What Are Holyfields Chances Against Foreman (Ali Fight)?

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?

 

Walcott, Moore.

 

Wlad wasn't fighting at 42yo. His last fight was when he'd just turned 41 and that was his first fight in a year and a half. Given Joshua's checkered career it's hard to be extremely confident Wlad may have fighting at Foreman's level. Maybe he was, it's hard to say.

Ironically Vitali had his last fight at almost the exact same age to the day as Wlad. He was still fighting quite strongly for sure.

Putting aside Foreman's second career peak, which i think I'd agree was around Holyfield, would those two be fighting as well as
Foreman at 45? Who would know, and it's certainly not something one could remotely assume. Once boxers get around that age things can go downhill - fast.

He had some help from the judges, but that's matched by him getting ripped off against Briggs, for the lineal title on the line no less. He must have been about 48 then. It may have been a blessing in disguise, it was a good time for him to retire.

 

The Holy of the Bowe 1 fight does ok the first 2 rounds, goes into Warrior mode and is knocked out in 4.

And this is coming from someone who thinks Holy a significantly greater ATG.

 

Yes hence me passing Vitali. I raised Wlad as he'd been retired for 2 years and it was a one off. It's an awkward fight to judge, that one off. You could paint it negative or positive and put up a decent debate.

Yeah it's a crazy gap isn't it. It would have been interesting if some did fight on that long, but it's better that barely any do for obvious reasons. apart from that many would surely lose their durability by that point and get destroyed. It's eye opening that Foreman could still ship big punches so well.

True.

I can't say I've seen many saying Foreman would slaughter everybody if young. What he did when old as the hills certainly adds weight to his abilities however. To compete and succeed as he did multiple era's later sure shows he could cut it. As a physical speciman he had KO punchers like Tommy Morrison turning to safety first game plans completely against type as they knew they couldn't handle him physically. We know Morrison was all roided up too. There's no doubt Foreman as an absolute physical freak, boxing wise.

Yes and Foreman missed the guts of that. Since Foreman's actual comeback it's come ahead much further. The guys looking good at almost 42 now have had much more at their disposal than foreman ever did. His success was more due to being a freak. Holmes did well too, within a different style. Holmes too would easily compete with anyone in recent years.

Yes totally agreed. Plenty of these guys have been caught out steroid wise and have plenty of supplemental help on their side which makes it an entirely different game. They also fight less and are loads older when starting to fight contenders than Foreman was.

 

Shilestone had to build Spinks up, Foreman had to build down. What specific 80's thru 90's techniques and advances in training technology are we speaking of, exactly?

Which of the new techniques and technology did Foreman use? I am a bit behind on his training methodology in his comeback.

Foreman and Vitali's career arcs aren't comparable, really, at all. Vitali was about 32 when he lost to Lewis, let alone won a title. Foreman was 24. Vitali hadn't even started pro boxing when Foreman was lineal and among his defenses.

If you are conveying Foreman might have been better H2H at 42 because of new training techniques and a bit of pacing and crossing his arms i don't know what to say. His "old" training techniques got him past an ATG in Frazier via blowout and a guy many consider near great in Norton.

Do you think the likes of SRR, Armstrong, Duran, Monzon, Foster and co would struggle today against fighters their own in the ring size because of these advances?

Foreman would be deep in the mix today as would the likes of Ali, Holmes and co. Guys like SRR and Duran would be having a great time.

Vitali was caught out in his kickboxing career so it's not as if he was against cheating with steroids. Wlad is his brother. There's a lot more smoke there than there is with Foreman. Ortiz got busted, a guy you used as an example of fighting at a high level in his 40's. Chisora does speak heavily against them. It's not impossible Foreman hit them, but for me it's more unlikely.

But yes peds are an awkward one. Even assuming everyone was on them i have little doubt the modern peds and application would be ahead of the 90's. I just give everyone the benefit of the doubt unless there's been enough smoke to the contrary. I wouldn't overly give the benefit regardless of whether he was "caught" pre boxing. I'd also be wary of Wlad too, tho less than Vitali. Ortiz is a ped man. Interestingly Zhang fired a sot over the Joyce bow regarding peds.

