BoxRec

Hypothetically if they fought Prime vs Prime who would win in a 15 round match. I would go Larry Holmes UD 10-5



I believe Larry's jab and overall better boxing ability would get him the win. I think Larry would have been able to neutralize George's power and made him very uncomfortable in the ring. Don't think he could have KO'd him. I definately think George would have looked very defeated at the end of the fight nonetheless.

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

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.

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.

Holmes by stoppage or easy decision.

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.

This is my opinion. George Foreman defeated Ken Norton - wasnt he a talented defensive boxer. Norton, Snipes, Weaver, Tyson etc all hurt Holmes bad. George had a great jab too. . I am a holmes nut dont get me wrong..an amazing fighter with great heart, speed jab you name it...but Foreman finishes him where Shavers, Weaver, Snipes couldn't. Say what you will george knew how to finish a guy off. I believe that if they fought 10 times George wins 6 or 7. Forced to make a bet its George. Not the Jimmy Young George...his style was a bit mixed after Clancy worked with him...73 /74 George...as long as they didnt fight in Kinshasa and as long as the ropes were not loose or the water poisoned, or food drugged or in the event of George being knocked down, a fast count.

evrenb wrote:George Foreman defeated Ken Norton - wasnt he a talented defensive boxer.

No he was not.

evrenb wrote:This is my opinion. George Foreman defeated Ken Norton - wasnt he a talented defensive boxer. Norton, Snipes, Weaver, Tyson etc all hurt Holmes bad. George had a great jab too. . I am a holmes nut dont get me wrong..an amazing fighter with great heart, speed jab you name it...but Foreman finishes him where Shavers, Weaver, Snipes couldn't. Say what you will george knew how to finish a guy off. I believe that if they fought 10 times George wins 6 or 7. Forced to make a bet its George. Not the Jimmy Young George...his style was a bit mixed after Clancy worked with him...73 /74 George...as long as they didnt fight in Kinshasa and as long as the ropes were not loose or the water poisoned, or food drugged or in the event of George being knocked down, a fast count.

#1. Norton was a good fighter but you can't put him in the same sentence as Larry Holmes. Larry Holmes stands alone in terms of best "Boxers". His 20 title defenses prove that.

#2. Tyson hurt Holmes? Congratulations Tyson beat an old Larry Holmes. Why don't we give Larry Holmes full credit for beating Ali who was already showing signs of Parkinsons

#3. You can't compare George Foreman's jab to Larry Holmes who hands down has the best jab and most powerful jab in the history of boxing

#4. Foreman said he never wanted to get in the ring with Shavers. Many boxers said Shavers hit harder than Foreman. Larry Holmes got off the deck and went on to punish Shavers

#5. Not skilled boxers he couldn't. He obviously had a very hard time dealing with guys who could box

#6. Foreman was 28 years old I believe. Hardly over the hill

Lol. Foreman knocked out Michael Moorer was a pretty damn good boxer, and a southpaw to boot. Ken Norton was a damn fine boxer, as Ali, Holmes, and Young can attest.

I love Larry Holmes. I just lean to the advancing, ogreish Foreman to cut off the corners and finish him. Holmes went life and death with the great Ken Norton but Norton was 35 and fading. Shavers had Holmes down and was also 35 and fading. A prime brutish Foreman is one of the very few men who I think would be too much for Holmes.

loaded_gloves wrote:Lol. Foreman knocked out Michael Moorer was a pretty damn good boxer, and a southpaw to boot. Ken Norton was a damn fine boxer, as Ali, Holmes, and Young can attest.

I love Larry Holmes. I just lean to the advancing, ogreish Foreman to cut off the corners and finish him. Holmes went life and death with the great Ken Norton but Norton was 35 and fading. Shavers had Holmes down and was also 35 and fading. A prime brutish Foreman is one of the very few men who I think would be too much for Holmes.

Michael Moorer eh?


Foreman was getting out boxed to that point and is no where near the fighter a prime Larry Holmes was. But if you want to bring up Old George then do you remember what Holyfield did to him

George Foreman 2 Title Defenses
Larry Holmes 20 Title Defenses




You do the match

Neither Moorer or Norton were boxers in the sense that is being used. Moorer particularly was a banger who boxed out of necessity. Norton was absolutely not a boxer. He came forward with that wide stance and crab defense dragging his right leg behind him. His style was made for Foreman because he didnt rely on leg work or even a lot of upper body movement to avoid punches which I believe is what others are getting at here. If you were there to be hit and werent very durable (Moorer and Norton) Foreman was going to get you. Holmes wasnt in the same mold as either of those guys. He could move well, was a big man himself, had a fast, accurate, and hard jab, and was durable as well. I think Holmes is a nightmare for Foreman in the same way Ali was a nightmare for him and much more so than Jimmy Young was.

