BoxRec

Now, I don't know that how true is this put, if anyone as been to the message board on Larry Holmes' website. Larry continually talks to his fans and responds to questions. On March the 3rd he had to say this - which I thought was very strange.

"I have not released anything to the press yet, but I have a contract to fight Holyfield this summer in Atlanta. Im not sure if Holyfield has agreed yet".

Now, he has been asked about the truth of the statement and he hasn't added any futher comments, but has stated that he feels in better shape than in 1992 - as he faught Holyfield with a detatched retina.

Larry has been saying that although he loved to have the opportunity to fight a big name (especially Foreman) he is contented with his life and will fight when an appealing offer comes to him (instead of him chasing it down).

Anybody believe Larry's news?

sounds like BS. that website is awful. guys suck up to larry so bad its embarrassing. theres a lot of people on there who feel larry would do to tyson what lewis did and knock him out.

imagine larry who hasnt knocked a young man out in 8 yrs knocking out tyson? or performing to lewis's level...? they tell him he can beat ruiz and all those boys too. unbelieavble.

but anyway, holyfield even fighting on the form he was on v toney would knock holmes out. holyfield too big & strong for a man in his 50s.

will never happen.

God what an awful prospect that would be. I think it would be a dull 10 rounder with neither man able to pull the trigger effectively, and Holy winning by decision.

On another note, I reckon Foreman's comeback is bollocks. Doug Fischer said he saw him at a show, and he was hobbling around like a fat old man, which is what he is. His balance is shot and his legs are arthritic, he's finished.

overhand_right wrote: they tell him he can beat ruiz and all those boys too. unbelieavble.

Having seen plenty of Ruiz and co in recent years, I can think of more inconceivable things than a Holmes upset. I haven't seen Holmes in years, but if he's anything like the version that held his own against McCall or essentially battered Neilson (but didn't get the decision) then he could well cause a sensation.

Remember in one of his last competitive bouts he beat a motivated Mo Harries, who was 1 round away from beating Oquendo - who, in turn, essentially beat Byrd.

Don't get me wrong I'm not one of those guys on his forum saying all thins "you could beat Lewis" crap, but I think I would be as interesting in Byrd vs Holmes as I am Byrd vs Jefferson or even Byrd vs Golota.

I don't know whether James is correct about Foreman, if yes than I would hate to see Foreman back - but if Foreman is close to the fighter that faught Shannon Briggs, then why not?

He's nowhere close to the fighter who should have gotten the decision against Briggs, he's what, 7 years older now?

Holmes should just quit bellyaching and accept the fact that he will always be in Ali's shadow, and just enjoy the fact that amongst hardcore boxing fans and pundits, he's regarded as one of the very best ever...

I hope it's a load of crap, why can't these people retire? Who wants to see two relics beat each other up.

P.S. James McDonnell...."Gotten"?!?!!? Come on mate

steve689 wrote:P.S. James McDonnell...."Gotten"?!?!!? Come on mate

"gotten" is 100% correct in that sentence, n'est ce pas?

(Or were you just noting that it sounds priggish and correct?)

Eric the Viking wrote:

steve689 wrote:P.S. James McDonnell...."Gotten"?!?!!? Come on mate

"gotten" is 100% correct in that sentence, n'est ce pas?

(Or were you just noting that it sounds priggish and correct?)

It's because James writes for a US audience on maxboxing. He knows better than this, if truth be told.

'gotten' is 100% correct in this sense...if you are American. It has no part in British English...be gone!

Agreed Ian, last time i checked it was still called English. But...it was a while ago that i checked :P

Gotten is correct in that sentence, in fact it is an archaic way of speaking, but more correct literally that the use of 'got' in that instance.

It's a bit victorian I'll admit, it's like the difference between...

"Big George should have gotten the decision...."

or

"Nah man, cha ras, Big George done got robbed, yegetme?"

Some of you will scratch your heads/testicles, others will know.

I know alright. Don't try and squirm out of it!

Then 'Mr' you will of course agree that 'Gotten' is merely a somewhat archaic form of the more common modern term, 'got.

stujones wrote:

overhand_right wrote: they tell him he can beat ruiz and all those boys too. unbelieavble.

Having seen plenty of Ruiz and co in recent years, I can think of more inconceivable things than a Holmes upset. I haven't seen Holmes in years, but if he's anything like the version that held his own against McCall or essentially battered Neilson (but didn't get the decision) then he could well cause a sensation.

Remember in one of his last competitive bouts he beat a motivated Mo Harries, who was 1 round away from beating Oquendo - who, in turn, essentially beat Byrd.

Don't get me wrong I'm not one of those guys on his forum saying all thins "you could beat Lewis" crap, but I think I would be as interesting in Byrd vs Holmes as I am Byrd vs Jefferson or even Byrd vs Golota.

I don't know whether James is correct about Foreman, if yes than I would hate to see Foreman back - but if Foreman is close to the fighter that faught Shannon Briggs, then why not?

jeez stu, come on. those fights were YEARS ago. he only scraped it v a very green maurice harris, by no means an elite heavy.

look at his recent fight v eric butterbean esch to see what holmes has left.

absolutely nothing. the holmes who fought mccall, yes i would give him a legit shot of whipping ruiz, but that was nearly a DECADE ago!!!

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:I know alright. Don't try and squirm out of it!

Lets end this.

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (p.311): wrote:
"Gotten is probably the most distinctive of all the AmE/BrE grammatical
differences, but British people who try to use it often get it wrong.
It is not simply an alternative for have got. Gotten is used in such
contexts as
They've gotten a new boat. (= obtain)
They've gotten interested. (= become)
He's gotten off the chair. (= moved)
But it is not used in the sense of possession (= have). AmE does not
allow
*I've gotten the answer.
or *I've gotten plenty.
but uses I've got as in informal BrE. The availability of gotten
does however mean that AmE can make such distinctions as the following:
They've got to leave (they must leave) vs
They've gotten to leave (they've managed to leave)."

James was indeed using it in the sense of possession, i suppose it's wrong? I'm still confused.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Gotten is correct in that sentence, in fact it is an archaic way of speaking, but more correct literally that the use of 'got' in that instance.

It's a bit victorian I'll admit, it's like the difference between...

"Big George should have gotten the decision...."

or

"Nah man, cha ras, Big George done got robbed, yegetme?"

Some of you will scratch your heads/testicles, others will know.

James, you've really gotten me confused now

overhand_right wrote:

stujones wrote:

overhand_right wrote:

absolutely nothing. the holmes who fought mccall, yes i would give him a legit shot of whipping ruiz, but that was nearly a DECADE ago!!!

i doubt it thou, that was 8 years ago and foreman is 55, doubt he will come back

It looks like I was correct then....

As I said George should have 'gotten' the decision, as in been given or obtained...

Huzzah!

jamesmcdonnell wrote:It looks like I was correct then....

As I said George should have 'gotten' the decision, as in been given or obtained...

Huzzah!

Nice to see we've got that sorted out now. A few more grammar posts, and things might have gotten downright ludicrous around here. ;)