Prime Larry Holmes vs Prime George Foreman

[CrazyHorse]

Okay ....foreman's my brother. DD

[loaded_gloves]

It's fascinating the effect Holmes has on people. It's all speculation with the Easton Assassin at that true, top level, elite class - he had his near-death experience against an ageing Norton then never again faced that sort of diamond calibre opposition.

Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, they all had each other. They have a clear proven form line, they seem to be a level above Holmes if you judge it by his Norton, Shavers, and Weaver bouts for example, yet so many people still think Holmes is actually a level above these men!

It all seems wild speculation to me, Holmes is given so much credit for not losing in seven years (or did he lose to Spoon and Williams?) without actually having to face the beastly opposition the aforementioned golden four did.

Again, I love Larry Holmes, but people take his tales about dominating Ali as gospel when there's also the story of Ali getting wind of Holmes stories and then beating him up in sparring for it. 'Holmes was crying,' as it was written in Ali: His Life & Times.

[CrazyHorse]

It's fascinating the effect Holmes has on people. It's all speculation with the Easton Assassin at that true, top level, elite class - he had his near-death experience against an ageing Norton then never again faced that sort of diamond calibre opposition.

Ali had a hard time with Doug Jones and many people ring side were angry at the decision but does that tarnish his legacy? No. Holmes didn't shut every man out 120-108 every-time but who has? Holmes must be doing something really well to have someone nit pick his career and try to find one small detail to criticize

Did you watch the Doug Jones fight? I did. I had it a draw.

[CrazyHorse]

Again, I love Larry Holmes, but people take his tales about dominating Ali as gospel when there's also the story of Ali getting wind of Holmes stories and then beating him up in sparring for it. 'Holmes was crying,' as it was written in Ali: His Life & Times.

I and most boxing fans give Holmes no credit for beating an aging Ali who was already showing signs of Parkinson's. He beat Ali .... who cares about that win? Not me. What I look at is his dominance after that and his 20 title defenses. If you think his win over Ali was anything special than you are a sad sad man

[gilgamesh]

Again, I love Larry Holmes, but people take his tales about dominating Ali as gospel when there's also the story of Ali getting wind of Holmes stories and then beating him up in sparring for it. 'Holmes was crying,' as it was written in Ali: His Life & Times.

I and most boxing fans give Holmes no credit for beating an aging Ali who was already showing signs of Parkinson's. He beat Ali .... who cares about that win? Not me. What I look at is his dominance after that and his 20 title defenses. If you think his win over Ali was anything special than you are a sad sad man

I'm pretty sure he meant, people talk about his beating Ali up in sparring. Not the "fight" they had. Everybody knows that was just Ali's shadow in the ring with Holmes when that happened.

[CrazyHorse]

I'm pretty sure he meant, people talk about his beating Ali up in sparring. Not the "fight" they had. Everybody knows that was just Ali's shadow in the ring with Holmes when that happened.

For real? There were stories of Holmes beating up Ali when Ali was in his prime? Great I have to tell all my family who like Ali. They won't like hearing this

[gilgamesh]

I'm pretty sure he meant, people talk about his beating Ali up in sparring. Not the "fight" they had. Everybody knows that was just Ali's shadow in the ring with Holmes when that happened.

For real? There were stories of Holmes beating up Ali when Ali was in his prime? Great I have to tell all my family who like Ali. They won't like hearing this

In Sparring yeah, but of course it's sparring so it's all just hear-say.

[CrazyHorse]

In Sparring yeah, but of course it's sparring so it's all just hear-say.

Yeah. It's just all I ever hear is Ali ALI ALI!!!!!!! Some people make it out to be that he floated 2 feat above land and threw down lightning bolts that would knock you out. It's just I think Larry Holmes would have given him a great fight if they were in their primes together

[gilgamesh]

I think he would have as well. It would have been a really interesting fight though. Prime for Prime I think it is a razor thin decision either way, I could see it going to either man. Or if they fought a trilogy I could see each man winning one.

I think in a lot of ways Holmes fought like Ali, but was a little bit more careful defensively...at the same time though, he wasn't blessed with the natural speed and reflexes of a prime Ali in my view. Not to suggest Holmes was slow or anything like that, but Ali was among the fastest of all Heavyweight Champions. It's a real intriguing matchup to imagine.

