What Are Holyfields Chances Against Foreman (Ali Fight)?

OK then...if we play by those rules, the relatively light fisted Ali knocked out an exhausted George. And Ronnie Lyle had him over several times. Old George hits harder and harder more often than either.. is it then inconceivable that the older man, who had a better defence and paced himself better, would weather the storm that would doubtless come, use his size and strength to tire out the manic younger man, who is already getting tired due to his huge expenditure of energy trying to get his older self outta there and finally sparkles him in..let's pick an entirely arbitrary round and say, the eighth? Yeah, the eighth sounds good.....

Hey man, good craic, thanks for your input. Peace and love, gbn x

 

Bizarre.

 

? In what way. You are citing Ol G being staggered by Cooney as evidence that Young G would stop him...I explained that I don't think you can do that but then applied the same logic you did to Young G....and I'M bizarre? Bizarre indeed brother man, bizarre indeed.

Oh, and just because I see a load of pigeons, here's another cat. I think prime Bowe beats George that night too...

Off to bed to dream of an unstoppable, unknockable young George getting stopped by a 7 years older, unfancied fighter considered well past his best and a big bookies underdog. But that is the stuff of dreams, ain't it? Could never happen....

 

Bizarre because I mentioned Foreman was hurt by noted big hitter Cooney, which you replied to be equating to young Foreman getting knocked out by relatively light-hitting Ali.

 

Are you disputing that Ali is relatively light hitting when compared to Cooney..? From memory Cooney ko rate was over 80%, Ali's was mid 60s I think...? I'm not sure how you can use sauce for the goose and disalow me to use the same sauce for the gander?

Anyhow, early start tomorrow, school night, peace and love, off to zzzzz x

 

I follow your logic here.

It had to read this paragraph 7 times before I understood what you're saying properly, but I did get there .

 

No, I’m staying that because a washed up Cooney visibly hurt him, it’s hard to imagine him surviving his prime self’s power, energy & finishing capabilities. Cooney even in his hey day was far, far below Foreman’s level, & was completely washed up when he actually fought Foreman.

You said, “if we play by those rules, light-hitting Ali knocked out prime Foreman…”

Im having a hard time seeing your point. Are you expecting old Foreman to rope-a-dope his way to victory? Of course both Foreman’s can hurt each other - but only one is going to follow up with a lot more punches, & do everything markedly faster. My money’s on him.

Really, it’s just common sense who would win this.

 

Fascinating discussion man, thanks again for your interesting opinions. I don't think old Foreman rope a dopes his younger self, I have written how and why he beats the version of himself that lost to Ali. He woukd excercise different tactics but win for ultimately similar reasons...in my opinion. You disagree and brother, that's cool! Have a wonderful day, off to work now, take care, gbn x

 

I wouldn't claim Foreman isn't an anomaly based on Vitali and zoning in strictly on 40+, barely.

Foreman's professional career spanned 28 years. Vitali's almost 16.
Foreman won the world title in under 4 years as a pro. Vitali won a respected belt at the 6 1/2 year mark.
Foreman regained the lineal title 21 years later. That's half a decade longer than Vitali's entire career spanned.
Foreman won the title at 23yo, Vitali at 33yo. Foreman regained it at 45, Vitali was retired at 41.

Based on just late age effectiveness you have a point but the span difference is astonishing. Ortiz is handy at 45 but has boxed 14 years with less than half the fights. Zhang has fought just 10 years for just 30 fights.

Vitali's high level span was a heap of years less and he had far less fights. While some guys are remaining effective later when it's all added up there's big differences. What Foreman did, on multiple fronts, will never be seen again.

 

Most fighters don't have a 10 year gap because it doesn't make financial sense. Barring someone else getting a religious revelation and quitting for a decade, it's true that we won't see another career exactly like Foreman's again. We also don't see many all time greats like him.

But if the question is how unusual his level of performance was for a man of his age, I think the answer is now "unusual, but no longer unique."

Foreman's best second career fight was Holyfield, at least as far as his own abilities were concerned. He was 42 there. He was considered past his (second) best by Moorer, but he was cunning and still good enough to out-gambit Moorer. After Moorer, he eked out disputable wins against not great opposition way past the point when he should have retired from a purely physical standpoint.

