BoxRec

Old Larry was still challenging for world titles at age 43 in 1992 (and again in 1995).
In 1992 Holmes took Evander Holyfield the distance in their title bout.

What would the outcome be if the fading Holmes took on these other Heavyweights in the same year 1992:

vs Frank Bruno (age 31)
vs Lennox Lewis (age 27)
vs Riddick Bowe (age 25)
vs George Foreman (age 43)
vs Buster Douglas (age 32)
vs Donovan Ruddock (age 29)
vs Tommy Morrison (age 23)

Ok so 1991 Holmes vs the 1992 versions of the following....I see it like this:



vs Frank Bruno (age 31) as always with bruno depends on if the fight was 10 or 12 rounds for some reason Frank seemed to collapse unable to breathe anytime after the 9th round. But over 10 I see him busting up Holmes face but Larry winning a close decision.

vs Lennox Lewis (age 27) Holmes would outjab and outwork him on the inside over 12 rounds all this version of lennox had was a big punch and holmes could work with that

vs Riddick Bowe (age 24) Holmes loses a very close decision over 12
vs George Foreman (age 43) Turns into a real pier six brawl at times with both mens pride on the line and both men are bruised and swollen facially but Foreman kayoes Larry in the 7th in a similar style to the cooney fight with a sudden barrage of combos

vs Buster Douglas (age 32) Larry outwills the fat slob easy points win

vs Donovan Ruddock (age 29) Ruddock knocks Holmes unconscious in 8
vs Tommy Morrison (age 23 Tommy is in the lead all the way and eventually stops Holmes on his feet with a barrage of left hooks on the ropes in the 6th

Holmes easily beats Foreman, Douglas & Morrison.

I'd slightly favor him over Bruno & Ruddock.

Bowe & Lewis win clear decisions.

He beats Ruddock - Foreman - Douglas

Loses close to Morrison & Bruno (I could see these going either way)

He Loses to Lewis & Bowe

Holmes had nothing --- not a thing --- with which to compete with Foreman. Too fat, too slow, too light a hitter. For a guy so reliant on movement & counter-punching, being old & overweight are death against a fighter as good as the returning Foreman. Did I mention Holmes' pet peeve? An opponent with a good jab. Find me a better one in the Heavyweight division, circa-92, than what Foreman was packing. Not many, if any.

Holmes had a better one for my money.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Holmes had a better one for my money.

He just hated anyone who jabbed with him, though. If Holmes' jab was better (& I don't see it, personally), it wasn't by a big enough margin to negate Foreman's, nor was he able to dominate & manipulate opponents at this stage as was Foreman with that particular punch.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Holmes had a better one for my money.

He just hated anyone who jabbed with him, though. If Holmes' jab was better (& I don't see it, personally), it wasn't by a big enough margin to negate Foreman's, nor was he able to dominate & manipulate opponents at this stage as was Foreman with that particular punch.

Are u saying this cos of da Carl Williams fight?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Holmes had a better one for my money.

He just hated anyone who jabbed with him, though. If Holmes' jab was better (& I don't see it, personally), it wasn't by a big enough margin to negate Foreman's, nor was he able to dominate & manipulate opponents at this stage as was Foreman with that particular punch.

There aren't many fighters who ere ever able to jab with him. I don't think Foreman would be one anyway. the difference is significant for me. I see Holmes by damn near a shutout here. Always have, I think he beats any Foreman. But this version with ease.

I dont think Holmes Jab would have been relavent against Foreman in a fight in 1991-92. Holmes had lost a hell of a lot of speed and snap on his once legendary jab and although it was a jab which could still befuddle young up and comers and journeymen, the old man Foreman would walk through it with his cross arm defence.The same defence would protect him against Larrys sneaky uppercuts which he relied on a lot at thus time. The other thing that I count against Larry at this stage is, he liked to hold and hit on the inside, and hell he did a damn good job against Holyfield employing those tactics but against Foreman he isnt going to stand a chance I see him being destroyed with short sweet combinations on the inside like George did to Cooney. It isnt easy to hold against a Foreman and stay in front of him on the inside. Larry would need to do something similar to Morrison and Holy in bouncing on his feet and staying on the outside and only coming inside in spurts just walking on the outside wont cut it. Nothing i see in him around 91-92 suggests to me he had the legs to bounce around on the outside. Walk around yes but like i say that wont cut it.
The thing you cant count against ever though is Larry's incredible pride and will to win. But the same is true of Foreman.

