Follow up to my last question; Holmes vs. Foreman, in their primes?

Question

Tougher call. This time, however, I have to go with Holmes. He had speed and movement comparable to Ali's, and he's certainly the most underrated Heavyweight champ in history.
Holmes would have taken out Foreman the same way Ali did.
Agree. Disagree.

smitty's distance - 15 rounds

artistree - what grown men and women do of their own accord is really none of your business, as long as it harms no one else.

The dictionary definition of boxing is 'the art of hitting without getting hit'. To accomplish that, it takes talented individuals and years of hard work, with no guarantee at the end of it.
Combat is a skill perfected by only a select fiew, because unlike in other sports, a fighter's a** is on the line.
There's a reason why guys like Holyfield and Tyson have been paid 25 million dollars plus, for less than an hour's work.

My advice to you is to answer a question on a subject you know something about. As it is, every contributor to this forum will be laughing their a**es off when they read your answer.

'select few'

black panther - once again, terrific analysis; once again, made me think. You're right about Holmes running into problems if he'd try'd to box Foreman. People always focus on Foreman's power and forget what a terrific boxer he was (in both incarnations). There's a reason he won an Olympic gold medal.
But you're not taking Larry's jab into account. Mind you, Big George had a formidable jab of his own.
Pity this fight never happened.

As for the uninformed numbskull that answered first, all you guys covered that pretty well. Knew you'd be laughing your ****s off.

Answer 1

Panther you wax poetic and I love your answer! Artiststree- I hope you learned something if you even bothered to read his answer. I boxed at the amatuer level and in the Armed Services. Although never a professional take it from me it is a thinking man's game. Yes it's rough physically, it takes it's toll, but there is nothing more satisfying after winning a match, and you knew you won it by out thinking your opponent. I will also make this statement. There is no other sport I know of that requires you to be in top physical condition as the sweet science does, and I emphasize the word SCIENCE Artiststree.

Now on to Brad's question, 2 weeks back I answered a question posed by Mr. Cat. His question was who would win between Foreman and Holmes. Since he wasn't more specific I broke my answer down into two scenarios. Basically Foreman wins it when they are older and Holmes wins it when they were younger, in their prime physically and champions. Why? Because Holmes jab would have been sharper and he still had his legs. Therefore he would have executed his gameplan better(once again Artiststree gameplan a thinking man's game). Another point I would like to add If Jimmy Young who was an intelligent Heavyweight that lacked a punch could outbox Foreman and make him look bad (in the heat of San Juan, Puerto Rico back in '77), Holmes would have made him look worse. I'm not trying to denigrate Foreman, but back then he wasn't a thinking man in the ring as he was in his comeback (I hate to beat a dead horse Artiststree, but once again those two words come up THINKING MAN).

Answer 2

Brad ~
In my opinion, this fight wouldn't be any different later in their respective careers. Holmes had a great jab and that was it, he looked very uncomfortable when he was on his toes he tried his best to dance like Ali (he was Ali's sparring partner) but he didn't look right doing it. Holmes was not fast in his prime or as a amateur.
George had/has awesome power, people can say "he clubs with his punches" all that they want, if you get hit with one of the clubs, he knocks you out. The one thing that was very deceiving about Foremans was the way he held his hands in front of him, his powerful arms almost fully extended it looked like he was trying to hold the other fighter off of him, this gave him his range and seperated him enough from his opponent to be out of harms way, to a certain extent this would help him against Holmes lazer jab and set Holmes up for a counter right over the top.
The biggest difference in this fight would indeed be the power factor. Gerorge had it, Larry couldn't find it. The jab can only keep a fighter off of for so long, George would adjust and eventually catch Larry. Larry wouldn't be able to sustain Georges brutal body attack. The number one thing that bothered Holmes the most in his fight with Tyson was the body shots and in my opinion, George hit harder than Mike.
This fight intheir primes wouldn't go past 12 rounds, Big George would stop Larry.

Answer 3

Why would anyone pay tyson or holyfield millions of dollars for less than an hours work? They wouldn't. These guys as all amature and professional fighters do all of their work in the gym, for hours and countless sweating painful hours, long before a dollar is earned. The way they earn their money isn't broadcasted on fight night, its under a speed bag, behind a medicine ball, its the miles they put on their running shoes, its the discipline in thier diet and the understanding and support of their families and loved ones. Its the percieverence of chasing a dream that they have had since the first time they got up the courage to walk into a gym. It's hours at the heavy bag. It's mental destruction from their trainers. It's punching drills and sparring matches with sweaty headgear. Its swollen hands bloody noses and black eyes. For years. Not less than an hour on HBO at your friends house flipping through the channels on a Saturday night. Hope this helps your vision of boxing. You know who you are... PS sorry I didn't answer your good question - I got distracted by one of the answeres you reeled in and couldn't let it go....

Answer 4

To artistree:
Boxing is entertainment, a sport and nothing more. Its fans don't go there and say," Yay! He got owned and I loved having that blood shower me when he was knocked out." Instead, they talk as if it were soccer, basketball, baseball etc, "Who won yesterday? I think Tyson might win the championships..."

I think Foreman would have won because Rope-A-Dope is a one time trick and he is a freak of nature when it comes to strength. However, Ali's opponents did say it was nearly impossible to hit him with a good one, so Larry might be able to do what Ali couldn't and dance around Foreman (Ali said he got really tired in the first round, so he thought of the Rope-A-Dope on the spot). But, you have to consider that Foreman was also good at cutting off the ring.

