foreman vs holyfield ??

The Foreman who fought Evander Holyfield at 43 years of age, was a reconfigured fighter who came to the match better equipped to deal with a man of Holy's style and physical attributes.

In 1974, Foreman was very unaccustomed to taking on opponents who could lure him into the later rounds before wearing him down and stopping him. Evander's chin, heart and physical conditioning could get him through the storm early in my opinion. I also happen to think that his upper body strength was at least comparable to Foreman's and would make it difficult for George to bully him in clinches or push him back the way he did so often against others..

The only way Foreman can win this is if he stops Holy sometime within the first 5-6 rounds or so, and frankly I can't see anyone doing that to Evander at the peak of his powers...

 

Disagree.

Evander just gets hit too often. Way too often. And he takes a real good shot to the head, but I always thought he really didn't take it to the breadbasket too well. Evander doesn't hit all that hard and I think, anyway, George just throws too many of those "anywhere' punches of his to the body and he hurts Evander. Then, it's time for the uppercuts & that's another punch Holyfield gets hit with. Guys that did well in the 70's against Foreman were boxers that don't get hit by uppercuts and thereby take away a huge part of George's arsenal.

 

I don't even think Evander could survive the assault of the Foreman that demolished Frazier. Then again he possibly could. I'm a massive admirer of both. I think Foreman gets a lot of unfair detractors on here. But how can you count out Holys resolve? Tentatively I pick Foreman by stoppage in the 5th in one of the greatest fights of all time!!!!

 

Could very well be the case, but no matter how hard I try to envision it, I can't seem to picture him being stopped early. I also happen to think that as much as he had the tendency to get pegged, Foreman's defense in those days, wasn't anything to write home about either. Sure, Frazier and possibly Norton hit harder than Holyfield does, but neither of those men had much of a chance to land anything on George, whereas I think Holyfield would.. In fact, I could see this fight playing out in similar fashion to the Lyle match, only I think Holy could weather the storm better...

 

Prime against prime, I would still bet on Holyfield in this matchup.

 

Well, Foreman was still young enough at age 42 to beat Holy in 1991, but Foreman was too massive and bulky, and slow at 257 pounds..... Had Foreman bean a leaner but still pumped hard 245 pounds against Holy, the result may have been different...... Foreman was a **** hair or two too slow to really catch Holy with a barrage type of attack...... Round 7 was Foreman's best effort in attacking and trading with Holy.... After round 7, Holy got back to sticking and moving while turning Foreman in the center of the ring...... Peace....

MR.BILL

 

When Holyfield chose to box and use his skills, he did a number on old Foreman. When he chose to slug he got nailed. Evander always had better boxing skills than Foreman in my opinion and would have beaten any version of Foreman if he boxed intelligently.

 

Except I think he would have gotten nailed a lot worse against a younger version of George Foreman.

If Holyfield goes to war, he ends up getting the worst of it. If he sticks to his gameplan and tries to box his way to a decision, which he often didn't, he has a good chance of winning.

 

Not sure he would have approached that fight in the same manner. There was a bit of an ego thing going on with Holyfield as he thought there was no way this old man was going to stand in with him. It took Holy the entire fight to realize how tough George really was. I dont think it would have been an easy fight for Holy, but I would still favor him.

 

I think he fought as well as I've ever seen him fight according to the plan against old Foreman. He executed his gameplan almost perfectly, aside from being caught in some (perhaps unnecessary) exchanges but that is to be expected of a warrior like Holyfield who never truly had the greatest defense in the world.

 

Yeah your probably right, he did it against Bowe. It would be interesting to see what young Foreman could do, but I dont suspect it would be any better than Bowe, who was overall a bit more skilled in my opinion.

 

Question is, would Holyfield be as clever as Ali?

 

Holy was real good and slick against Foreman in '91...... Holy was / is still a good boxer when he wants to be.... Christ, a 46 year old Holy boxed circles around Nick Valubum last December only to be jacked outta the decision cuz of lack of punching...... "Lack of Punching," geez, both guys were equally guilty there....... I had Holy winning over Valubum by way of a very stinky fight.......

MR.BILL

 

Mr. Magoo Holyfield isnt nearly as strong as Foreman. Evander has stated that Foreman was stronger than any fighter he ever faced.

Bert Cooper almost had Holyfield out early but Cooper isnt nearly the puncher or finisher a young George Foreman was.

Foreman's stamina wasnt better when he got older even though most of you kids believe that because people like Bert Sugar told you so. If anything Foreman stamina's was worse. The older you get the smaller your lungs get which means your stamina gets worse. Foreman didnt throw as many punches when he got older so it looked like his stamina was better. Not to mention Foreman had 47 bouts before his comeback and was only badly fatigue against Ali and against Young. He could go 10 rounds when he needed to like he did against he higly underrated Gregorio Peralta.

Holyfield also said many times that old Foreman hit him harder than anybody. Logic would tell you that a young Foreman hit harder. So if old slow Foreman could hurt him then a younger faster Foreman would stop him.