pre-Zaire Foreman against Young? See who picks who.

Sorry, but I never stated Foreman beat a world-class boxer-mover of Holmes' class. That point was conceded. My last post, to re-iterate, was that Holmes never, ever, ever did in any fighter like Foreman, in all his career. He never even met anyone like Foreman, as punchers with real talent & real finishing ability go, until Tyson.

My point was that if Foreman never beat anyone like Holmes, Holmes never beat anyone like Foreman, either. A point you conveniently side-stepped. If you mention Shavers, I'm mentioning Peralta.

[The Great John L]

Foreman, "couldn't land a clean, solid punch" on Young? LOL. The fight was actually quite competitive. It was no wash, & it came after Foreman's peak had expired.

I forgot, the same people on this forum who make fun of Tyson fans for claiming a very short prime, seem to feel that George's prime was exactly 3 fights long. He was actually a better fighter against Young, becuase he was able to pace himself, threw shorter punches, and had a better defense. The difference was tht Young actually knew how to avoid punches, which is the whole point. Or was George such a fragile personality that one loss ruined him? Maybe he was so limted that he couldn't learn?

Was George done after Zaire? Don't we expect fighters to lose and learn from their loses, or is better to use a loss as an excuse for other losses?

Why don't you start a poll on what everyone thinks about the pre-Zaire Foreman against Young? See who picks who.

It's irrelelvant what a poll on this forum tells you. I already acknowledged that I was in the minority. That hardly means I'm wrong. The Foreman-Young fight was close on the cards, but that was due more to George's aura than what actually happened in the fight. Young usually didn't get enough credit from the judges.

Sorry, but I never stated Foreman beat a world-class boxer-mover of Holmes' class. That point was conceded. My last post, to re-iterate, was that Holmes never, ever, ever did in any fighter like Foreman, in all his career. He never even met anyone like Foreman, as punchers with real talent & real finishing ability go, until Tyson.

Tyson and Foreman are as different as night and day. Maybe you didn't notice.

Holmes fought fighters similar in style to Foreman. Maybe they weren't as good, but large hard punchers, with average footspeed and limited experience with boxers. George fought world class boxers, he just didn't fight very many, and he didn't do that great against them Sorry, but that's the reality that no one wants to admit.

My point was that if Foreman never beat anyone like Holmes, Holmes never beat anyone like Foreman, either. A point you conveniently side-stepped. If you mention Shavers, I'm mentioning Peralta.

Please do. George struggled with Peralta, who earlier in his career was a top LH, was never a top 5 HW, and was past his prime. And besides one punch, Larry dominated Shavers, who was an established HW with many wins over other world class HWs. Results do matter, and these are pretty good examples to support my opinion.

There was a reason why George's team kept him away from boxers throughout his career. And if you know anything about boxing, world class boxers are much better at adapting to beat different styles, as Holmes did throughout his career. One dimensional punchers have to land clean, solid shots and that's why large, slower sluggers like Foreman almost always lose to boxers. It's a matter of styles. And George wasn't a fast, quick footed combination puncher like Dempsey.

As I said before, I know I'm in the minority here, but I think boxing history supports my opinions. I guess we'll just have to disagree.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Well, reading your post, I just about disagreed with every point you made (not all, obviously, but the overwhelming majority).

I think we are just going to have to let this one lie on an agree-to-disagree basis. There's almost no common ground on our takes.