Holmes of the Holyfield and Mercer fights

vs Frank Bruno (age 31)

Tough fight, but Holmes wins this on decision.
vs Lennox Lewis (age 27)
Close. I would like to pick Holmes, but this 'green' Lewis
had good skills and tools to handle Holmes of 92.
Ill be generous... a draw.

vs Riddick Bowe (age 25)
Bowe wins. Id favour a 82 Holmes but not a 92 one. Bowe
is at his best. He has all the elements of Larry, except he has
youth, prime and the perks that come with that.
Bowe UD

vs George Foreman (age 43)
Holmes wins a decision. I know GI will yell, scream and get mad
at me. But he knows I will always pick Holmes over Foreman ;)
Though big George makes a fight of it. I see Larry landing more and
staying at arms length for the most part.

vs Buster Douglas (age 32)
Holmes stays more active. Buster looks good early like he did in many
of his fights when he was younger, but Holmes is the more consistent
and his pride, jab and saavy sees him pick it up after 6.

vs Donovan Ruddock (age 29)

Hard match up. BUT I see Holmes winning. Tough, close and an intriguing
fight. Battle of the jabs. Holmes JUST wins.

vs Tommy Morrison (age 23)

Tommy has the big pop of a shot, and he will look to land it, but 92 Holmes
is no washed out Tillis, Williams or Thomas. Holmes has good recovery, smarts,
instincts and prides, plus he has the ring abilities to take command after
5 rounds. This is the Holmes that beat the man that destroyed Morrison.
I fear that Morrison's squared about stance, when he loads up would see
Holmes landing well. It would go the distance no doubt. Holmes UD.

Not bad for a grand daddy.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Holmes had nothing --- not a thing --- with which to compete with Foreman. Too fat, too slow, too light a hitter. For a guy so reliant on movement & counter-punching, being old & overweight are death against a fighter as good as the returning Foreman. Did I mention Holmes' pet peeve? An opponent with a good jab. Find me a better one in the Heavyweight division, circa-92, than what Foreman was packing. Not many, if any.

So wat did old Foreman hav that could beat old Holmes??????
That slow jab? Or that right cross that KOd Moorer?
Holmes would not go down like that. He was slipery. He would of made Foreman look bad. Think about it.... Morrison came in wiv a game plan for Foreman to stay on the outside pick his shots and come out. Rinse and repaeat. Now Foreman tagged Tommy a lil now and again nothing too big. Holmes was way to wise to get KOd be old George. And please surley u cannot think George can win on points. Holmes was fast as sin compared to Foreman. BTW Holmes wouldnt use a jab n grab style against Foreman. He would stay onda outside wiv his 1-2 building a points lead.

Guys, what does the fact that so many of us think Holmes would have perhaps beaten some of the guys listed & been competitive with others, say about Tyson, who is the only fighter to stop Larry?

gambler49 wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Holmes had nothing --- not a thing --- with which to compete with Foreman. Too fat, too slow, too light a hitter. For a guy so reliant on movement & counter-punching, being old & overweight are death against a fighter as good as the returning Foreman. Did I mention Holmes' pet peeve? An opponent with a good jab. Find me a better one in the Heavyweight division, circa-92, than what Foreman was packing. Not many, if any.

So wat did old Foreman hav that could beat old Holmes??????
That slow jab? Or that right cross that KOd Moorer?
Holmes would not go down like that. He was slipery. He would of made Foreman look bad. Think about it.... Morrison came in wiv a game plan for Foreman to stay on the outside pick his shots and come out. Rinse and repaeat. Now Foreman tagged Tommy a lil now and again nothing too big. Holmes was way to wise to get KOd be old George. And please surley u cannot think George can win on points. Holmes was fast as sin compared to Foreman. BTW Holmes wouldnt use a jab n grab style against Foreman. He would stay onda outside wiv his 1-2 building a points lead.

Can we try this again with respectable English? I will not recognise, "wiv," &, "onda" as legitimate language.

I can only see Bowe and Lewis winning against this version of Holmes.

Rocky Balboa wrote:Guys, what does the fact that so many of us think Holmes would have perhaps beaten some of the guys listed & been competitive with others, say about Tyson, who is the only fighter to stop Larry?

what it says to me is that the tyson of 1988 was by todays standards an unimaginable beast. There simply is no one in world boxing today who had those powers of intimidation.

Intimidation..........yeah that got you didnt it?...............see all Tyson did was intimidate people before they fought. Nowadays people look on Tyson with the benefit of hindsight and remember the washed up guy who quit and bullied lesser foes at the long end of his career and got whacked by Lewis,Williams and Mcbride.

But those of us who saw all Tysons fights in his prime remember how much fear he inspired back when he was unbeaten and had that aura of being the man who made one of his title contenders defecate in his pants prior to fighting Tyson. I mean the Tyson who had 15 round fight all night stamina and a warriors mentality yet was a historian of the sport.

Without the benefit of hindsight lets go back in time to 1988 and imagine we are there now. All of a sudden a boxing promoter with a time machine takes us forward 20 years to show us a powerful but robotic "russian" standing 6ft 6 and weighing 245lbs who we were told had reigned for years but had been beaten several times.

