BoxRec

Actually Holmes stated that it was a hard fight but that he thought he won it big. He was surprised by the judges scoring. I think he controlled the fight with his jab. I think, like the Ward-Gatti fights, people get caught up in a couple of exciting rounds and think the whole fight was that way. It wasnt. Like Gatti against Ward, when Holmes boxed it wasnt close at all.

klompton wrote:Actually Holmes stated that it was a hard fight but that he thought he won it big. He was surprised by the judges scoring. I think he controlled the fight with his jab. I think, like the Ward-Gatti fights, people get caught up in a couple of exciting rounds and think the whole fight was that way. It wasnt. Like Gatti against Ward, when Holmes boxed it wasnt close at all.

Got it, everybody's wrong except you.

loaded_gloves wrote:

Ezzard wrote: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?

Life and death with Ken Norton? You obviously never watched the fight and just went on boxrec and looked at the decision.

loaded_gloves wrote:

klompton wrote: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.

in my view, because of the excellent last few rounds and the epic last 2 rounds; taken as a whole it was a fight where Holmes dominated the majority of rounds, but becausae Norton had major success in the few rounds he won it tends to schew people's views somewhat.

loaded_gloves wrote:

klompton wrote:Actually Holmes stated that it was a hard fight but that he thought he won it big. He was surprised by the judges scoring. I think he controlled the fight with his jab. I think, like the Ward-Gatti fights, people get caught up in a couple of exciting rounds and think the whole fight was that way. It wasnt. Like Gatti against Ward, when Holmes boxed it wasnt close at all.

Got it, everybody's wrong except you.

Got it, you like to put words in peoples mouths until they come back to bite you... Go read Holmes biography before you quote him.

CrazyHorse wrote:
Life and death with Ken Norton? You obviously never watched the fight and just went on boxrec and looked at the decision.

No, that's what you do, as you illustrate in all your posts that drift outside your specialist subject of Wladimir Klitschko fantasy.

I was watching Holmes/Norton when you, by the sound of it, were still in single digits.

It's a widely regarded classic, much has been written about the greatness of the bout in print over the past thirty years, all of which you missed because it doesn't involve Boxrec, Wkipedia, or YouTube.

I can't be bothered with your juvenile prattle, one troll dies and a brand new one pops up in his place on BOTP, it's a never-ending nightmare.

loaded_gloves wrote:It's a widely regarded classic, much has been written about the greatness of the bout in print over the past thirty years, all of which you missed because it doesn't involve Boxrec, Wkipedia, or YouTube.

I can't be bothered with your juvenile prattle, one troll dies and a brand new one pops up in his place on BOTP, it's a never-ending nightmare.

lol I've never came across a dude before that took someone's opinion so serious lol. Who cares?

Just because someone doesn't share the same opinion as you doesn't mean you have to label them as a troll


Larry had a gas tank and could go 15 rounds easily. If and when Larry brought him into the late rounds he could have stopped him because George never had a good gas tank.

klompton wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:

klompton wrote:Actually Holmes stated that it was a hard fight but that he thought he won it big. He was surprised by the judges scoring. I think he controlled the fight with his jab. I think, like the Ward-Gatti fights, people get caught up in a couple of exciting rounds and think the whole fight was that way. It wasnt. Like Gatti against Ward, when Holmes boxed it wasnt close at all.

Got it, everybody's wrong except you.

Got it, you like to put words in peoples mouths until they come back to bite you... Go read Holmes biography before you quote him.

I was quoting from him directly, personally, on his old message board where he would engage with his fans. I was also quoting from a lengthy story he did on his career in Boxing Illustrated, because, you know, he has spoken in other mediums besides his autobiography, you do realise? A book which for the record I purchased in 1998 and have read many times.

Not bad for a man who famously holds himself in very high regard and everyone else in very low regard.

And now, for the deathblow:

LARRY HOLMES:

"OF MY 70 FIGHTS, THE TOUGHEST GUY I EVER FOUGHT, I GOTTA GO BACK TO THE GUY I WON THE TITLE FROM BACK IN 1978. I FOUGHT KENNY NORTON FOR 15 ROUNDS. HE DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE AND I DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE, AND THAT'S WHAT MADE ME WHAT I AM TODAY... THAT WAS THE BEST FIGHT I EVER HAD; THAT WAS THE HARDEST FIGHT I EVER HAD."
Source: Ken Norton, 'Going the Distance', back cover.

Feel free to apologise to me now, or continue to argue against reality, whatever, you'll fit right in here.

Larry has the worst possible style for Foreman.

If you can't see that, you don't know boxing.

keithmoonhangover wrote:Larry has the worst possible style for Foreman.

If you can't see that, you don't know boxing.

Bingo. The same goes for Gene Tunney.

The Great John L wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:Larry has the worst possible style for Foreman.

If you can't see that, you don't know boxing.

Bingo. The same goes for Gene Tunney.

Yep.

keithmoonhangover wrote:Larry has the worst possible style for Foreman.

If you can't see that, you don't know boxing.

You are a good man!

loaded_gloves wrote:
I was quoting from him directly, personally, on his old message board where he would engage with his fans. I was also quoting from a lengthy story he did on his career in Boxing Illustrated, because, you know, he has spoken in other mediums besides his autobiography, you do realise? A book which for the record I purchased in 1998 and have read many times.

Not bad for a man who famously holds himself in very high regard and everyone else in very low regard.