Vitali continued to dominate people until he retired at 42. Zhang is about at the same level as he's been for a while, and he's also early 40s, and still around. Ortiz remained viable until about 40 (and as you say, he remained handy until 45). Wlad was 41 with his last good performance against Joshua, though past his best when that happened (he's one of the weaker examples, IMO.) 2nd career Foreman didn't see a decline until after Holyfield at age 42, which isn't far off from the general trend.

Once we get past looking at their ages, I don't know how you'd compare how hard it was for Foreman to come back after 10 years to all of this. Nobody does it, because why would any elite boxer retire in his prime when he still has his earning power? It took what Foreman believed to be a literal message from God to do that. Not a common event.

On one hand, that's a ton of ring rust. On the other hand, he didn't jump right back into contention. He built himself up again from the ground up, for years. He's also not comparable to guys like Ortiz, the Klitschkos, or Zhang, who'd been boxing and sparring almost nonstop since they were young. That's a lot of attrition without any time for the brain to heal. I don't think Foreman would have been able to compete constantly from 1969 to 1997 and still be able to retire intact. We don't have anybody to compare Foreman's career path to, so we don't know how tough his longevity was to achieve compared to the modern tough old guys.

As to whether Old Foreman was hands-down inferior to Young Foreman, his weird career path makes it harder to answer, because he's the only heavyweight whose career straddles the training divide from the old school 60s/70s and the influx of modern training and medicine in the 80s and 90s. A Young Foreman who trained and hydrated like his older self might have had a career trajectory more like Vitali, except better performances earlier in his career, and finally deciding he couldn't perform close to his best anymore in his early 40s. But Old Foreman has training advantages that the younger one didn't, and it shows in his stamina and durability seeming to actually improve rather than very slightly decline with age. Probably hit harder and was likely stronger, too, but it's harder to tell without a consistent set of opponents, or a bench press.

Ultimately, there are two different issues here. First is what Foreman's achievements mean for his greatness. Second question is how much worse we'd expect Foreman to be at 42 than his prime version. It's quite consistent to say that Foreman achieved incredible results while not being unique in his rate of physical decline.

 

Old Foreman can hurt young Foreman but where’s he going to get the energy to finish him off? When did he ever show that in his comeback? Lyle had a rusty Foreman at death’s door & couldn’t finish the job - & it’s not as if old Foreman is immune to his own power. This is a three round fight.

 

Kudos to @Ney and @Philosopher for a brilliant discussion. I got the impression both finished with respect for each other and accepted the challenge to their views with grace and rose to the challenge. Great stuff, chaps.

They gave two opposite views and I'd happily accept either. But @Ney swings it saying the younger George beats the older one as we all would beat our older selves. Lot of truth in that.

Old George had a few big advantages, though. He was very relaxed. He doesn't burn off any excess energy. Also he has that cross arm defence that would be good against his younger self's swings. And no way is young George pushing him into optimum punching range. But I still side with Ney.

As for the question, the Foreman of 74, even Zaire Foreman, was a force of nature. It took more than just skill and preparation to beat him; it needed some divine intervention. There are very few heavyweights who could have summoned that kind of intervention. Evander Holyfield was one of those who could. Not saying he wins but he's got that almost supernatural something that gives him a chance.

 

What a credit it is to Foreman that at age 40+ he can even elicit a discussion about how he’d do against his prime self. How many other fighters could ever do that? With the span of time we’re talking, he may be the only one in all of history.

 

I mean to answer this eons ago.

His level of performance for a man of his age is closer to being matched for sure. The more recent era is seeing athletes perform at a very high level at much more advanced ages. It's never more obvious than by looking at Federer/Nadal/Novak in tennis. Their longevity, quality at an advanced age and overall success is virtually beyond comprehension. Sports medicine and science has changed the face of the game in many sports.

His level of success at an advanced age is however still unmatched, a complete anomaly. I'd like to say it will never be matched but the way things are headed it may well be.

All the modern guys so far have far less fighters tho, despite the 10 years gap.

What will never be matched is being good enough to win the lineal title for the second time more than two decades apart. It's beyond an anomaly, it's insane. It will probably never be matched at any weight let alone heavyweight.

 

After Foreman who are the next oldest fighters to beat top 10 opponents at heavy

The closest that come to mind are
Holmes (42)
Holyfield (44)
Vitali (40)
Zhang (40)

anyone else?