George Foreman (1973) vs. Larry Holmes (1978)

[WAISTCMyself2332?]

My take on this fantasy match (15 rounds) is:
Foreman (vs. Frazier I): 6'3", 217 lbs.
Larry Holmes (vs. Norton): 6'3", 209 lbs.
George Foreman tears through Holmes for the first half of the fight, flooring him twice and staggering him several times during the first six or seven rounds. Foreman becomes exhausted at the start of the eighth round, throwing slow punches that Holmes absorbs or easily dodges. Holmes notices that the big man is tired and attacks Foreman, knocking him off-balance several times and even scores a knockdown with a barrage of punches in tenth. He uses what si possibly the best jab in history, to keep Foreman off of him when he attacked, much he often did in the early rounds of the round. However, Foreman manages to hold on and win a 15-round split decision.
What do you guys think happens in this fantasy boxing match?
Also, vote who wins below:

[Kalan]

I don't see Foreman beating Holmes at any time... I predicted Jimmy Young would beat George based on the fact that Foreman couldn't slip punches or duck punches hardly at all, and put too much power on his jab in his 20's... It wasn't a sophisticated weapon.. Jimmy Young had no strength or punching power -- and Young didn't have a fantastic reach or a lot of experience.. What Young had, at his best, was a good solid stance, nice footwork, and a smooth and effortless delivery of a sweet pinking jab, and good timing on his right counter. I remember several trainers at the time saying Young was going to be a problem for Foreman's style, including Slayton, Futch, and Benton.

The style of boxers Foreman loved to fight were guys who led with their heads like Norton, Frazier, or LeDoux.. They couldn't put a head on George. They couldn't drive him back, and they couldn't bully him at all.. They got hit with everything George threw because their heads were right in his face.

Lennox Lewis had tremendous height, reach, strength, and athletic ability when he fought Ray Mercer.. You'd figure Lewis would have boxed Mercer with all those advantages.. But Lewis actually hadn't refined his jab at that point because he'd been with Emanuel Steward for about 1 fight, not long enough to master the footwork and timing.. He jabbed better after a few more fights, but LL barely beat Mercer.. Lennox was trading and swinging like a son-of-a bitch and absorbing a ton of punches from Mercer.. Holmes was an old man, but he had Mercer running into punches and whiffing most everything he threw.. It wouldn't have been a whole lot different with Foreman, because you beat George and Ray Mercer the same way ... If you have great skills you box super tough characters like that and bewilder the devil out of them.

[gilgamesh]

I like Holmes in this matchup. I think he'd able to stunt a great deal of Foreman's rushes with his jab, and had good enough movement that he could keep Foreman from trapping on the ropes all that often. Foreman is bound to land some heavy shots on Holmes, and could possibly drop him or hurt him on occasion, but ultimately I'd expect Holmes to break him down and stop him late.

[gilgamesh]

Holmes vs Foreman in 1991 is an interesting matchup to imagine too. Different obviously as they were in far different places in their careers at that time, but it'd still be interesting, and they were both active at that time so it could've happened.

[ClivePatrickLyons]

George Foreman was a monster and when at his devastating BEST no Heavyweight Champion in history could have stood toe to toe with him and won it was the Good Boxer's that gave him the most trouble especially the longer the fight went because Stamina was a BIG problem for George especially earlier in his career Larry Holmes was a great fighter with a BIG heart and a Great Jab/chin/Good stamina/Good on his feet but almost always stood tall without very much head movement he was Knocked down by some BIG puncher's like shavers and he got up and won and when over the hill by Tyson that time he didn't get up that was no surprise I seen Snipes drop Larry heavily but he got up and got rid of him a few round's later he had excellent recovery power's............................................. it would come down to George and his Stamina or Larry and his standing tall with his lack of head movement I suspect Foreman would put Holmes on the canvas 2/3 Time's during the fight to be staggering allover the ring in round 15 to win a close un dec big GEORGE

[Tony1244]

Tough call. Could see it going either way but I picked Holmes in a late round stoppage.

In the 1970s GF would neglect his jab and run out of gas if he didn't stop you within 5 or so rounds.

It's hard to conserve energy when your hands are so out in front of you like his was in the day.

If Foreman knew what he knew in the 1970s what he knew in the 1990s, I'd pick him, but he didn't know...

[Cygnus475]

If this were the more experienced Holmes who survived wars with shavers, Cooney, and witherspoon I'd pick him by wide unanimous decision or even later round stoppage.