And now, for the deathblow:

LARRY HOLMES:

"OF MY 70 FIGHTS, THE TOUGHEST GUY I EVER FOUGHT, I GOTTA GO BACK TO THE GUY I WON THE TITLE FROM BACK IN 1978. I FOUGHT KENNY NORTON FOR 15 ROUNDS. HE DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE AND I DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE, AND THAT'S WHAT MADE ME WHAT I AM TODAY... THAT WAS THE BEST FIGHT I EVER HAD; THAT WAS THE HARDEST FIGHT I EVER HAD."
Source: Ken Norton, 'Going the Distance', back cover.

Feel free to apologise to me now, or continue to argue against reality, whatever, you'll fit right in here.

"Like I say, I thought I was winning, and winning big. But the reality was otherwise. After eleven rounds, Norton had a narrow lead on the scorecards. I was unaware of that, of course. But I knew that the established fighter, the household name, tended to get the edge with the judges." - Larry Holmes, Against the Odds.

Besides, fighters tend to overdramatize fights, particularly a legacy fight like this because it does just that, it enhances their legacy. The fight built momentum and had a great last couple of rounds but it wasnt close and the scoring was attrocious. Holmes won by one point and thats ridiculous. He had the fight in hand most of the way.

dempseyfire wrote: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.

I prefer a faster, busier and more accurate jab every time. Ali > Liston. Of course, Ali's footwork made his jab all the better.

Ezzard wrote:

dempseyfire wrote: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.

I prefer a faster, busier and more accurate jab every time. Ali > Liston. Of course, Ali's footwork made his jab all the better.

That, plus the better, younger George always forgot what to do with his jab everytime he was faced with a challenge. Just watch what Ali did to him in the 1st round in Zaire. He came out and started hitting George with straight rights and George quickly forgot everything they taught him in the gym.

The best George Foreman was the one that lost to Young. He actually stayed with a game plan, conserved his energy and attacked intelligently. It's unfortunate that Young beat him into retirement because with a few more fights George might have continued his development into a more complete fighter worthy of some of the over the top praise that many heap upon him.

Holmes wins whenever they fought...............

The 1bangkid wrote:Holmes wins whenever they fought...............

False

I think Larry outboxed him and taked decision

Like the majority I voted for Larry Holmes on the basis of his master boxing ability, chin, long range stamina and Foreman's poor track record at prevailing against such an opponent. But let me just ad that its not a given. Larry Holmes had a glaring weakness for the right hand and was both hurt and dropped on a few occasions by men who were inferior to Foreman in this department. In addition, George was good at cutting off the ring, knew the value of working the body and hit hard with both hands. He definitely had stamina issues but I think they are all too often overstated. Just because he dropped against Ali in the sweltering heat of Zaire doesn't mean that he'd do the same for Holmes had they met in the air conditioned confinement of Madison Square Garden or some venue in Las Vegas. Again, Holmes should be favored but its by no means a walk in the park.

During the "Prime"years of their youth/young adulthood?
The funny thing is that Larry Holmes is only 10 months younger then George Foreman.

George Foreman born January.10.1949

Larry Holmes born November.11.1949.

The Great John L wrote:George never beat a talented defensive boxer in his entire career, so it's unlikely he'd beat Holmes. Holmes by late stoppage over an exhausted and frustrated Foreman.

Yep. Holmes knew how to handle thunderous but flawed punchers. See Ernie Shavers

George would do better than Shavers.....and I did read earlier in this thread that he never beat a good defensive boxer....but he was not doing that bad against Young....at least not as bad as the buzz about that fight made it out to be.

ALSO, and this is my greater point,..... Peralta was a great defensive fighter. He really was, and George got better round by round against him, and eventually in the second go round knocked him out. After that there wasn't a lot of defense based HW's he could practice on.


Just, sayin'.

And I Like his chances against Holmes, and I'll admit Holmes has the tools, but if Larry got into a fix like he did with Shavers, or Snipes he aint comin' back like he did with them. And I think it's got about a 50/50 shot of happenin'.

Two of my three favourite fighters. If they fought 10 times prime for prime, I would pick Mr Holmes to win seven times (four on points, three by stoppage) and Mr Foreman to with three times (all three by stoppage).

CrazyHorse wrote:

evrenb wrote:George Foreman of 73 - 6th round ko....unless it was held in kinshasa...

How do you base your presumptions? George was very good at knocking guys out who came forward to him and fought him toe to toe just like he did to a guy like Joe Frazier who was his best win. Thing is Larry Holmes isn't going to stand there and just let George get all up in his grill. Larry would use which is probably the best jab in heavyweight history to keep George off of him. George always had problems with guys who could box him. For example Jimmy Young counter punched him and won a decision and was able to knock Foreman down as well.

You mean the LEAN MEAN FAT REDUCING GRILLING MACHINE?

I am on the fence with this one. Can see Holmes outboxing him and taking a decision or late TKO. Can also see Foreman knocking him out.
The Foreman that lost to Ali would have beaten Holmes. Holmes had a great chin, but he did not have Ali's chin. The Foreman that lost to Young would have lost badly to Holmes.

It really come down to if Foreman nails Holmes or not. If he does, he would stop Holmes. Foreman almost always got his man when he hurt him. Shavers and Snipes hurt Holmes badly but couldn't put him away. Foreman probably would have.
If Foreman doesn't nail Holmes by the 5th round, he probably loses.