[CrazyHorse]

I think he would have as well. It would have been a really interesting fight though. Prime for Prime I think it is a razor thin decision either way, I could see it going to either man. Or if they fought a trilogy I could see each man winning one.

I think in a lot of ways Holmes fought like Ali, but was a little bit more careful defensively...at the same time though, he wasn't blessed with the natural speed and reflexes of a prime Ali in my view. Not to suggest Holmes was slow or anything like that, but Ali was among the fastest of all Heavyweight Champions. It's a real intriguing matchup to imagine.

Yeah you nailed it for sure.

For "boxers" I would have wanted to see prime Ali vs prime Holmes. Other one would be the two aggressive fighters in Tyson and Frazier.

[gilgamesh]

Tyson vs Frazier would be epic. There's a chance Tyson catches Frazier cold and ends it early in the first few rounds, but provided he doesn't...Joe would bore in, work his body and stop him late in an awesome slugfest.

Tyson never showed the heart to win a fight where somebody was giving him all he could handle. Frazier did.

[CrazyHorse]

Tyson vs Frazier would be epic. There's a chance Tyson catches Frazier cold and ends it early in the first few rounds, but provided he doesn't...Joe would bore in, work his body and stop him late in an awesome slugfest.

Tyson never showed the heart to win a fight where somebody was giving him all he could handle. Frazier did.

I know that is the one aspect of the two fighters that would make me lean towards Joe Frazier. Damn I would have paid good money to watch that. If I had to pick I would go with Tyson TKO 4 in the Fight of The Century type fight

[dempseyfire]

The only reason Crazy Horse is going all pro-Holmes here is he likes to equate Wlad to be a modern day Holmes a la lots of title defenses and "under-appreciated" I'd be surprised if he's watched more than 4 Holmes fights in his life . . .

The big difference is Holmes has wins over legit HOFers in Norton and (albeit a badly faded) Ali, plus Ws over Shavers, Witherspoon, Berbick, Snipes, Williams, and Smith.

Wlad has Ws over ZERO HOFers.
And funnily enough, Holmes's best opponents were BIGGER than Klit's best opponents, who are by and large natural cruisers (Haye, Ibragimov, Chagaev, Chambers) and light heavies (Byrd and Chambers)!

The difference is clear as crystal. Your Wlad wet dreams won't be saved from cold, harsh reality.

[gilgamesh]

The only reason Crazy Horse is going all pro-Holmes here is he likes to equate Wlad to be a modern day Holmes a la lots of title defenses and "under-appreciated" I'd be surprised if he's watched more than 4 Holmes fights in his life . . .

The big difference is Holmes has wins over legit HOFers in Norton and (albeit a badly faded) Ali, plus Ws over Shavers, Witherspoon, Berbick, Snipes, Williams, and Smith.

Wlad has Ws over ZERO HOFers.
And funnily enough, Holmes's best opponents were BIGGER than Klit's best opponents, who are by and large natural cruisers (Haye, Ibragimov, Chagaev, Chambers) and light heavies (Byrd and Chambers)!

The difference is clear as crystal. Your Wlad wet dreams won't be saved from cold, harsh reality.

Although I like CrazyHorse ok as a poster, I think your reasoning is spot on.

[dempseyfire]

The only reason Crazy Horse is going all pro-Holmes here is he likes to equate Wlad to be a modern day Holmes a la lots of title defenses and "under-appreciated" I'd be surprised if he's watched more than 4 Holmes fights in his life . . .

The big difference is Holmes has wins over legit HOFers in Norton and (albeit a badly faded) Ali, plus Ws over Shavers, Witherspoon, Berbick, Snipes, Williams, and Smith.

Wlad has Ws over ZERO HOFers.
And funnily enough, Holmes's best opponents were BIGGER than Klit's best opponents, who are by and large natural cruisers (Haye, Ibragimov, Chagaev, Chambers) and light heavies (Byrd and Chambers)!

The difference is clear as crystal. Your Wlad wet dreams won't be saved from cold, harsh reality.

Although I like CrazyHorse ok as a poster, I think your reasoning is spot on.

I wouldn't have a problem with him if he stopped the incessant Klitschko trolling . . .

[CrazyHorse]

I wouldn't have a problem with him if he stopped the incessant Klitschko trolling . . .

