Holyfield beat a better version of Foreman than Ali did

Well, he was 20 years older, he couldn't base his style on his 70's attributes. If he was in his prime he wouldn't need to adjust.

 

Foreman had more experience in the 90s like anyone else fighting at that age. But typically we don't use that to suggest the 40 year old is better.

Why would 70s Foreman fight the way he did in the 90s when he was able to knockout people so easily fighting the way he was fighting?

 

This is a valid and extremely pertinent point. Joe was very different after FOTC, I sometimes think a lot of his blood and guts motivation and passion was left there. And, to be forthright I do pick that Frazier over even prime George...but then, as I've mentioned too many times, in my mind FOTC beats EVERYbody.

 

No,,,just no,,,,

 

Yes the same goes the other way. When Ali and Fraziers competition improved they ceased being dominant. But thats not based on Frazier being old in his 20s. Thats just what usually happens when your competition improves. Not that Frazier didn't take several severe beatings that contributed to his early retirement. But unlike Ali while Frazier took a lot of damage he wasn't really washed per say even when he retired in 1976. In the Foreman rematch Frazier gave it his best shot. Part of what keeps aging legends going is remaining in title contention and Frazier was 2-3 even if he went on a run he was not getting another title shot until the champ was not named Ali or Foreman. There was really no point of continuing. Part of why Ali fought as long as he did is he didn't reach that point until the very end.

And this was 3 and a half years after the first Foreman loss 6 after FOTC. Fraziers damage shows up more in how inactive he was compared to Ali and less in the fights themselves. He was not old or washed in his 20s.


In terms of the quotes they are trying to explain the unprecedented obliteration of an undefeated champion. Have to remember Foreman wasn't supposed to win and the Norton fight hadn't happened yet. When a great champion lays an egg peoples first inclanation is to ask what was wrong with great champion rather than give the other guy credit its what I'm doing with Foreman v Ali thats just how fight fans are. This is even more true when they lose to an unproven challenger. Liston v Ali I is another example. Its a common trope in sports media "why did thing we didn't expect to happen and doesn't make sense to us happen, discuss". And then they discuss and come up with all sorts of explanations to reconcile the result with their previous understanding of the landscape. After Foreman beat Norton Fraziers loss become less "whats wrong with Frazier" and more "oh my god". Alis quote is just Ali being Ali btw.

Not acknowleding Fraziers 1 comeback fight in the 80s because its not relevant to this and changes nothing I didn't forget it.

 

It's hard to say he was strictly better.

90s Foreman was clearly slower, had slower footwork, lower workrate and he lacked the eye of the tiger that his 20 year old self had.

But on the flipside there are also positives for older George. His technique had improved. He had become a thinking fighter that was not only demonstrably tougher but who would also not gas himself out like his younger self did. He had developed a really nasty jab which, while slow, compensated a lot for his lack of explosiveness. He was clearly much bigger and stronger and harder to move. His punches were slower but holy hell they could shift people around.

I think 90s Foreman was better against certain fighters. If he'd fought Lyle I think 90s Foreman would have handled him with laughable ease. Any smaller guy coming to slug old man Foreman was SOL in my opinion.

On the other hand Ali wouldn't have had to rope a dope him and would probably have been able to use his footwork to hit and run without a sweat. Younger Foreman would have been much better against the lighter boxer types. I think Moorer would have been blown out early by younger Foreman.

 

But his competition didn't improve? Aside from Foreman and Ali, his best opponents post FOTC were Quarry and Ellis who Frazier had already beaten. In fact both of them had clearly regressed since their first meetings with Frazier so no it's not true that "Frazier only looked worse because his competition improved lolz".

If you don't think Frazier was done after Manila, their's really nothing more to discuss.

Frazier retired because he was done. It's clear as day he was a shot fighter against Foreman. He was legally blind by that point. He always had eye issues but after Manila they worsened dramatically to the point where he needed to have surgery, and actually wore contact lenses in the ring against Foreman.

Nobody is saying he was old nor washed up in his 20s.

Past prime, yes.

Washed, no.

It's clear as day he wasn't the same fighter post-FOTC. He'd climbed his mount Everest, and taken a lot of damage against Ali in TFOTC. Their were rumors that he'd actually died in the hospital. While they were grossly overexaggerated, he was seriously injured, which is why he didn't fight for the rest of the year, and upon his return fought against 2 unranked stiffs.

That being said, he still had something left in the tank as he showed against Quarry, and Ellis (though again, both Quarry, and Ellis themselves had seen better days), as well as in Manila.

After Manila though, he was clearly shot. This is beyond debate.

He came in woefully out of shape, a career high at 224.5, and despite abandoning his usual style, and dramatically reducing his work rate, he was still uncharacteristically gassed by the fifth.

"In terms of the quotes they are trying to explain the unprecedented obliteration of an undefeated champion."
Interesting, did "they" go back in time to criticize his performance against Daniels and Stander BEFORE the Foreman fight?

 

I can't agree there but since Frazier is my all-time favorite fighter, you'll get no argument from me.

 

Holyfield fought the peak version of Old Foreman.

 

I agree, he evolved with the game, 70s Foreman was better for his time, but in reality 90s Foreman was better.

 

The other explanation is the 10 years not fighting and adjusting to the reality he was too old for his old style to work.

Foreman did those things he didn't do in his prime because they weren't neccessary. He didn't need the power jab for example but he had it the whole time. Its nice Foreman debunked any myths about his gas tank that people could speculate about but that doesn't make what he was doing more impressive. It quite objectively wasn't.

"Foreman’s technique improved tremendously in his second career, why would he need to improve so much if his 70s style would have been good enough to compete in the 90s? Maybe he couldn’t score so many KDs because defence improved from what it was in the 70s where a lot of guys were wide open. Just my two cents"

I'm not a big believer in the drastic evolution of boxing after the sports early days.

 

Absolutely not. He lost so much speed by then. Had prime Foreman been in the ring w Holyfield, he would have finished him in that fourth round. Would have been no pacing just a demolition. Old Foreman was better w his stamina and a smarter fighter but his other attributes far exceeded what that garnered him. Imo

 

That logic doesn't add up though. By that logic the 1950s were better than the 70s because an old Floyd Patterson beat Bonavena and was robbed against Quarry and Ellis.

 

Just imagine how badly Morrison would have pummeled 70’s Foreman if he could better him in their actual fight. Probably wades in fearlessly for the KO in one.

 

Probably because he lost so much of the speed and explosivety he had in his youth, fighting like he did in the 70s would’ve drained 40 year old George’s tank in like 2 rounds. I don’t think any technical superiority the 90s heavyweights may have had really had a say in it. It just wasn’t an option.