Aso talented as he was tho, the 1978 version of Holmes was probably still too green for a prime confident pre Zaire monster like foreman. It's not completely impossible for him to win, but I'd lean towards foreman getting the knockout within six rounds 60-70% of the time. It can make a huge difference in a fighters state of mind if they've been in there with big sluggers and survived before taking on another one (knowing for a fact they have a good chin and can hang in there).

I doubt Holmes could use his legs. Ali pretty much gave up that strategy after just one round and he was the king of footwork at heavyweight. His jab, lateral movement, ring iq, and flurries would still be a huge problem no matter which version you use.

[Bricks]

I don't see Foreman beating Holmes at any time... I predicted Jimmy Young would beat George based on the fact that Foreman couldn't slip punches or duck punches hardly at all, and put too much power on his jab in his 20's... It wasn't a sophisticated weapon.. Jimmy Young had no strength or punching power -- and Young didn't have a fantastic reach or a lot of experience.. What Young had, at his best, was a good solid stance, nice footwork, and a smooth and effortless delivery of a sweet pinking jab, and good timing on his right counter. I remember several trainers at the time saying Young was going to be a problem for Foreman's style, including Slayton, Futch, and Benton.

The style of boxers Foreman loved to fight were guys who led with their heads like Norton, Frazier, or LeDoux.. They couldn't put a head on George. They couldn't drive him back, and they couldn't bully him at all.. They got hit with everything George threw because their heads were right in his face.

Lennox Lewis had tremendous height, reach, strength, and athletic ability when he fought Ray Mercer.. You'd figure Lewis would have boxed Mercer with all those advantages.. But Lewis actually hadn't refined his jab at that point because he'd been with Emanuel Steward for about 1 fight, not long enough to master the footwork and timing.. He jabbed better after a few more fights, but LL barely beat Mercer.. Lennox was trading and swinging like a son-of-a bitch and absorbing a ton of punches from Mercer.. Holmes was an old man, but he had Mercer running into punches and whiffing most everything he threw.. It wouldn't have been a whole lot different with Foreman, because you beat George and Ray Mercer the same way ... If you have great skills you box super tough characters like that and bewilder the devil out of them.

Holmes in his 90's comeback was not the same fighter as the 1978 one. The 1978 one would have never faced a murderous puncher like foreman , and I don't believe in any way he had the ability to rope a dope George. The jimmy young fight foreman took a little lightly.

Holmes versus mercer and McCall was a older guy who had learned to really hold, and oldman his younger stronger foes.. I wouldn't put mercer and George foreman ever in the same category. Your post comes off very foolish and without validity as a result

[cfang]

?i'm picking holmes by decision but its tight. Foreman could take out holmes early - he defo fought better men - the 70s heavy were better than the 80s thats for sure. The key here though is that holmes knows what to expect and will be cautious. holmes pts with the odd rocky moment along the way.

[Kalan]

I don't see Foreman beating Holmes at any time... I predicted Jimmy Young would beat George based on the fact that Foreman couldn't slip punches or duck punches hardly at all, and put too much power on his jab in his 20's... It wasn't a sophisticated weapon.. Jimmy Young had no strength or punching power -- and Young didn't have a fantastic reach or a lot of experience.. What Young had, at his best, was a good solid stance, nice footwork, and a smooth and effortless delivery of a sweet pinking jab, and good timing on his right counter. I remember several trainers at the time saying Young was going to be a problem for Foreman's style, including Slayton, Futch, and Benton.

The style of boxers Foreman loved to fight were guys who led with their heads like Norton, Frazier, or LeDoux.. They couldn't put a head on George. They couldn't drive him back, and they couldn't bully him at all.. They got hit with everything George threw because their heads were right in his face.

Lennox Lewis had tremendous height, reach, strength, and athletic ability when he fought Ray Mercer.. You'd figure Lewis would have boxed Mercer with all those advantages.. But Lewis actually hadn't refined his jab at that point because he'd been with Emanuel Steward for about 1 fight, not long enough to master the footwork and timing.. He jabbed better after a few more fights, but LL barely beat Mercer.. Lennox was trading and swinging like a son-of-a bitch and absorbing a ton of punches from Mercer.. Holmes was an old man, but he had Mercer running into punches and whiffing most everything he threw.. It wouldn't have been a whole lot different with Foreman, because you beat George and Ray Mercer the same way ... If you have great skills you box super tough characters like that and bewilder the devil out of them.

Holmes in his 90's comeback was not the same fighter as the 1978 one. The 1978 one would have never faced a murderous puncher like foreman , and I don't believe in any way he had the ability to rope a dope George. The jimmy young fight foreman took a little lightly.