I dont think Tyson would sweat it.......and neither would a prime Foreman.

Getting back to topic, I still dont think an old Larry could handle the old Foreman. What made that Foreman incredible for me was his incredible precision and ability to hurt a foe even remotely injured. His knockouts of cooney and rodriguez and moorer were exceptional.

Larry would get hurt and he would get kayoed.

Rocky Balboa wrote:Guys, what does the fact that so many of us think Holmes would have perhaps beaten some of the guys listed & been competitive with others, say about Tyson, who is the only fighter to stop Larry?

I wouldn't pick the Holmes that Mike fought over any of these guys.

mugabi wrote:Ok so 1991 Holmes vs the 1992 versions of the following....I see it like this:



vs Frank Bruno (age 31) as always with bruno depends on if the fight was 10 or 12 rounds for some reason Frank seemed to collapse unable to breathe anytime after the 9th round. But over 10 I see him busting up Holmes face but Larry winning a close decision.

vs Lennox Lewis (age 27) Holmes would outjab and outwork him on the inside over 12 rounds all this version of lennox had was a big punch and holmes could work with that

vs Riddick Bowe (age 24) Holmes loses a very close decision over 12
vs George Foreman (age 43) Turns into a real pier six brawl at times with both mens pride on the line and both men are bruised and swollen facially but Foreman kayoes Larry in the 7th in a similar style to the cooney fight with a sudden barrage of combos

vs Buster Douglas (age 32) Larry outwills the fat slob easy points win

vs Donovan Ruddock (age 29) Ruddock knocks Holmes unconscious in 8
vs Tommy Morrison (age 23 Tommy is in the lead all the way and eventually stops Holmes on his feet with a barrage of left hooks on the ropes in the 6th

So Holmes beats Lewis and loses close to Bowe but gets dominated by Tommy Morrison???

Holmes would've taken Ruddock and Morrison to school and back, just like he did Mercer (who was better than both of them). One dimensional sluggers with suspect stamina were Larry's playthings.

I think he loses competitive but clear decisions to Bowe and Lewis.

Bruno is a tough one, I think it's a split decision either way.

Holmes would've beaten the post-Tokyo Douglas in a very boring fight.

Holmes-Foreman in 92 would've been GREAT. Real grudge match. I slightly favor Holmes by decision.

dempseyfire wrote:

mugabi wrote:Ok so 1991 Holmes vs the 1992 versions of the following....I see it like this:



vs Frank Bruno (age 31) as always with bruno depends on if the fight was 10 or 12 rounds for some reason Frank seemed to collapse unable to breathe anytime after the 9th round. But over 10 I see him busting up Holmes face but Larry winning a close decision.

vs Lennox Lewis (age 27) Holmes would outjab and outwork him on the inside over 12 rounds all this version of lennox had was a big punch and holmes could work with that

vs Riddick Bowe (age 24) Holmes loses a very close decision over 12
vs George Foreman (age 43) Turns into a real pier six brawl at times with both mens pride on the line and both men are bruised and swollen facially but Foreman kayoes Larry in the 7th in a similar style to the cooney fight with a sudden barrage of combos

vs Buster Douglas (age 32) Larry outwills the fat slob easy points win

vs Donovan Ruddock (age 29) Ruddock knocks Holmes unconscious in 8
vs Tommy Morrison (age 23 Tommy is in the lead all the way and eventually stops Holmes on his feet with a barrage of left hooks on the ropes in the 6th

So Holmes beats Lewis and loses close to Bowe but gets dominated by Tommy Morrison???

Holmes would've taken Ruddock and Morrison to school and back, just like he did Mercer (who was better than both of them). One dimensional sluggers with suspect stamina were Larry's playthings.

I think he loses competitive but clear decisions to Bowe and Lewis.

Bruno is a tough one, I think it's a split decision either way.

Holmes would've beaten the post-Tokyo Douglas in a very boring fight.

Holmes-Foreman in 92 would've been GREAT. Real grudge match. I slightly favor Holmes by decision.

LOL, I didn't feel like hurting Mugabi's feelings and spending 4 days in a childish internet argument. But Morrison destroying Holmes may be the worst prediction I have ever read.

"So Holmes beats Lewis and loses close to Bowe but gets dominated by Tommy Morrison??? " - D-Fire

LOL.

Rocky Balboa wrote:Guys, what does the fact that so many of us think Holmes would have perhaps beaten some of the guys listed & been competitive with others, say about Tyson, who is the only fighter to stop Larry?

There is a big difference between the 88 Holmes and the 91-92 one.

You have tune ups and extensive training leading up to a big fight
after a lay off for a reason.

