BoxRec

I slightly favor Foreman in this one, although Holmes can pull a decision.

Both were competetive against a prime Holyfield.

generic screen name wrote:I slightly favor Foreman in this one, although Holmes can pull a decision.

Both were competetive against a prime Holyfield.

Both go down from a heartattack around round 7.

pundit wrote:

generic screen name wrote:I slightly favor Foreman in this one, although Holmes can pull a decision.

Both were competetive against a prime Holyfield.

Both go down from a heartattack around round 7.

HA! I actually giggled after I read that! what do you rule that? a TKO for both?

Holmes never won the title in his comeback, Foreman did. Foreman played it smart by taking alot of tune ups fights in his comeback to shake off the ring rust---and let's face it Foreman fought better men then what Holmes did in the comeback.

Plus Foreman has alot of pwer, even though he had more decision wins in his comeback than in his prime---plus he was 10yrs smarter, so far more deadly.

Holmes had too much of an ego and never really tuned up for the Holyfield bout---nor did he for the McCall fight. Holmes has skills, but all he had was the jab mainly.

I think Foreman and Holmes, if they fought today, would be somewhat a hard call. Foreman in his prime would have blew away Holmes. Foreman in his second comeback would have given Holmes hell.

Holmes still fights off and on, exhibitions and real bouts from time to time.
Foreman did consider making a comeback and was in process of training but gave up on the idea after his wife begged and pleaded.

I think all it would take is Holmes getting hit once. I mean look at the Butterbean fight, Holmes was dropped in the final round. If the Bean could do it...imagine what Foreman could do...55 or not.

Wow you must really hate Larry Holmes! Foreman still had the better comeback.

It does not appear that Foreman fought better competition in his comeback than Holmes.

Holmes in his comeback, other than McCall and Holyfield and Mercer, never really fought anybody of note, in my mind at least.

Foreman least fought Qwai, Morrison, Coetzer, Cooney, Savarese, Grimsley, Briggs, Shultz, Stewart, Ellis and then throw in good tough journeymen like BigFoot Martin, Bert Cooper, Mike Jameson, Adilson Rodrigues...plus scads of other names that more or less set-ups.

Throw in Holyfield and Moorer, and Foreman easily has better opposition he faced than Holmes did in their comebacks.

No I don't HATE Larry Holmes, I just think he wasn't all too interesting to watch, besides his legacy for not unifying the titles cus he was money-hungry rather than being a true champ. Plus add in most his opponents were a bunch of bums, so that don't really impress me, despite having 20 title defenses or not and being champion for 7yrs.

Think of it THIS WAY...if Holmes never existed it would have been COONEY, not Holmes who would have been champion during the 80's. And yet everyone wants to say Cooney was nothing more than a white hope.

Most of those guys don't look like top competition to me. The best guys Foreman faced were no better than the best guys an older Holmes faced.

Whatever chanve Holmes has in the early 80's when he was faster and quicker on his feet, he gets tagged much easier from 1988-92 and George still had that monster punch, he KO's Larry in the comeback yrs no doubt....