Holmes versus mercer and McCall was a older guy who had learned to really hold, and oldman his younger stronger foes.. I wouldn't put mercer and George foreman ever in the same category. Your post comes off very foolish and without validity as a result

You come across as rank idiot and super biased Bricks... Holmes didn't lay on the ropes taking punishment -- and that's one reason he lasted so much longer than Ali did... Holmes tried his best to get Foreman into the ring in the 1970's but Jimmy Young had several losses and was a lot easier than Holmes so that's who Foreman wanted... Foreman wanted nothing to do with Ray Mercer in the 90's... Mercer massacred Morrison so the Duke was the boy Foreman wanted---because Morrison had a push button chin.. However, Foreman couldn't find the button and lost again ... Foreman flatly turned down all opportunities to fight Ray Mercer and pulled out of the Holmes fight which would have been massive money.

Implying that Holmes was a better fighter in his 40's than he was in his late 20's is utter ignorance... In his 1st fight with a younger and fresher Earnie Shavers Holmes never got hit with a good right hand even once.. That was Holmes at his peak.. Holmes took hard rights in their rematch because he tore his left biceps very badly in the Ken Norton fight.. Holmes had to switch to a brawling style later in the Norton fight because he wasn't retracting his jab that well because of the torn left biceps... In fact, after the Norton fight Holmes could never retract his jab with the same crackling rubber band snap.. He was forced to alter his defense vs right counters after that and he WAS vulnerable to right hands.. However, Foreman (like Ray Mercer) didn't have a really outstanding right hand counter... That's one reason good jabbers bothered Foreman so much, and why Holmes was such a bad matchup for his style.. Jimmy Young's jab was pretty good -- but Larry Holmes' jab was great.

[Caractacus]

You know the funny thing is,even though they're like fighters from 2 different eras,
They're only about 11 months apart in age.

[Kalan]

That's VERY funny... Two ATG Heavyweight Champions of the same age -- whose careers both stretched over 30 calendar years -- and they never fought.

[Caractacus]

yeah
George Foreman born January.10.1949 in Texas
and
Larry Holmes born November.3.1949 in Georgia.

[davie]

Holmes points with both men visiting the canvas

but in all honesty, a points or stoppage win for either man would not have shocked me in the slightest.

These fences really aren't very comfortable you know.

[Bricks]

I don't see Foreman beating Holmes at any time... I predicted Jimmy Young would beat George based on the fact that Foreman couldn't slip punches or duck punches hardly at all, and put too much power on his jab in his 20's... It wasn't a sophisticated weapon.. Jimmy Young had no strength or punching power -- and Young didn't have a fantastic reach or a lot of experience.. What Young had, at his best, was a good solid stance, nice footwork, and a smooth and effortless delivery of a sweet pinking jab, and good timing on his right counter. I remember several trainers at the time saying Young was going to be a problem for Foreman's style, including Slayton, Futch, and Benton.

The style of boxers Foreman loved to fight were guys who led with their heads like Norton, Frazier, or LeDoux.. They couldn't put a head on George. They couldn't drive him back, and they couldn't bully him at all.. They got hit with everything George threw because their heads were right in his face.

Lennox Lewis had tremendous height, reach, strength, and athletic ability when he fought Ray Mercer.. You'd figure Lewis would have boxed Mercer with all those advantages.. But Lewis actually hadn't refined his jab at that point because he'd been with Emanuel Steward for about 1 fight, not long enough to master the footwork and timing.. He jabbed better after a few more fights, but LL barely beat Mercer.. Lennox was trading and swinging like a son-of-a bitch and absorbing a ton of punches from Mercer.. Holmes was an old man, but he had Mercer running into punches and whiffing most everything he threw.. It wouldn't have been a whole lot different with Foreman, because you beat George and Ray Mercer the same way ... If you have great skills you box super tough characters like that and bewilder the devil out of them.

Holmes in his 90's comeback was not the same fighter as the 1978 one. The 1978 one would have never faced a murderous puncher like foreman , and I don't believe in any way he had the ability to rope a dope George. The jimmy young fight foreman took a little lightly.

