Holyfield beat a better version of Foreman than Ali did

Comeback Foreman's best wins: Moorer (excellent win) and a past it Cooney. Briggs can be counted as a win too but Briggs was a decent fringe top 10 guy.

Prime Foreman's best wins : Frazier 1, Norton, Lyle.

Lol this isn't close. Young Foreman moved much quicker, could throw 4-6 punch combinations and was offensively more dangerous.

 

If I understood the context correctly, it was about a specific Foreman, from specific fights that showed his capabilities and potential at that time quite well. Of course, this is speculation, but if you assume that you have a good evening at the age of 45 and a bad evening at the age of 25, why assume that you weren't better on that better evening? Foreman from the fight with Holyfield was clearly better than Foreman from the fights with Grimsley, Morrison, Savarese or Moorer.
We're talking about Foreman from these TWO fights. It doesn't matter much to fight Lyle, Frazier or Norton

 

Even among great fighters the cross armed defense doesn't lend itself to great offense.

 

I think you're being gracious, my friend. By the moment.

 

So Holyfield Foreman is a mythical version of himself like Tokyo Douglas, FOTC Frazier, and Kinshasha Ali?

 

Cleveland Williams Ali

Not a myth, though imo. I'm not convinced there's ever been a heavyweight whom could have beaten that guy.

 

Archie Moore was called the knockout king. George Foreman produced terrifying knockouts as an old man using it. Norton was a notorious come-forward boxer-puncher, and so was Frazier. Tim Witherspoon set-up a terrible right hand out of it. Henry Armstrong marched forward despite uppercuts and hooks flying his way. Schmeling stopped Louis. Gene Fullmer gave Robinson fits.

Sure, every example includes additional layered context of style and stratagems, and those fighters were already great crackers, but bottom line is, you can be a terrifying offensive fighter whilst using the horizontal defense. A true crossguard in my book is hardly just the locking of the arms itself, but a system of catch, parries, head movement, elbow flips and crushes, et al.

 

Done better in regards to lasting the distance vs Ali ? Probably. But in regards to being effective vs Ali absolutely not old Foreman wouldn't win a round vs 1974 version of Ali.

For me it's not even debatable a big part of Foremans strengths were his power but the issue is he was so slow in his 2nd career he struggled to land the follow up punch.

I already used the example of the Morrison fight and Morrison said himself he could handle Foreman's single punches but he was never getting hit with the follow up punch from Foreman due to how slow he was.

I just don't understand what people are seeing quite honestly old Foreman was far slower which was a detriment to his power because he struggled to land follow up punches vs better fighters. He was also far less effective at cutting off the ring and he made Morrison look like a boxing wizard.

For me it's a no brainer the 70s Foreman is a considerably better H2H fighter and I've never heard of an example in any sport that an athlete in their 40s is better than their younger self.

 

Reminds me of Foreman-Frazier ll. Sure he lasted longer but imo he looked worse fighting in a style which was completely alien to him. Foreman 2 .0 would last longer in Zaire than Foreman 1.0 but if Alex Stewart lumped him up can you imagine what Ali would have done to him?

 

Anyone that tells you that they are stronger and faster when they are in thier forties then they were in thier twenties is not being truthful. You simply are not.
Foreman was SMARTER in his forties but nothing like he was in his twenties.
If Evander would have fought a young Foreman like he did against the older version of Foreman he would have gotten steam rolled in under 6 rounds.

 

The argument is he was an infinitely smarter fighter with the emphasis on infinitely and that more than compensation for his slower reflexes and hand speed.

 

You can never compensate for speed and power it just doesn't work like that.
You can be as smart as you want but if you do not habe the tools it won't do you any good.
Holyfield met a much older Foreman who still retained SOME of his power and had learned, or had to , pace himself.
Power is the last thing that leaves a boxer but it isn't like Foreman had the same power he did in his prime because he did not - he just had enough left where it was still too much for most opponents.

 

76 + 191 doesn't equal 195, it equals 267.

 

Thats not how cumpubox works dummy.

 

You have the numbers for Lewis transposed. Power punches should be 119 and not 191. Then you get 195. Crazy thing is Lewis was arguably more effective in the first fight which was ruled a draw.