BoxRec

without a doubt in my mind.larry holmes jabs foreman into a tenth round
onesided tko.foreman eats the jab all night before he finally is stopped in the beginning of the tenth.

One of Holmes greatest assets was the ability to figure out and out think his opponent. Big George on the other hand pretty much fought the same type of fight every time, abandoning strategy and opting instead for brute force. Although at times he used that brute force to great effect, other times it was not enough. On this basis I would favor Holmes.

great boxing beats George holmes by dec.

George Foreman would die of straight left leather poisoning soon after losing an onesided points decision to Larry Holmes.

The spectators would die of boredom by watching round after round Larry stabbing out his left and landing at will, and George retaliating by swishing hay makers at the air.

We all love Larry.....Hat's off to Larry!.....but if George clips him it may not be his day.

That light heavyweight beat Holyfield. I don't think Foreman is overrated to the extent that Tyson is.

This si the fight that would have cemented Holmes' greatness. Maybe the young Foreman with the more considered approach of the old Foreman might be a much more formidable adversary. I go with Holmes by late stoppage...

George Foreman is so overrated, it's silly. Yeah, he beat a light heavyweight when he was 45, and he caught up with an ageing Joe Frazier. Aside from that, his best win was over Kenny Norton.

And who did Larry Holmes beat but Ken Norton, Shavers and a washed up Parkinson riddled Ali?

To me, the difference is that Holmes wasn't a dancer. He was a great boxer, but was far too willing to trade punches, he was good at being elusive at close range...but I have to figure if Holmes was going to fight close range with Foreman, he wouldn't last.

Nobody really survived George when they came to him. Call Foreman over-rated, but his power and aggressiveness were second to none. He was Earnie Shavers, except that he was bigger than Earnie, faster and maybe had more stamina and endurance. Another difference is that, if Shavers thought he hurt his opponent, he'd back off him, just like he did with Ali, George was the opposite, he'd beat and batter someone until the ref broke it up or the guy was flat on the canvas.

I pick George.

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:

George Foreman is so overrated, it's silly. Yeah, he beat a light heavyweight when he was 45, and he caught up with an ageing Joe Frazier. Aside from that, his best win was over Kenny Norton.

And who did Larry Holmes beat but Ken Norton, Shavers and a washed up Parkinson riddled Ali?

To me, the difference is that Holmes wasn't a dancer. He was a great boxer, but was far too willing to trade punches, he was good at being elusive at close range...but I have to figure if Holmes was going to fight close range with Foreman, he wouldn't last.

Nobody really survived George when they came to him. Call Foreman over-rated, but his power and aggressiveness were second to none. He was Earnie Shavers, except that he was bigger than Earnie, faster and maybe had more stamina and endurance. Another difference is that, if Shavers thought he hurt his opponent, he'd back off him, just like he did with Ali, George was the opposite, he'd beat and batter someone until the ref broke it up or the guy was flat on the canvas.

I pick George.

Holmes beat more undefeated fighters than just about anybody I can think of: Ocasio, Jones, Snipes, Cooney, Witherspoon, Frazier, Frank, Williams, Bey, Mercer plus alphabet title holders Weaver, Bonecrusher, and Berbick as well as Tiger Williams, Shavers and Norton. I'm not saying all those guys were exactly ATG material but thats a solid resume.

As for Shavers backing off when he has an opponent hurt, I think that maybe happened in one fight, what about against Norton, Holmes II, Clark, Smith, Sims, Mercado and the rest? He used to be famous for punching himself(or the opponent)out.

As for a Holmes-Foreman fight I see it being similar to Young-Foreman ,except more painful. Holmes by UD. Though with Big George of course there is always the chance that....

Flump wrote:

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:

George Foreman is so overrated, it's silly. Yeah, he beat a light heavyweight when he was 45, and he caught up with an ageing Joe Frazier. Aside from that, his best win was over Kenny Norton.

And who did Larry Holmes beat but Ken Norton, Shavers and a washed up Parkinson riddled Ali?

To me, the difference is that Holmes wasn't a dancer. He was a great boxer, but was far too willing to trade punches, he was good at being elusive at close range...but I have to figure if Holmes was going to fight close range with Foreman, he wouldn't last.

Nobody really survived George when they came to him. Call Foreman over-rated, but his power and aggressiveness were second to none. He was Earnie Shavers, except that he was bigger than Earnie, faster and maybe had more stamina and endurance. Another difference is that, if Shavers thought he hurt his opponent, he'd back off him, just like he did with Ali, George was the opposite, he'd beat and batter someone until the ref broke it up or the guy was flat on the canvas.