Holmes versus mercer and McCall was a older guy who had learned to really hold, and oldman his younger stronger foes.. I wouldn't put mercer and George foreman ever in the same category. Your post comes off very foolish and without validity as a result

You come across as rank idiot and super biased Bricks... Holmes didn't lay on the ropes taking punishment -- and that's one reason he lasted so much longer than Ali did... Holmes tried his best to get Foreman into the ring in the 1970's but Jimmy Young had several losses and was a lot easier than Holmes so that's who Foreman wanted... Foreman wanted nothing to do with Ray Mercer in the 90's... Mercer massacred Morrison so the Duke was the boy Foreman wanted---because Morrison had a push button chin.. However, Foreman couldn't find the button and lost again ... Foreman flatly turned down all opportunities to fight Ray Mercer and pulled out of the Holmes fight which would have been massive money.

Implying that Holmes was a better fighter in his 40's than he was in his late 20's is utter ignorance... In his 1st fight with a younger and fresher Earnie Shavers Holmes never got hit with a good right hand even once.. That was Holmes at his peak.. Holmes took hard rights in their rematch because he tore his left biceps very badly in the Ken Norton fight.. Holmes had to switch to a brawling style later in the Norton fight because he wasn't retracting his jab that well because of the torn left biceps... In fact, after the Norton fight Holmes could never retract his jab with the same crackling rubber band snap.. He was forced to alter his defense vs right counters after that and he WAS vulnerable to right hands.. However, Foreman (like Ray Mercer) didn't have a really outstanding right hand counter... That's one reason good jabbers bothered Foreman so much, and why Holmes was such a bad matchup for his style.. Jimmy Young's jab was pretty good -- but Larry Holmes' jab was great.

Yes Holmes didn't fight on the ropes....I stand corrected....he used to fight on the ropes and talk into the camera!!...see the McCall fight and see how much punishment he took as a result....see the Tyson fight where he tried to cover up on the ropes and got pulverised.......

Why would foreman have wanted anything to do with mercer in the 1990's?? Mercer started it losing in embarrassing fashion to Holmes.......than he loses to the legendary Jessie ferguson and is accused of offering a bribe midfight to his foe who was overpowering him.....Morrison had a world title that's why Foreman chose him ....plus he was a far bigger payday...... Foreman was world heavyweight champ when he turned down holmes who had just been bashed by McCall and was just after a payday.......Foreman was busy fighting young lions like Briggs rather than a old big mouth in Holmes who was insulting Foreman............I agree it was one of the fights we should have seen......but Larry needed to beat a contender to make it happen......he didnt.....that's the difference.....Foreman took on and beat a Stewart, Coetzer,Moorer, Schulz, and no matter what the judges say Briggs....... while Holmes was still living off the mercer win......and losing to brian neilson Foreman didnt need the "massive money" of Holmes as he was earning more anyway not to mention the foreman grill ski!! !

[Syntax Error]

I've always liked Holmes in a bout against Foreman.

He's a better boxer & has better stamina.

No doubt he'd buzzed by Foreman & he might even taste the canvas, but Holmes had the best recuperative powers I've ever seen.

Holmes UD.

[Controversial]

They did have a fight planned in 1999, they even posed for pics, not sure why it never went ahead. Holmes has always said Foreman ducked him. Holmes was still fighting in 1999 and Foreman had retired so maybe Foreman thought better of it and pulled out?

[Syntax Error]

They did have a fight planned in 1999, they even posed for pics, not sure why it never went ahead. Holmes has always said Foreman ducked him. Holmes was still fighting in 1999 and Foreman had retired so maybe Foreman thought better of it and pulled out?

I remember that.

I remember thinking it was a bit of a farce, but I secretly wanted to see it, as I always thought it was frustrating that they never fought.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

- Blubber Lar didn't fight in the golden era of the Fabulous Four, Ali, Joe, George, and Ken because he was vastly inferior. You can't spin it any other way, but some of you get an B for Blubbery effort.

Lar won a DKing political decision against a faded Norton because he was more manageable with less miles on the odometer. No rematch tells us what they thought their chances were for that given Blubs was running on fumes the first fight and all busted up. 73 George clubs down 78 Lar every day and thrice on Sundays, easy work.

After getting screwed by Ali and King, George retired, and that giant sucking sound we heard in response was Lar moaning about how nobody loved him as he put together a Tommy Burns cast of no hope and kid dope defenses. The WBA title had far more talented fighters in Dokes, Page, Witherspoon, Tate, Coetzee, and Tubbs actually fighting each other. The five times Lar actually stepped up against a standing champion who had actually won his title in the ring, he was trounced, nor was he a factor when George came back to take the heavyweight world by storm.

