I think Holyfield beats 70s Foreman is that an unpopular opinion?

Holyfield was a natural light heavyweight/cruiserweight. He was on the juice for most of his career and was actually very brazen about it. Even after his heart condition, most likely due to the effects of HCH, he doubled down on his lies and claimed that God cured him. The man was a good boxer and tough, but unless he was juiced up he would have no chance against any version of Foreman. That’s the hard truth.

 

Holyfield was a juiced up light heavyweight/cruiserweight. He could have completed in the 50’s against Marciano, Walcott, Charles, , Moore, but most likely would have been to light even for Rocky without HGH and the roids. Probably the worst thing that he did was not lying about his PED use, but his worst lie was saying that GOD healed his heart condition which was brought on from HGH abuse. It’s pretty bad when you need to get the deity involved in your coverup.

 

Frankly, does it even matter?

Evan Fields is the guy we see on film in the ring. He's the one everybody is debating how he'd do against Foreman. The thread isn't about an imaginary Holyfield who trained like Ezzard Charles.

Yes, Holyfield -- like many other 90s fighters -- was cheating by taking steroids. His cheating wasn't even limited to PEDs; he also headbutted people. (And Foreman shoved people.)

But the responses that foreground Holyfield being a religious hypocrite and liar...What's the point? If you present an argument that Holyfield defeats Foreman on stylistic grounds, and your critic replies, "Yeah, but Holyfield was a terrible person," that doesn't move the needle. Liston wins his fair share of fantasy fights despite beating people up for the Mafia. Does that make Liston less good at boxing?

Again, dunno where that's supposed to go, except to try to change the thread from "Foreman versus Holyfield" to "Foreman versus Holyfield from an imaginary 90s where Holyfield is perfectly drug tested." And then matching him against a Holyfield who never existed in the ring.

 

or:
70's Foreman couldn't take what 90's Foreman took from Holyfield. No way. He's going down.

 

Water weakens legs. Real boxers are solid and desiccated like a pile of beef jerky.

 

When did Holyfield actually get knocked out against harder punchers than he was? Not buzzed. Out? I think people are missing the forest for the trees, here. Lennox and Tyson were two of the hardest, most skilled hitters of all time, and they dropped Holyfield zero times over four fights. (Might be misremembering?) Rahman couldn't do it. 90s Foreman couldn't. Bowe needed three tries and some attrition to stop Holyfield. Etc.

Holyfield's headbutts stopped more big punchers (Tyson indirectly, Rahman) than big punchers' actual punches stopped Holyfield.

 

Funny…. there were “papers published” in regards to widespread it (I assume steroids) were widespread in sports. Did RFK jr give you those reports? I know that some athletes used steroids in the 70’s. I knew a few and it was quite easy to tell. The steroids most athletes used during the 70’s, and more specifically, the usage of steroids was not as sophisticated back then. It was easy to tell. You just need to look at former Pittsburgh Steelers offensive lineman Steve Courson or DL Lyle Alzado to see that I mean. Steroids were used in by athletes to bulk up. Boxers prior to the 80’s were not into weightlifting as it was feared that that type of training was harmful to a boxer. Diuretics or some type of amphetamine were more likely abused by pro boxers during those years to cut weight— not steroids. Look at the body builds of boxers prior to 90’s. Look at Holyfield’s body in 85 when he turned pro at a light heavyweight. Then compare his body from then to when he fought for the cruiser weight title less than two years later. Then he goes to 205 at heavyweight and then ends up looking like a black Popeye the sailor at 215lbs. Body he and Tyson looked juiced when they fought. Joe Louis had a completely different body type and physique from Holyfield. Louis was not tightly muscle bound but he was fit and lean with muscles. Holyfield was caught cheating and still lied. He’s the one who publicly came out and said that God healed his heart and and that PEDs had nothing to do with it. No one made him say those things and people have a right to call him out for lying and cheating. Foreman was WAY over 300 before his comeback. The man was always strong as a bull. Foreman was not trying to bulk up or get stronger he was trying to cut weight and increase his endurance which was a problem for him during the 70’s.

 

I guess you have every right to complain that Holyfield was a hypocrite, but how is that relevant to whether he beats Foreman in a boxing match?

Foreman mugged people. Does that mean he loses a boxing match to Holyfield?

Heck, Foreman was accused of molesting women. Several lawsuits were filed over it. Even if those allegations turned out to be true, how on Earth would that be relevant to whether he can beat Holyfield in a boxing match? It wouldn't be. A fighter's moral failings have very little to do with whether they can win a fight in a boxing ring.

(Unless you're saying that Holyfield should be drug tested for this fantasy fight, but I have no idea what that version of Holyfield would even be like -- probably a slightly bigger Ezzard Charles -- so it wouldn't have much to do with the thread.)

Also, on a note we both agree on: genuine kudos for giving the further thoughts on the use of PEDs in the 70s.