Holmes jumped into the ring after 2 yrs vs Tyson with little prep time,
he fought the BEST version of Tyson.

I do not think that 1992 Holmes would beat 1988 Tyson. But he would
do a lot better than he had some years prior.

Robinson wrote:

Rocky Balboa wrote:Guys, what does the fact that so many of us think Holmes would have perhaps beaten some of the guys listed & been competitive with others, say about Tyson, who is the only fighter to stop Larry?

There is a big difference between the 88 Holmes and the 91-92 one.

You have tune ups and extensive training leading up to a big fight
after a lay off for a reason.

Holmes jumped into the ring after 2 yrs vs Tyson with little prep time,
he fought the BEST version of Tyson.

I do not think that 1992 Holmes would beat 1988 Tyson. But he would
do a lot better than he had some years prior.

I agree with this, but I still can't shake the fact no one else ever did that to Holmes. Not even close. Everything you say is right, but I still feel the manner of that win is a touch under-appreciated.

I agree. I think this is one of Tyson's best wins. Its hard
to deny that. I mean Tyson KOd a man who has never
been stopped before... he decimated Holmes.

Tyson took Larry serious, showed Holmes respect in the
sense that he was in 'peak' form.

This actually was the very first fight I ever saw of Holmes.
It made me become a fan of his for some reason.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

mugabi wrote:Ok so 1991 Holmes vs the 1992 versions of the following....I see it like this:



vs Frank Bruno (age 31) as always with bruno depends on if the fight was 10 or 12 rounds for some reason Frank seemed to collapse unable to breathe anytime after the 9th round. But over 10 I see him busting up Holmes face but Larry winning a close decision.

vs Lennox Lewis (age 27) Holmes would outjab and outwork him on the inside over 12 rounds all this version of lennox had was a big punch and holmes could work with that


vs Riddick Bowe (age 24) Holmes loses a very close decision over 12



vs George Foreman (age 43) Turns into a real pier six brawl at times with both mens pride on the line and both men are bruised and swollen facially but Foreman kayoes Larry in the 7th in a similar style to the cooney fight with a sudden barrage of combos

vs Buster Douglas (age 32) Larry outwills the fat slob easy points win

vs Donovan Ruddock (age 29) Ruddock knocks Holmes unconscious in 8
vs Tommy Morrison (age 23 Tommy is in the lead all the way and eventually stops Holmes on his feet with a barrage of left hooks on the ropes in the 6th

So Holmes beats Lewis and loses close to Bowe but gets dominated by Tommy Morrison???

Holmes would've taken Ruddock and Morrison to school and back, just like he did Mercer (who was better than both of them). One dimensional sluggers with suspect stamina were Larry's playthings.

I think he loses competitive but clear decisions to Bowe and Lewis.

Bruno is a tough one, I think it's a split decision either way.

Holmes would've beaten the post-Tokyo Douglas in a very boring fight.

Holmes-Foreman in 92 would've been GREAT. Real grudge match. I slightly favor Holmes by decision.

LOL, I didn't feel like hurting Mugabi's feelings and spending 4 days in a childish internet argument. But Morrison destroying Holmes may be the worst prediction I have ever read.

lol why break your habit of childish posts and fueds with all and sundry...just for me?
Please dont on my account saddam.do what u do best

i actually watched lewis in his early days? A cumbersome slow as hell muscle bound bruno was able to control the 93 lewis with his jab alone
i was in the cheap seats that night and beleive me if bruno didnt have a glass jaw and suffer from panic attacks in the ring he would have won that night.the lewis of 91-92 was even less polished and yes i i think a motivated prepared holmes could beat him at that time. Bowe on the other hand by 92 was in the words of steve farhood whose word i value more than a few nickle and dime fight fans "someone who could have beaten any hw in history the night he fought holyfield"

As for morrison he is one of the very few man who had the speed and power to in conjecture do to holmes what tyson did 3-4 years earlier.its lousy how amateur wanabee fight historians hit on tommy.he was a man who had all the tools, power,speed,stamina,heart and brains on his best night.on such a night he could do what tyson did to holmes if the fight was in 91-92.people forget he was totally outboxing mercer and mercers power turned it.holmes in the 90s didnt have that power.

Thats my opinion.i wish people could express opinions here without saddam and irenie -when they're not bickering with themselves- turning it into a punch and judy match.

Lets see them take the bait like the quarreling housewives they are!

"...i wish people could express opinions here without saddam and irenie -when they're not bickering with themselves- turning it into a punch and judy match.

Lets see them take the bait like the quarreling housewives they are!"

That was pretty funny!

Saad & I do have some pretty steep core differences on a few subjects, but I can't say I don't respect his views & the arguments he puts forth. More than can be said for a lot of others, in my view, but, then, that's why I'm the Forum pudendum in the eyes of so many, I suppose