The 99 fight against your dear Lar was stillborn when the promoter couldn't come up with the guarantee for George. George already does enough for charity and had no need to make a charity contribution to Lar's coffers nor with the undefeated Lee Canalito's offer in 2011. Lee sure wasn't interested in Blubber Lar, but Butterbean would gladly knock him down again and send him on another chicken run. Is Blubs still moaning about George like he did in his HOF induction where he was thrown out of the very first day before they allowed him back in?

Your boxing hero ducked enough prime talents so as to make an encyclopedia. Dwayne Bobick would be happy to knock him out again if he wants a fight, but naw, no way. Maybe Marvis if they find a forklift for Blubber's ring entrance.

[Bricks]

Blubber Lar was soft in the gut after 1986...The damage the stamina rich calm relaxed defensively adept MK2 of George would have done to Blubber Lar's arms and body is too horrific to contemplate......a 1988-92 match up would have ended in a 7-8 round brutalisation......Larry just did not have the legs to dance anymore.....and he didn't have the power to push foreman back...his heralded jab would just hit cross arms all night.....To be honest im giving too much respect to blubber lar....it would probably be another 4 round pulverisation worse than the Tyson fight.......after 1992 it gets worse.....Foreman carried on fighting and beating young B and C level lions....Blubber LAr didn't even come close to that.....he was being knocked down by Butterbean and beaten by Brian Neilson.....

1970s its foreman every time.

Now if Larry hadn't retired after 1986 and stayed semi active and not been so greedy to take the Tyson money unprepared....lets say if larry had had 5-6 tune ups and in late 1989 he took on the same Foreman who fought cooney......thatd be a great fight.......

[badkatt]

george foreman

[Kurgen22]

Larry by UD. I've always thought he was one of the most underated Champs ever. Just wish he had retired after losing to Spinks.

[Kalan]

Holmes in his 90's comeback was not the same fighter as the 1978 one. The 1978 one would have never faced a murderous puncher like foreman , and I don't believe in any way he had the ability to rope a dope George. The jimmy young fight foreman took a little lightly.

Holmes versus mercer and McCall was a older guy who had learned to really hold, and oldman his younger stronger foes.. I wouldn't put mercer and George foreman ever in the same category. Your post comes off very foolish and without validity as a result

You come across as rank idiot and super biased Bricks... Holmes didn't lay on the ropes taking punishment -- and that's one reason he lasted so much longer than Ali did... Holmes tried his best to get Foreman into the ring in the 1970's but Jimmy Young had several losses and was a lot easier than Holmes so that's who Foreman wanted... Foreman wanted nothing to do with Ray Mercer in the 90's... Mercer massacred Morrison so the Duke was the boy Foreman wanted---because Morrison had a push button chin.. However, Foreman couldn't find the button and lost again ... Foreman flatly turned down all opportunities to fight Ray Mercer and pulled out of the Holmes fight which would have been massive money.

Implying that Holmes was a better fighter in his 40's than he was in his late 20's is utter ignorance... In his 1st fight with a younger and fresher Earnie Shavers Holmes never got hit with a good right hand even once.. That was Holmes at his peak.. Holmes took hard rights in their rematch because he tore his left biceps very badly in the Ken Norton fight.. Holmes had to switch to a brawling style later in the Norton fight because he wasn't retracting his jab that well because of the torn left biceps... In fact, after the Norton fight Holmes could never retract his jab with the same crackling rubber band snap.. He was forced to alter his defense vs right counters after that and he WAS vulnerable to right hands.. However, Foreman (like Ray Mercer) didn't have a really outstanding right hand counter... That's one reason good jabbers bothered Foreman so much, and why Holmes was such a bad matchup for his style.. Jimmy Young's jab was pretty good -- but Larry Holmes' jab was great.

Yes Holmes didn't fight on the ropes....I stand corrected....he used to fight on the ropes and talk into the camera!!...see the McCall fight and see how much punishment he took as a result....see the Tyson fight where he tried to cover up on the ropes and got pulverised.......

Why would foreman have wanted anything to do with mercer in the 1990's?? Mercer started it losing in embarrassing fashion to Holmes.......than he loses to the legendary Jessie ferguson and is accused of offering a bribe midfight to his foe who was overpowering him.....Morrison had a world title that's why Foreman chose him ....plus he was a far bigger payday...... Foreman was world heavyweight champ when he turned down holmes who had just been bashed by McCall and was just after a payday.......Foreman was busy fighting young lions like Briggs rather than a old big mouth in Holmes who was insulting Foreman............I agree it was one of the fights we should have seen......but Larry needed to beat a contender to make it happen......he didnt.....that's the difference.....Foreman took on and beat a Stewart, Coetzer,Moorer, Schulz, and no matter what the judges say Briggs....... while Holmes was still living off the mercer win......and losing to brian neilson Foreman didnt need the "massive money" of Holmes as he was earning more anyway not to mention the foreman grill ski!! !

