BoxRec

Holmes vs Foreman

73 Foreman vs Holmes of 80

These guys have countless reasons of why they never fought each other even though their careers overlapped (old and young careers).

Foreman brings great power and to the table while Holmes brings the best jab of all time.

How do you see it?

For me I have Holmes doing this boxing and moving and actually winning a comfortable decision.

Foreman by ko. Holmes had lots of trouble with Cooney and Foreman was better than Cooney, much better.

hhaehre wrote:Foreman by ko. Holmes had lots of trouble with Cooney and Foreman was better than Cooney, much better.

Well by that logic Foreman had lots of trouble with young and Holmes was better than Young, much better

Holmes TKO12

Grimm wrote:

hhaehre wrote:Foreman by ko. Holmes had lots of trouble with Cooney and Foreman was better than Cooney, much better.

Well by that logic Foreman had lots of trouble with young and Holmes was better than Young, much better

Holmes TKO12

You asked about Foreman of 1973 not 1977. The notion that Holmes would box circles around Foreman of 1973 does not hold water as Holmes had a hard time boxing circles around anyone. Apart from the many gross mismatches like Scott Frank, Marvis Frazier, Zanon, Evangelista etc. Holmes usually gutted out victories by wars of attrition. Maybe he could take Foremans best and outlast him but I doubt it. Tyson showed that Holmes could be knocked out if hit hard enough and George could hit.

hhaehre wrote:

Grimm wrote:

hhaehre wrote:Foreman by ko. Holmes had lots of trouble with Cooney and Foreman was better than Cooney, much better.

Well by that logic Foreman had lots of trouble with young and Holmes was better than Young, much better

Holmes TKO12

You asked about Foreman of 1973 not 1977. The notion that Holmes would box circles around Foreman of 1973 does not hold water as Holmes had a hard time boxing circles around anyone. Apart from the many gross mismatches like Scott Frank, Marvis Frazier, Zanon, Evangelista etc. Holmes usually gutted out victories by wars of attrition. Maybe he could take Foremans best and outlast him but I doubt it. Tyson showed that Holmes could be knocked out if hit hard enough and George could hit.

In all fairness Holmes didn't fight Cooney in 83 either .

Tyson knocked out Holmes when he was coming off of a two year layoff and was pushing 40.

I think Holmes would be able to outlast Foreman's onslaught and take him out.

Grimm wrote: In all fairness Holmes didn't fight Cooney in 83 either .

Holmes wasn't much different in 82 compared to 1980 but Foreman was a changed fighter in 1977.

Grimm wrote: Tyson knocked out Holmes when he was coming off of a two year layoff and was pushing 40.

True but based on his many years in the ring after Tyson, his chin was the same. My point was merely that he, like most any other fighter in history, could be knocked out.

Grimm wrote: I think Holmes would be able to outlast Foreman's onslaught and take him out.

We disagree on this but fair enough. I think a more winnable fight for Holmes would be a seniors citizen fight in the 90's

I agree with H's post above.

This is a fight I wouldn't want to be putting money on, but, if I had to?

It would be on Foreman. Somewhere between rounds four-through-seven. I see Holmes struggling badly to adapt to how quickly Foreman gets out of the blocks. He also never faced a first-class finisher who hurt him --- he would if shaken here. If Holmes takes control, I don't see Foreman lasting all fifteen rounds --- something he never did.

Still, I slightly like Foreman's chances to get on top of him early, & stay there.

Holmes has some hairy moments but comes on strong late
and stops Foreman in the later rounds.

A good fight.

Holmes is able to land on Foreman with his jab pretty
well. Holmes had a better jab than Ali, with more authority
in it.

I would liked to have seen this one...or any fight with them
in it had it happened in the late 70s or early 90s.

In the late-70's, I would have to favour Holmes, but reverse that result for the early-90's.

Holmes has always blamed Foreman for the two having never fought.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:In the late-70's, I would have to favour Holmes, but reverse that result for the early-90's.

Holmes has always blamed Foreman for the two having never fought.

Really?

I would say Holmes wins much more comfortably in the 90's.

Grimm wrote:Well by that logic Foreman had lots of trouble with young and Holmes was better than Young, much better

- Mr. Larry was MIA in spite of being the same age of George. They never mention the golden 5 of the 70s my friend.