I pick George.

Holmes beat more undefeated fighters than just about anybody I can think of: Ocasio, Jones, Snipes, Cooney, Witherspoon, Frazier, Frank, Williams, Bey, Mercer plus alphabet title holders Weaver, Bonecrusher, and Berbick as well as Tiger Williams, Shavers and Norton. I'm not saying all those guys were exactly ATG material but thats a solid resume.

As for Shavers backing off when he has an opponent hurt, I think that maybe happened in one fight, what about against Norton, Holmes II, Clark, Smith, Sims, Mercado and the rest? He used to be famous for punching himself(or the opponent)out.

As for a Holmes-Foreman fight I see it being similar to Young-Foreman ,except more painful. Holmes by UD. Though with Big George of course there is always the chance that....

Wow, poor George is really not being given his due here.

First off, Foreman had a GREAT left jab of his own. Watch the Chuvalo fight, it's a thing of beauty. Definetly a heavier jab than Holmes had, whole Larry's was slightly quicker. Foreman also knew how to cut off the ring and was a devasating body puncher.

Beating an undefeated fighter means little to me. Duane Bobick was a glistening Olympian with a 35-0 record when Norton embarassed him on National TV, but no-one brings up him when mentioning Ken's career performances.

Could Holmes win . . .yes. But Foreman was much more dangerous than Weaver, Snipes, Shavers. He knew how to use his size and strength, and was very hard to beat at his best. Holmes would have to fight a perfect fight, but even at his best (Shavers II, Cooney) he had some moments of trouble. In Foreman's best wins (Frazier, Norton, Chuvalo) the opponent was never even in the fight. Both guys proved (in the Snipes and Lyle fights) they could get up off the canvas and win.

Tough fight, but I edge George at their best.

Flump wrote:

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:

George Foreman is so overrated, it's silly. Yeah, he beat a light heavyweight when he was 45, and he caught up with an ageing Joe Frazier. Aside from that, his best win was over Kenny Norton.

And who did Larry Holmes beat but Ken Norton, Shavers and a washed up Parkinson riddled Ali?

To me, the difference is that Holmes wasn't a dancer. He was a great boxer, but was far too willing to trade punches, he was good at being elusive at close range...but I have to figure if Holmes was going to fight close range with Foreman, he wouldn't last.

Nobody really survived George when they came to him. Call Foreman over-rated, but his power and aggressiveness were second to none. He was Earnie Shavers, except that he was bigger than Earnie, faster and maybe had more stamina and endurance. Another difference is that, if Shavers thought he hurt his opponent, he'd back off him, just like he did with Ali, George was the opposite, he'd beat and batter someone until the ref broke it up or the guy was flat on the canvas.

I pick George.

Holmes beat more undefeated fighters than just about anybody I can think of: Ocasio, Jones, Snipes, Cooney, Witherspoon, Frazier, Frank, Williams, Bey, Mercer plus alphabet title holders Weaver, Bonecrusher, and Berbick as well as Tiger Williams, Shavers and Norton. I'm not saying all those guys were exactly ATG material but thats a solid resume.

As for Shavers backing off when he has an opponent hurt, I think that maybe happened in one fight, what about against Norton, Holmes II, Clark, Smith, Sims, Mercado and the rest? He used to be famous for punching himself(or the opponent)out.

As for a Holmes-Foreman fight I see it being similar to Young-Foreman ,except more painful. Holmes by UD. Though with Big George of course there is always the chance that....

I assume you mean Carl "The Truth" Williams.

I forgot about Tiger Williams, I was thinking he was before Holme's time. All apolagies.

You know after giving this some thought I say Larry wins in the Ali to Young period. Because he would use the same formula that Ali did. However the sadder/wiser/older version might have learned from those errors and been able to pass the mental examination that Larry would bring.

It's too close to call but you almost have to have both Foremans at this fight to beat Larry....

Larry wins this one for me.

He would have outpointed George over 15 rounds.

He would have jabbed Foreman into oblivion.

Decagon wrote:George Foreman is so overrated, it's silly. Yeah, he beat a light heavyweight when he was 45, and he caught up with an ageing Joe Frazier. Aside from that, his best win was over Kenny Norton.

What is silly is that you would say something like this.

Moorer had been a heavyweight for a few years and was the heavyweight champion when Foreman beat him. That is pretty impressive for a 45 year old man.

Frazier had just turned 29 when Foreman beat him. He was still undefeated, was the champion and had shown no signs of declining.
Demolishing him in 2 rounds was one of the most awesome performances in heavyweight history.