You're full of crap as usual... Morrison didn't have any World Title. He fought Foreman for a vacant title and beat him... He got smashed out by Ray Mercer in 5 rounds, but was able to finesse the inept Foreman and outbox him... Morrison soon got smashed out in 1 round by the massive underdog and greenhorn Michael Bentt ... probably the most inept fighter who ever held a Heavyweight Title..

But we're not talking about the George Foreman who got beaten by the pathetic Morrison... We're talking about the 70's Foreman who lost to the anemic punching Jimmy Young... Foreman wanted Young because he was 10 X easier than Larry Holmes... Holmes kept calling Foreman out and George retired for 10 years... When Holmes finally retired, George unretired -- so then Larry unretired... George never could handle a masterful jab and Larry knew it.

[Syntax Error]

Blubber Lar was soft in the gut after 1986...The damage the stamina rich calm relaxed defensively adept MK2 of George would have done to Blubber Lar's arms and body is too horrific to contemplate......a 1988-92 match up would have ended in a 7-8 round brutalisation......Larry just did not have the legs to dance anymore.....and he didn't have the power to push foreman back...his heralded jab would just hit cross arms all night.....To be honest im giving too much respect to blubber lar....it would probably be another 4 round pulverisation worse than the Tyson fight.......after 1992 it gets worse.....Foreman carried on fighting and beating young B and C level lions....Blubber LAr didn't even come close to that.....he was being knocked down by Butterbean and beaten by Brian Neilson.....

1970s its foreman every time.

Now if Larry hadn't retired after 1986 and stayed semi active and not been so greedy to take the Tyson money unprepared....lets say if larry had had 5-6 tune ups and in late 1989 he took on the same Foreman who fought cooney......thatd be a great fight.......

This post looks remarkably similar to the post above.

Two different IDs for the same poster, or what?

[Kalan]

- Blubber Lar didn't fight in the golden era of the Fabulous Four, Ali, Joe, George, and Ken because he was vastly inferior. You can't spin it any other way, but some of you get an B for Blubbery effort.

Lar won a DKing political decision against a faded Norton because he was more manageable with less miles on the odometer. No rematch tells us what they thought their chances were for that given Blubs was running on fumes the first fight and all busted up. 73 George clubs down 78 Lar every day and thrice on Sundays, easy work.

After getting screwed by Ali and King, George retired, and that giant sucking sound we heard in response was Lar moaning about how nobody loved him as he put together a Tommy Burns cast of no hope and kid dope defenses. The WBA title had far more talented fighters in Dokes, Page, Witherspoon, Tate, Coetzee, and Tubbs actually fighting each other. The five times Lar actually stepped up against a standing champion who had actually won his title in the ring, he was trounced, nor was he a factor when George came back to take the heavyweight world by storm.

The 99 fight against your dear Lar was stillborn when the promoter couldn't come up with the guarantee for George. George already does enough for charity and had no need to make a charity contribution to Lar's coffers nor with the undefeated Lee Canalito's offer in 2011. Lee sure wasn't interested in Blubber Lar, but Butterbean would gladly knock him down again and send him on another chicken run. Is Blubs still moaning about George like he did in his HOF induction where he was thrown out of the very first day before they allowed him back in?

Your boxing hero ducked enough prime talents so as to make an encyclopedia. Dwayne Bobick would be happy to knock him out again if he wants a fight, but naw, no way. Maybe Marvis if they find a forklift for Blubber's ring entrance.

That's real nice... Holmes was a super skinny amateur with 11 fights and Bobick had well over 50 fights... If there were any competition Holmes wouldn't have been pushed up to the national level that soon.. There weren't any good Heavyweights so Holmes qualified for the Olympic Trials.. Holmes wasn't knocked out; he was DQ'd for holding.. He was holding because of his lack of boxing skills at the time.. He didn't want to be knocked out by a boxer with 5 X the experience he had -- and he wasn't... Now, as a pro, Bobick could never qualify to fight Holmes... Bobick was terrible and the competition was much stronger in the pros.. Holmes was pretty fat when he was in his 40's.. He certainly didn't look good entering the ring weighing 235 or more ... But he wasn't as fat as Foreman. Foreman was the black Pillsbury doughboy.