Answer 5

that is tough. larry certainly had the capability to take george out to sea in the later rounds. and foreman's stamina was suspect in those days. still, if larry lost focus momentarily like he did against shavers & snipes, he might not get off the hook with george. but holmes had great recuperative powers. so... foreman floors holmes with a right in the 7th, but larry gets off the canvas & stops george in the 10th round, finally earning the respect of his critics--------artistree-y dont u start a new & civilized sport? 2 businessmen, armed to the teeth with treachery & lawyers, go head to head. the one who screws the other out of all his money wins.civilized! (sorry,guys. just couldnt let that one go)

Answer 6

foreman was my favorite all-time fighter so i`m biased yet i still think holmes would have totally dominated foreman before stopping him anywhere from rd 6-9, yes holmes had been dropped and at times he took fighters lightly and got stunned weaver,snipes but a match with george would ensure holmes would be at his ukltimate best, he was strong enough to survive had a good jab good movement good chin to survive 5rds and then he would be in control, holmes is a top 5 heavyweight of all time and as a side note would have mad a mockery of rocky marciano.

Answer 7

I would go with Foreman, When he hit the opponent felt like he had been hit by a telephone pool. I think the only reason Ali wun was that he had rhe entire crowd on his side and Foreman lost his cool and tired himself out!

Answer 8

foreman would get in under the holmes jab and win in 15

Answer 9

I think Boxing is a violent and barbaric form of human interaction. It clearly displays that lack of our species to progress from our primordial beginnings to a modern sophisticated civilization. Two grown men in a ring punching each other in the head is about as sophisticated as two pit bulls chewing on each other and the deranged people that watch this type of barbarism while finding it entertaining are truly behind the times.

Answer 10

first, at the risk of pissing off our first respondent, methinks you can't see the forest for the "artistree"(sorry for the lame pun). second, at the risk of "waxing" too eloquently, sir, you are not a boxing fan and obviously don't know much about the sport. boxing is not some flintstones type of brawl where two guys smash each other in the middle of a ring for some 10-12 rounds. rather, it is not unlike chess in that it is mostly a mental game manifested in physical expression. the art of deception is at its fullest expression in the sport where, from the weigh-in to the opening staredown to the final bell, opponents attempt to "psych"' each other out to gain victory(foreman or tyson vs anyone); hide the pain they feel to demoralize their opponent(ali vs norton 1); put on a brave face to show how much energy they still have(leonard vs hagler), even if their respective "tank" is empty(ali-vs frazier 3).

the cream of the crop are the boxers/stylists/matadors who take that physical expression to surreal heights(ali, robinson, leonard, etc.) and are almost poetic in their "dance"(...just made that up - kinda like it actually!).

at the other end of the spectrum, are the punchers(tyson, foreman, louis, hearns) who demonstrate a violent, savage beauty w/explosive power and quick, sudden knockouts that actually cause far less damage than sustained punishment over time.

somewhere in the middle are the craftsmen, the workerbees who steadily, gradually break down their opponents over the course of a 47 min encounter(hagler, chavez). contrary to your opinion, there is style, grace, and beauty in a prizefight, in addition to the occasional brutality, that make a fight compelling to watch.

to me, boxing is the ultimate sport, bec it is literally the purest of encounters: mano y mano, "man" vs "man"....no team(basketball, baseball), no tools(tennis rackets), no excuses. one succeeds or fails entirely on one's own preparation, skills, intelligence, and desire. one-on-one conflict doesn't get any cleaner or simpler than that. the desperation one feels when they are losing and put everything into one barrage of punches, out of which all they can hope for is that one shot will find it's mark and topple the man in front of them so they can go home and...rest!

the spirit, if not the truth and reality, of boxing was well-represented in the rocky movies(moreso, the first one) which represent one man's desire to triumph over his advesities and became a metaphor for one's struggle in life...as in the first movie, sometimes, one doesn't just want to win, one just wants to weather the storm and not give in to defeat. in the other films, one man wants to triumph over all that life threw at him. all of us feel this way at one time or another, don't we? it's what made "rocky" such a great movie and also what makes boxing such a great sport. we all, at one time or another, wanna just go in there w/whatever pain or problem we have and just knock it out or beat it up so bad that we triumph over it and/or it goes away. enroute, of course, we take our lumps and sometimes we suffer setbacks. in short, boxing is a metaphor for our eternal struggle(life), day-in, day-out, there's always something or someone in front of us who means to do us harm or take away what we have and/or treasure most dearly. so, do we give in or do we prevail? in boxing, it comes down to training. in life, it is only our education, our upbringing, or our intellect that carry us through.

dear, artistree - it's a real shame you can't see the beauty and symbolism in boxing, bec you don't know what you are missing. at any rate, i thank you for your contribution, but did you really expect warm responses to your question? perhaps you should air this particular opinion in another category.....

now on to the main event, i already tipped my hand in answering your previous question, brad-man. i think foreman would'a knocked out holmes whether it was in their primes or even at "the geezers-at-ceasars" show that got cancelled in '98. holmes was clever, but didn't quite have ali's intelligence or creativity to rope a dope. he would've first tried to box foreman(wouldn't have worked, despite his razor-sharp, piston-like jab), then, if he got somewhere w/that, he would've tried to bang w/foreman(which definitely wouldn't have worked). either way, larry would'a went home early, and big george woulda sent him there~