Klitschko trolling? I love the Klitschkos and honestly think they could beat any heavyweight of any era. Call me crazy. I don't care. That's my opinion and I'm not changing mine to satisfy anybody. But to be honest I've watched 14 Holmes fights. That is all I do in my spare time is watch as much boxing as I can

[loaded_gloves]

The only reason Crazy Horse is going all pro-Holmes here is he likes to equate Wlad to be a modern day Holmes a la lots of title defenses and "under-appreciated" I'd be surprised if he's watched more than 4 Holmes fights in his life . . .

The big difference is Holmes has wins over legit HOFers in Norton and (albeit a badly faded) Ali, plus Ws over Shavers, Witherspoon, Berbick, Snipes, Williams, and Smith.

Wlad has Ws over ZERO HOFers.
And funnily enough, Holmes's best opponents were BIGGER than Klit's best opponents, who are by and large natural cruisers (Haye, Ibragimov, Chagaev, Chambers) and light heavies (Byrd and Chambers)!

The difference is clear as crystal. Your Wlad wet dreams won't be saved from cold, harsh reality.

Exactly right.

[Ezzard]

Holmes.

Foreman wins some of the time. But Larry is more skilled and has the right style to beat George.

[loaded_gloves]

Holmes.

Foreman wins some of the time. But Larry is more skilled and has the right style to beat George.

It's fascinating the effect Holmes has on people. It's all speculation with the Easton Assassin at that true, top level, elite class - he had his near-death experience against an ageing Norton then never again faced that sort of diamond calibre opposition.

Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, they all had each other. They have a clear proven form line, they seem to be a level above Holmes if you judge his performances in the trenches against Norton, Shavers, and Weaver for example, yet so many people still think Holmes is actually a level above these men!

It all seems wild speculation to me, Holmes is given so much credit for not losing in seven years without actually having to face the beastly opposition the aforementioned golden four did. It's strange. Is a peak 1970's George Foreman for some reason not going to go to war like, say, Norton or Weaver?

[Ezzard]

All fair comments.

Foreman would mow down aggressive, accumulation punching fighters. But he didn’t have the same success against boxers. Norton and Frazier are truly great wins that prove George was a real puncher…but I don’t think they are really relevant when discussing Holmes.

Larry did have a weakness for right hands and if Foreman lands Larry might not be able to slug his way out of it in the same way as he always tried to.

Young Foreman with Old Foreman’s mind set could have beaten Ali and Holmes. But that guy never existed…

I also remember that pre-comeback Foreman was not considered a top all-time 10 fighter. In the 1980s I used to read my uncles old boxing magazines and post-Zaire Foreman took a lot of criticism for the manner of his defeats to Ali and then Young.

Interestingly, I also remember an article in The Ring (I think) that castigated the 1970s heavyweight division, claiming it to be a poor show, a blight on the history of boxing’s greats, if an old Ali was still the best of the bunch.

[Controversial]

I like Holmes in this. Foreman struggled with good boxers and defensive fighters, Peralta gave him problems and he only weighed 196lb, he was the first man take him the distance and then went 10 rounds in the rematch, Young beat him, Ali beat him. Holmes wouldn't try and trade with Foreman, his jab would cause him problems. Decision win for Holmes.

[Ezzard]

Doubt Young George could make 15 rounds.

[dempseyfire]

I do favor Holmes slightly but it would be very competitive and he would likely get BADLY hurt at some point in the bout. Some people act as if Holmes would move around and jab and have no issues, but Foreman had his own jab which I believe was actually superior to Larry's when he used it consistently (a little slower but much harder). Foreman also was a vicious body puncher and that would likely be where he would focus in the early going to slow Larry down. Plus trying to keep a big athletic guy off you like Foreman uses up a lot of energy. And Foreman is a level above Weaver, Snipes, or Witherspoon.

[klompton]

Why do people act like Holmes went life and death with Norton. If you score that fight objectively it was fairly one sided for most of the fight.

[loaded_gloves]

Why do people act like Holmes went life and death with Norton. If you score that fight objectively it was fairly one sided for most of the fight.

That's certainly not how Holmes tells it - and it's not how it was called live, written up at the time, or has been written about down the ages.

There's a reason that its considered one of the greatest heavyweight title fights of all time - and its certainly not because it was a 'fairly one-sided' bout.