Foreman was the only person who knocked out Norton in his prime. Norton was avery good fighter and knocking him out so easily was impressive.

Frazier had just turned 29 when Foreman beat him. He was still undefeated, was the champion and had shown no signs of declining.

alp u seem to be poor at noticing signs of decling of fighters........



frazier had shown drastic signs of aging since FOTC. frazier looked AWFUL in his 2 fights vs B level opponents in 1972. it was clear that FOTC had taken something out of frazier. fraziers weight balooned to 215lb......he looked fatter slower, lesser reflexes. he was no longer the ripped lean sharp fast 205lb killer he was in 1967-71. he was now the 215lb pudgy slower fighter. the extra weight did not help frazier at all......it in fact hurt frazier.


eddie futch wanted frazier to retire after FOTC. he knew frazier wasnt the same anymore. frazier never trained with the same intestity anymore after FOTC in 71. frazier almost died in the hospital remember?




by the time he fought foreman in 73, he was overweight, slower, and past his prime.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Frazier had just turned 29 when Foreman beat him. He was still undefeated, was the champion and had shown no signs of declining.

alp u seem to be poor at noticing signs of decling of fighters........



frazier had shown drastic signs of aging since FOTC. frazier looked AWFUL in his 2 fights vs B level opponents in 1972. it was clear that FOTC had taken something out of frazier. fraziers weight balooned to 215lb......he looked fatter slower, lesser reflexes. he was no longer the ripped lean sharp fast 205lb killer he was in 1967-71. he was now the 215lb pudgy slower fighter. the extra weight did not help frazier at all......it in fact hurt frazier.


eddie futch wanted frazier to retire after FOTC. he knew frazier wasnt the same anymore. frazier never trained with the same intestity anymore after FOTC in 71. frazier almost died in the hospital remember?




by the time he fought foreman in 73, he was overweight, slower, and past his prime.

Eddie Futch, great trainer, but he tende to be a little over protective at times.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Frazier had just turned 29 when Foreman beat him. He was still undefeated, was the champion and had shown no signs of declining.

alp u seem to be poor at noticing signs of decling of fighters........



frazier had shown drastic signs of aging since FOTC. frazier looked AWFUL in his 2 fights vs B level opponents in 1972. it was clear that FOTC had taken something out of frazier. fraziers weight balooned to 215lb......he looked fatter slower, lesser reflexes. he was no longer the ripped lean sharp fast 205lb killer he was in 1967-71. he was now the 215lb pudgy slower fighter. the extra weight did not help frazier at all......it in fact hurt frazier.


eddie futch wanted frazier to retire after FOTC. he knew frazier wasnt the same anymore. frazier never trained with the same intestity anymore after FOTC in 71. frazier almost died in the hospital remember?




by the time he fought foreman in 73, he was overweight, slower, and past his prime.

BB, Futch wasn't training Frazier for FOTY.

The Frazier of Kingston was past his best but to describe him as shot or washed up is really pushing it. He was about 5-7 lbs overweight, nothing major. He looked decent vs Stander . . .it was a great action fight and Ron was a tough customer.

Either way, Foreman knocks any version of Joe out. And Frazier is close to being my favorite fighter of all time.

i think a prime frazier stands a good chance at beating foreman.


he was more like 10lb overweight. a peak frazier is 204lb. it is major. frazier was pudgy 215lb. frazier was at his best when he came in under 205lb. he was faster, sharper, more mobile. he didnt carry extra weight well at all.

Sometimes you just have to accept a fighter not being 100% in his prime. The time span for a fighter to be at his very best is usually not all that long. Say he breaks in as a professional at twenty years old, it will take him a few years to gain expirience. So you figure bt twenty four he has reached his peak. Maybe he fights a couple more years and then starts to show signs of wear maybe at age twenty seven I realize all fighters are different. So if you took all of the fights and dismissed them because a guy was not in his prime you wouldn't have much left. Now at times the not in his prime argument is valid as fighters like Ali, Louis, Holmes, and many others to numerous to name fought on long after they had lost it. But where the agument is less valid is when a fighter might have had on of night or simply came in ill prepared.

[quote="BoxBuzz"]You know after giving this some thought I say Larry wins in the Ali to Young period. Because he would use the same formula that Ali did. However the sadder/wiser/older version might have learned from those errors and been able to pass the mental examination that Larry would bring.

It's too close to call but you almost have to have both Foremans at this fight to beat Larry....[/quote]

I am not sure who would win but I just looked at George's record and if I am not mistaken he had 2 losses in his first career. Ali and Jimmy Young. I remember watching Ali vs Jimmy Young on TV and I thought Jimmy Young beat Ali. I guess you could say Jimmy Young was like a prime Chris Byrd. Ali couldn't hit Young, Young was to elusive. So, for George to lose to Young is not a shock.

