Larry Holmes vs George Foreman

[zuru]

15 rds in their prime
(I saw this on another Forum)
From what I've read ,Norton and Frazier favored Foreman. I don't know. He was a beast in both phases of his career.
But a young Foreman vs a young Holmes.
Holmes was one bad dude. Fast ,smart and tough as rawhide.
Part of me can picture him deftly clinching,moving and jabbing thru the early rds in an effort to even things out so he could pick it up in the middle rds then try to hit it hard late.

I don't know..

[BoxBuzz]

Larry had the tools...and he'd have to pitch a near perfect game. But he could do it.

On the other hand......when it comes to George.....one slip up is all he needs. I mean....put George in on the Night Snipes snuck one past Larry....and yeah, nah.....Larry don't make it.

I'd think the odds would have to favor Larry, but I'd take the odds and bet on George.

And......I do think Larry would win 2 out of 3 in any trilogy.

[oogiebe]

George was great at cutting off the ring and I don't think Larry was quick enough to last 15.

[Scypion]

I would go with Foreman prior to his Ali fight. His loss to Muhammad hurt him, and I really don't think he was as effective after that.

Holmes did not have the chin that Ali had, not just talking about his Tyson fight here. If anyone saw his bout with Renaldo Snipes, then they could see what I mean. I believe that Holmes would have been vulnerable to Foreman's punching power.

[DrDuke]

Holmes was very skillful, far superior in this aspect than Foreman, and what's more important he had a quite anti-Foreman set of tools. Holmes could jab and move, he could hit. I see Holmes keeping Foreman at bay, outboxing him. Moreover, Larry could take a punch.

Holmes by dec.

[elmersalsa]

Larry by late KO. Around the 13th.