Mr Larry was being trained by Ali's camp as early as 71, turns pro in 73, and is nowhere near any big names Ali/Frazier/Norton/Foreman were fighting until Shavers in 78, his first name opponent. Mr. Larry is like the guys who would ride down from the hills after major battles and lift valuables and medals from fallen warriors to sport around with.

When George makes his comeback, Mr. Larry is like a jealous kid brother wanting the same thing but always falling short. Much of his comeback is golden oldies fights reprizing Smith, Weaver, ect. If Mr. Larry was the real deal, he'd been in the mix by 76 at very least, but he ain't, and when he does lift a highly disputed title off the aging Norton, he won't even give Kenny a rematch which set the tone for his lack of ambition to unify the titles, the prototype of the now villified ABC belt holder.

No sir, Mr. Larry never did fight Young in spite of being peers, nor would he ever unless forced by King. Ali wouldn't even give Young a rematch after Young whipped and clowned him.

If George looked bad on occasion, hey, he was fighting real contenders, not the union of soft lads and washerwomen that constituted at least half of Mr. Larry's ABC belt defenses.

Mr. Larry don't see the end of 5, which was the round George KOed a good boxer/jabber/mover, the undefeated Dino Denis. Denis was the sub for the Foreman/Holmes fight Mr. Larry had to pull out from injury if my recollection is correct.

Mr. Larry was always an Ali/Big George wannabe, not to put too fine a point on it.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

Grimm wrote:Well by that logic Foreman had lots of trouble with young and Holmes was better than Young, much better

- Mr. Larry was MIA in spite of being the same age of George. They never mention the golden 5 of the 70s my friend.

Mr Larry was being trained by Ali's camp as early as 71, turns pro in 73, and is nowhere near any big names Ali/Frazier/Norton/Foreman were fighting until Shavers in 78, his first name opponent. Mr. Larry is like the guys who would ride down from the hills after major battles and lift valuables and medals from fallen warriors to sport around with.

When George makes his comeback, Mr. Larry is like a jealous kid brother wanting the same thing but always falling short. Much of his comeback is golden oldies fights reprizing Smith, Weaver, ect. If Mr. Larry was the real deal, he'd been in the mix by 76 at very least, but he ain't, and when he does lift a highly disputed title off the aging Norton, he won't even give Kenny a rematch which set the tone for his lack of ambition to unify the titles, the prototype of the now villified ABC belt holder.

No sir, Mr. Larry never did fight Young in spite of being peers, nor would he ever unless forced by King. Ali wouldn't even give Young a rematch after Young whipped and clowned him.

If George looked bad on occasion, hey, he was fighting real contenders, not the union of soft lads and washerwomen that constituted at least half of Mr. Larry's ABC belt defenses.

Mr. Larry don't see the end of 5, which was the round George KOed a good boxer/jabber/mover, the undefeated Dino Denis. Denis was the sub for the Foreman/Holmes fight Mr. Larry had to pull out from injury if my recollection is correct.

Mr. Larry was always an Ali/Big George wannabe, not to put too fine a point on it.

Dino Dennis can't hold Larry's jockstrap.

You are the Terap of Larry Holmes.

Just because Larry Holmes was they same age as Foreman doesn't mean they were on the same level of maturity, which is why Holmes started his career later and had a much longer much more successful reign as champion.

AND what was Foreman doing at this time? Preaching or something? Whatever he was doing it damn sure wasn't getting back in the mix as one of the top heavyweights.

Grimm wrote: Dino Dennis can't hold Larry's jockstrap.

- Mr. Larry's jockstrap never made the scratch line against Big George.

Dino's jockstrap did, so he fought Foreman while Mr. Larry was at home holding up his jockstrap with his one good arm. Just the facts ma'm......End of...... 8)

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

Grimm wrote: Dino Dennis can't hold Larry's jockstrap.

- Mr. Larry's jockstrap never made the scratch line against Big George.

Dino's jockstrap did, so he fought Foreman while Mr. Larry was at home holding up his jockstrap with his one good arm. Just the facts ma'm......End of...... 8)

The facts are you know nothing of Holmes.

"...Just because Larry Holmes was they same age as Foreman doesn't mean they were on the same level of maturity, which is why Holmes started his career later and had a much longer much more successful reign as champion..." - Grimm

Pretty sure that had more to do with the competition level than maturity.

Something tells me Big George lasts seven years or more if the challengers are Smith, Witherspoon, Berbick, Bey, Rodriguez, Frazier, Weaver, etc. Foreman's style was more conducive to a long reign, as he was a puncher, whereas Holmes was more dependent on speed & movement.