I don't think anyone could absorb the punishment that Ali could absorb. While Ali's rope a dope worked (with ridiculously loose ropes), George still pounded away at him and Ali took it. I can't see Larry using this strategy and I am not at all sure that he could absorb the punishment like Ali did.

So, I don't think Larry vs George would be like Ali vs George or Young vs George.

For me, its too hard to call. Larry showed great endurance and heart against Norton (who didn't have anywhere near the power that George had). So, maybe Larry could have out boxed George for a decision.

However, while showing great heart, I believe only a lucky,desparate punch saved Larry vs Witherspoon. If George caught Larry like Witherspoon did Larry would not have survived.

I guess I would have to lean towards the early George by KO.

The older George vs Larry is another close call. Although the older George was slower and more plodding, he was a lot smarter.

It would have been interesting. Too bad they never met in the ring.

TigerMoth wrote:The older George vs Larry is another close call. Although the older George was slower and more plodding, he was a lot smarter.

It would have been interesting. Too bad they never met in the ring.

Are you saying that the 45 year old version of Foreman could have been competitive against a prime Holmes? George was never the quickest of fighters even when he was 25, but in his second career he wouldn’t have been able to hit a prime Holmes. George performed admirably in his second career, but it was a very well managed career. You didn’t see him fighting anyone with any real speed, and there was a reason for that. Prime Holmes vs old George would have been VERY ugly. Picture Holmes-Mercer, but way more one-sided and probably not going to the cards.

I could see an argument for a younger Foreman beating a prime Holmes, but old George beating a prime Holmes would be more like a Twilight Zone episode.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Frazier had just turned 29 when Foreman beat him. He was still undefeated, was the champion and had shown no signs of declining.

alp u seem to be poor at noticing signs of decling of fighters........



frazier had shown drastic signs of aging since FOTC. frazier looked AWFUL in his 2 fights vs B level opponents in 1972. it was clear that FOTC had taken something out of frazier. fraziers weight balooned to 215lb......he looked fatter slower, lesser reflexes. he was no longer the ripped lean sharp fast 205lb killer he was in 1967-71. he was now the 215lb pudgy slower fighter. the extra weight did not help frazier at all......it in fact hurt frazier.


eddie futch wanted frazier to retire after FOTC. he knew frazier wasnt the same anymore. frazier never trained with the same intestity anymore after FOTC in 71. frazier almost died in the hospital remember?




by the time he fought foreman in 73, he was overweight, slower, and past his prime.

Frazier didn't look awful at all against Stander and Daniels. Like usual, he started off slow, but then he took over. He won these fights easily.

Frazier was never ripped or lean.
He weighed 212 when he fought Buster Mathis, and that was 5 years previously. Frazier had not have been at his razor sharp best against Foreman, but he certainly was far from being washed up.

Frazier never would have had a good chance against Foreman. Outside of a "puncher's chance" he had almost no chance at all. Foreman absolutely crushed Frazier; it wouldn't have made much difference if Frazier was a few pounds lighter. Besides the usual reasons that people point out why Frazier wouldn't have much of a chance against Foreman, Frazier was often a slow starter, which is a huge disadvantage against a devastating fighter like Foreman who was a fast starter.

Foreman's performance was exceptional and people should stop trying to take this away from him.

[quote="The Great John L"][quote="TigerMoth"]The older George vs Larry is another close call. Although the older George was slower and more plodding, he was a lot smarter.

It would have been interesting. Too bad they never met in the ring.[/quote]

Are you saying that the 45 year old version of Foreman could have been competitive against a prime Holmes? George was never the quickest of fighters even when he was 25, but in his second career he wouldn’t have been able to hit a prime Holmes. George performed admirably in his second career, but it was a very well managed career. You didn’t see him fighting anyone with any real speed, and there was a reason for that. Prime Holmes vs old George would have been VERY ugly. Picture Holmes-Mercer, but way more one-sided and probably not going to the cards.

I could see an argument for a younger Foreman beating a prime Holmes, but old George beating a prime Holmes would be more like a Twilight Zone episode. [/quote]

If I am not mistaken, Larry and George are almost the same age. So, if they fought when George was 45, Larry would have been in his 40's also. But, this is all theoretical. I guess the only way to approach it a defined way would be to consider if they fought in 1992, or if they fought in 1996 - pick a specific year and consider their age and ability at that time.

I suppose I am just saying that looking at their entire careers, I would lean slightly towards George.