CrazyHorse wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:Lol. Foreman knocked out Michael Moorer was a pretty damn good boxer, and a southpaw to boot. Ken Norton was a damn fine boxer, as Ali, Holmes, and Young can attest.

I love Larry Holmes. I just lean to the advancing, ogreish Foreman to cut off the corners and finish him. Holmes went life and death with the great Ken Norton but Norton was 35 and fading. Shavers had Holmes down and was also 35 and fading. A prime brutish Foreman is one of the very few men who I think would be too much for Holmes.

Michael Moorer eh?


Foreman was getting out boxed to that point and is no where near the fighter a prime Larry Holmes was. But if you want to bring up Old George then do you remember what Holyfield did to him

Or glass jawed no stamina Tommy Morrison... when he boxed for the only time in his life.

Over 15 rounds, I figure Holmes can either stop Foreman sometime between the 12th or 15th round, or just take a comfortable unanimous decision victory. I'm sure George would rock him badly at some point in the fight, but I think Holmes had enough ring savvy to survive the scary moments and win the fight.

CrazyHorse wrote:George Foreman 2 Title Defenses
Larry Holmes 20 Title Defenses

You do the match

You seem to hide behind numbers to argue your points.

Probably because numbers can sound big and impressive without actually saying anything about the quality of the opponents.

Using a blind stats logic Foreman's KO of Norton is worth exactly the same as Holmes' KO of Scott Frank. Well that doesn't make sense.

I'll use your own facile numbers angle on you anyway:

Foreman/Norton 2 rd KO
Holmes/Norton 15 split decision

"You do the math"

fantastic matchup. best possible aside
of ali-frazier. all outcomes possible. i
would see larry winning.

loaded_gloves wrote:

CrazyHorse wrote:George Foreman 2 Title Defenses
Larry Holmes 20 Title Defenses

You do the match

You seem to hide behind numbers to argue your points.

Probably because numbers can sound big and impressive without actually saying anything about the quality of the opponents.

Using a blind stats logic Foreman's KO of Norton is worth exactly the same as Holmes' KO of Scott Frank. Well that doesn't make sense.

I'll use your own facile numbers angle on you anyway:

Foreman/Norton 2 rd KO
Holmes/Norton 15 split decision

"You do the math"

George Foreman Reigned: 1 Year 2 Months 4 Days
Larry Holmes Reigned: 7 Years 3 Months 12 Days

CrazyHorse wrote:

evrenb wrote:This is my opinion. George Foreman defeated Ken Norton - wasnt he a talented defensive boxer. Norton, Snipes, Weaver, Tyson etc all hurt Holmes bad. George had a great jab too. . I am a holmes nut dont get me wrong..an amazing fighter with great heart, speed jab you name it...but Foreman finishes him where Shavers, Weaver, Snipes couldn't. Say what you will george knew how to finish a guy off. I believe that if they fought 10 times George wins 6 or 7. Forced to make a bet its George. Not the Jimmy Young George...his style was a bit mixed after Clancy worked with him...73 /74 George...as long as they didnt fight in Kinshasa and as long as the ropes were not loose or the water poisoned, or food drugged or in the event of George being knocked down, a fast count.

#1. Norton was a good fighter but you can't put him in the same sentence as Larry Holmes. Larry Holmes stands alone in terms of best "Boxers". His 20 title defenses prove that.

#2. Tyson hurt Holmes? Congratulations Tyson beat an old Larry Holmes. Why don't we give Larry Holmes full credit for beating Ali who was already showing signs of Parkinsons

#3. You can't compare George Foreman's jab to Larry Holmes who hands down has the best jab and most powerful jab in the history of boxing

#4. Foreman said he never wanted to get in the ring with Shavers. Many boxers said Shavers hit harder than Foreman. Larry Holmes got off the deck and went on to punish Shavers

#5. Not skilled boxers he couldn't. He obviously had a very hard time dealing with guys who could box

#6. Foreman was 28 years old I believe. Hardly over the hill

Why do people bother to ask for opinions and when it doesnt match theirs try and convince u its wrong!!! Pointless. That is my opinion. Shall I change it to make you happier?

CrazyHorse wrote: George Foreman Reigned: 1 Year 2 Months 4 Days
Larry Holmes Reigned: 7 Years 3 Months 12 Days

Foreman lost to Muhammad Ali.