Situations reversed, Foreman would've reigned for at least as long as Holmes, & likely longer. Can you see even an ageing Foreman (around early-to-mid 30's) losing to Spinks? Personally, I'm not even sure Spinks beats a Foreman in his early-40's.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"...Just because Larry Holmes was they same age as Foreman doesn't mean they were on the same level of maturity, which is why Holmes started his career later and had a much longer much more successful reign as champion..." - Grimm

Pretty sure that had more to do with the competition level than maturity.

Something tells me Big George lasts seven years or more if the challengers are Smith, Witherspoon, Berbick, Bey, Rodriguez, Frazier, Weaver, etc. Foreman's style was more conducive to a long reign, as he was a puncher, whereas Holmes was more dependent on speed & movement.

Situations reversed, Foreman would've reigned for at least as long as Holmes, & likely longer. Can you see even an ageing Foreman (around early-to-mid 30's) losing to Spinks? Personally, I'm not even sure Spinks beats a Foreman in his early-40's.

I disagree.

Foreman needed to go away, have his ten years and assess what he wanted to do.
The same went for Holmes. Having that time of did wonders for each men. Some
times fighters need to have a break.

As for the Foreman reign, I think some of the big men would have caught up with
him at some point. Sheer attrition over time is what takes its toll on some fighters
and I think Foreman would have suffered this, especially the 70s Foreman who
was somewhat hittable.

Oh, I agree Foreman needed to leave.

To clarify, what I'm saying is, if you put Foreman in exactly Holmes' shoes (i.e, not turning pro until twenty-four, beating Norton in '78, gaining recognition upon Ali's retirement in '79, & solidifying against Ali himself in '80, & then going on his run, whilst not peaking until about twenty-seven or twenty-eight) I think he does every bit as well as Holmes.

I'm not sure why you think attrition would be a problem for Foreman in the long-run. You think he'd have career-shortening, wear-down battles against Rodriguez, Berbick, Witherspoon, Smith, Zanon, Frazier, & the like? Who, specifically, are the big men Holmes faced who would get to Foreman, in your view?

I don't know, but I don't see those guys lasting very long at all. I think Foreman'd be just fine for a very long time.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"...Just because Larry Holmes was they same age as Foreman doesn't mean they were on the same level of maturity, which is why Holmes started his career later and had a much longer much more successful reign as champion..." - Grimm

Pretty sure that had more to do with the competition level than maturity.

Something tells me Big George lasts seven years or more if the challengers are Smith, Witherspoon, Berbick, Bey, Rodriguez, Frazier, Weaver, etc. Foreman's style was more conducive to a long reign, as he was a puncher, whereas Holmes was more dependent on speed & movement.

Situations reversed, Foreman would've reigned for at least as long as Holmes, & likely longer. Can you see even an ageing Foreman (around early-to-mid 30's) losing to Spinks? Personally, I'm not even sure Spinks beats a Foreman in his early-40's.

I definitely could see Spinks beating Foreman because I do not see Foreman being able to catch him and don't see Foreman matching his skills.

Also disagree on Holmes relying on speed and movement. Holmes just knew the game good he was more than a jab and move guy while he didn't have the power of Foreman I see him beating Foreman in any other category.

I disagree Holmes has it over Foreman in every single category, sans power --- but I digress from that aside.

Okay, so you can see Spinks beating Foreman in his early-40's. Me, too --- just making the point Foreman could (&, in my estimation, may well) win that fight. Obviously, we'll never know how Foreman would've looked in his early-30's at the tail end of a long reign (ala Holmes), because it never happened.

Still, my gut says he'd be too strong for Spinks. He'd find him at some point, surely. If you don't agree, sure --- but, remember, that's at the end of Holmes' reign. You think someone catches up with Foreman before then? He blasts out Holmes' challengers, IMO.

That, at any rate, was my initial point --- that Holmes' long reign had less to do with maturity & more with the opponents he faced. I think Foreman does as well, perhaps better, in his shoes.

Grimm wrote: Holmes brings the best jab of all time.

When did you see Sammy Mandell jab?

Tommy Loughran?

Harold Johnson?

Joe Gans?

Jimmy Wilde?

Gene Tunney?

Jack Johnson?

Benny Leonard?

Joe Louis?

I saw Roy Williams outjab Larry Holmes.

granberry wrote:

Grimm wrote: Holmes brings the best jab of all time.