I agree tho, it's muddied waters.

 

So you believe Foreman was using such techniques? Sporting a different approach to stamina training based around energy system knowledge, he was utilizing heart rate monitors, plyometrics etc? you also think he was periodizing his training? Did he also raise his training volume to a lot higher standard? What exactly (new wave scientific/modern) did he add to make his success at such an old age easier to pull off? Foreman used weights for injury rehab, not to try and match 90's heavyweight for strength or make big gains.

Holyfield stood out from the field, as did Spinks. His regime was immensely different to the mainstream and not remotely anything like Foreman himself was doing. He was trying to make weight and strength gains, among other things, to allow him to compete with the big boys.

How much modern plyometrics did Foreman incorporate into his training? Holyfield's regime has little to do with Foreman's tho i appreciate you are noting differences in some modern training.

How many do you think were training like Holyfield?

Boxing long held the view building bigger muscles were a detriment so many weren't interested in delving in. Did some? no doubt. All? Not a chance. Did the likes of Holmes and Foreman? Personally i'd highly doubt it.

I can't find where i used "primitive" per a search. Can you zoom me in to the similarly worded comment and i will address it. I have no doubt i mentioned today was more advanced per being effective at an older age but can't find it at present.

What other 40-42yo fighters can you proffer up that were fighting at Foreman's standard at 23yo. All these 40-42yo studs seems to be guys that were barely fighting pro at 23 let alone lineal champs.

Even Holmes, who fought at a very respectable level at basically the same time as George when aging was only just going pro when Foreman was on top of the world and was about 28 when he hit the top of the Heavyweights.

Would you say Holmes wasn't much better at 40 odd than he was at his peak? Do you think Holmes at his peak could hit the top of the division today? Do you think Holmes training regime from 78-80 would allow him to succeed against all the new plyometrics and weight training etc? How about Ali? Forget that, you say below he'd have trouble. Lets focus on Holmes who is invariably rated below Ali.

Personally i think Larry Holmes would go great guns presently.

Thompson was at the 12 year mark as a pro at 40. Turned pro at what, 29? All these guys have far less years and fights under their belt than Holmes and Foreman. It needs to be added that Thompson was a proven drug cheat and was pro doping prior to getting banned.

There's no doubt others were fighting to a high standard at 40-42, even if not around 45+. The things is all these guys started late. I'm not arguing other guys around 40 or just over didn't fight to somewhat similar high standards as oldies, on a H2H basis.

Well lets talk about Curtis Cokes, Lloyd Marshall, Chavez, Azumah Nelson, et al. Some of these guys are 70 years behind in sports science. Would they be able to compete do you think? Surely all the new training methodology and science would make some of them defunct regardless of division, left behind?

Remind where that comment was again? In his book i think? What exactly did he say?

Would you say they'd be better fighters under modern training?

What would you say to the numerous believers in here that the old school boxing specific training and plenty of fighting and sparring from the days of SRR and co were better?

Foreman's 70 successes were rather big even if he did burn out early, mentally. His 70's performances are there for all to see, like Holmes 70's and start of the 80's performances. Holmes almost mirrors Foreman here, with Foreman going a half dozen years further back and Holmes having less break. I will say right now i immensely doubt Holmes 90's success is due to the 90's sports science vs say, 1980. Did Holmes even change his training routine, excepting allowances for age?

It's blatantly obvious to anyone with two eyes that Holmes was a vastly better fighter in 1980 vs when he was 43. Hell, he was a vastly different fighter from 1980 to 1986. Foreman was also a vastly more effective fighter in 1973. Could he have been a tad better with a few training changes in 73? For sure but not enormously so. He could have ran longer distance and concentrated some more on cardio and less on weight. Absolutely. As was he was still a monster at that time but unfortunately for him there's only one GOAT and he was far from the only ATG to find this out.