How long would Holmes reign have lasted if he had to fight a Muhammad Ali of '74?

You have no arguments, no knowledge, no apparent ability to critically assess fights or fighters or the timeframe they were competing in. In short, you're a troll. Or, as another poster called you, a 'moron, period'.

To be fair on George the majority of the men Holmes defeated as champion were average of second string opposition. One can argue that Gerry Cooney, Earnie Shavers, and Witherspoon were the best of the wins. Not exactly the strongest argument for success against Foreman, who blew away Ken Norton inside of two rounds, and he went the full route with Holmes in one of the closest fights in heavyweight history.

As for Holmes having faced the Zaire version of Ali, he had in a way, as he was Ali's chief sparring partner at that time and was soon let go because Ali couldn't do anything with him in the ring anymore. Holmes had gotten too god. I would wager from 1974 onwards Holmes had the capabilities of defeating Ali.

As for Holmes/Foreman in their primes, that's a true 50/50 fight. The fight I wanted to see, however, was Foreman/Holmes in their comebacks. That would have been more interesting. It was a different George Foreman, and it was the same Larry as always. Larry came up short for the title against Holyfield and McCall, while Foreman reigned as a linear champion until he was robbed against Briggs. But that doesnt mean that Holmes wasn't a danger to Foreman or really anyone else in the division at that time, after all he practically dominated every round there was against Mercer.

HomicideHenry wrote:To be fair on George the majority of the men Holmes defeated as champion were average of second string opposition. One can argue that Gerry Cooney, Earnie Shavers, and Witherspoon were the best of the wins. Not exactly the strongest argument for success against Foreman, who blew away Ken Norton inside of two rounds, and he went the full route with Holmes in one of the closest fights in heavyweight history.

As for Holmes having faced the Zaire version of Ali, he had in a way, as he was Ali's chief sparring partner at that time and was soon let go because Ali couldn't do anything with him in the ring anymore. Holmes had gotten too god. I would wager from 1974 onwards Holmes had the capabilities of defeating Ali.

As for Holmes/Foreman in their primes, that's a true 50/50 fight. The fight I wanted to see, however, was Foreman/Holmes in their comebacks. That would have been more interesting. It was a different George Foreman, and it was the same Larry as always. Larry came up short for the title against Holyfield and McCall, while Foreman reigned as a linear champion until he was robbed against Briggs. But that doesnt mean that Holmes wasn't a danger to Foreman or really anyone else in the division at that time, after all he practically dominated every round there was against Mercer.

I would've loved to have seen Holmes vs Foreman in the 90's as well.

loaded_gloves wrote:

CrazyHorse wrote: George Foreman Reigned: 1 Year 2 Months 4 Days
Larry Holmes Reigned: 7 Years 3 Months 12 Days

Foreman lost to Muhammad Ali.

How long would Holmes reign have lasted if he had to fight a Muhammad Ali of '74?

You have no arguments, no knowledge, no apparent ability to critically assess fights or fighters or the timeframe they were competing in. In short, you're a troll. Or, as another poster called you, a 'moron, period'.

The length of time in a fighter's reign as Champion is inconsequential to the people he beat during it. Jess Willard had a really long reign time wise despite not fighting anybody for years.

I believe Holmes could've beat the '74 Ali, but it certainly would've been a fight and not the farce that the world saw in 1980.

evrenb wrote:Why do people bother to ask for opinions and when it doesnt match theirs try and convince u its wrong!!! Pointless. That is my opinion. Shall I change it to make you happier?

I wasn't telling you to change your opinion at all. Just stating my opinion. Why do people think when I'm stating my opinion I'm forcing you to change your mind. I don't care. Who cares? We will never know who would have won Holmes vs Foreman because it has never happened. Just a discussion. Don't have to take it so seriously

loaded_gloves wrote:You have no arguments, no knowledge, no apparent ability to critically assess fights or fighters or the timeframe they were competing in.

I never claimed to be Cus D'Amato or Ray Arcel. Just because someone doesn't share the same opinion as you doesn't mean you have to get all mad lol

CrazyHorse wrote:

evrenb wrote:Why do people bother to ask for opinions and when it doesnt match theirs try and convince u its wrong!!! Pointless. That is my opinion. Shall I change it to make you happier?

I wasn't telling you to change your opinion at all. Just stating my opinion. Why do people think when I'm stating my opinion I'm forcing you to change your mind. I don't care. Who cares? We will never know who would have won Holmes vs Foreman because it has never happened. Just a discussion. Don't have to take it so seriously

Okay ....foreman's my brother. DD