When did you see Sammy Mandell jab?

Tommy Loughran?

Harold Johnson?

Joe Gans?

Jimmy Wilde?

Gene Tunney?

Jack Johnson?

Benny Leonard?

Joe Louis?

I saw Roy Williams outjab Larry Holmes.

Granberry I had no idea you were still alive.

I'm a huge fan of Benny Leonard and Joe Louis , I've seen them as well as footage of Tunney,Harold Johnson and Jack Johnson. I've seen clips of Loughran,Wilde and Gans.

Haven't seen anything of Mandell but I know he was trained by Blackburn who put lot's of emphasis on the jab.

I know you are nostalgic and think nothing of the past can compare to today. I still say Holmes has the best jab and know alot of people will agree with me here.

Hearns had the best jab I've seen.

I always have liked larry in this match up. His heart was as big as any man who ever entered the ring and I think he can work his way out of inevitable early trouble to box his way to a decision.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: Denis was the sub for the Foreman/Holmes fight Mr. Larry had to pull out from injury if my recollection is correct.

Your memory only goes back as far as a google seach allows. You should be bit more critical though in regards to what you read on the internet, otherwise you run the risk of making a fool of yourself. Foreman was not scheduled to meet Holmes.

Grimm wrote:I definitely could see Spinks beating Foreman because I do not see Foreman being able to catch him and don't see Foreman matching his skills.

- Sorry to hear that you don't see very well. Might want to get your seeing eye dog to review Mike Spinks' heavy fights and give you an accurate assessment of Spinks' capabilities.

Spinks never relied on movement needing fleet feet. He generally preferred ring center as he showed against Holmes and nobody beat any version of George at ring center. Unnatural one off brutes don't need to match skills my little friend. History of boxing heartbreak written in thousands of unrepentent sluggers bombing out skilled, experienced, talented boxers.

Whatever possibility of beating Foreman by Spinks or Mr. Larry that exists is slim and none. Neither can take the shots Ali took against Foreman in Zaire without collapsing, and neither can match the quirky footwork and body contortion wizardry of the best version of Young who ever existed who won a very close decision over a very disheartened George who was being run out on a string by King.

The only reason Mr. Larry grabs a title is because of the inevitable aging, retirement, and demise of the golden 4 of the 70s, that and never attempting to unify the titles against other champs, some of whom were more naturally gifted than Mr. Larry who was something of an overachiever. George's record against HOFers is 4-2, 4 KO, 5-2, 5 KOs on the outside chance Moorer makes the HOF, and all but one of his HOF fights against prime/nearprime HOFers. Mr. Larry is 2-4, 1 KO in HOF fights, never beating a prime HOFer, instead being beat by 3 HOFers in 4 fights.

wouter wrote:

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: Denis was the sub for the Foreman/Holmes fight Mr. Larry had to pull out from injury if my recollection is correct.

Your memory only goes back as far as a google seach allows. You should be bit more critical though in regards to what you read on the internet, otherwise you run the risk of making a fool of yourself. Foreman was not scheduled to meet Holmes.

- My friend, if I were more critical, few internet forums exist that operate at anywhere near cogent coherency.

I cannot say for certain that Foreman was scheduled to meet Mr. Larry in 76 as I noted, however many years ago I was in contact with either Mr. Larry or a 100% accurate facsimile of Mr. Larry. He didn't last long in those early wild west internet days, being way too fiery and running off the rails, but he did detail a breakdown of events in between vicious slams on George's character that I carefully screened through the record. Either the facsimile studiously did his homework in a flash off the cuff, or it was indeed Mr. Larry.

Also in contact with George on his website, or someone representing themselves as George on his website. I can't even prove you are you, after all. Also in contact with Sugar Ray Leonard briefly. We "know" it was Leonard because Ice John Scully is a personal friend and had recruited him to recount his preparations for Hagler and answer questions. Maybe Ice John was a facsimile too, ya think, posting never before seen photos of his career and family? May be a peeper/stalker you say, eh?

Anyway, a true thin skinned fighter like Ray won't last long under their own identities because their natural reaction to personal attacks is to fight. Nothing but whiffs over the internet, and their egos too big to take the thousands of slings and arrows aimed at HOF legends. Ice John is an armoured tank in comparison.

Regardless, I was critical enough to couch my observation with a disclaimer noting the possibilities of smudged details from the passage of time as I didn't record the brief moments save to memory.