Prime Foreman vs Holyfield

I would hardly call them successful. In fact Mercer's recent career events had been rather embarrassing until he knocked out some MMA fighter. McCall hasn't exactly faced world class opposition aside from his losses to JC Gomez.

 

I think that for some reason you think that in my post I was insinuating that Holyfield was some sort of heavyweight demi-god who was close to unbeatable. I was saying no such thing. You don't need to remind me of Evander's deficiencies among the big boys, I am aware of them. My opinion is not based on Holyfield being an unstoppable monster, but more on my belief that 'Big George' has always been horrendously and horribly overrated. Against a certain style of fighter, like Smokin' Joe, he would always do well. However, against a guy who had the ability to box and move if he wanted to, and a guy who was tough enough to hang with a fighter even bigger and arguably more physical than George (Big Daddy Bowe), big George's lumbering movement and telegraphed punches and porous defence would see him completely outboxed and beaten. Don't forget here - Foreman was a huge beast in the 70s, Holyfield was the smaller man in the 90s. Foreman was able to crush the smaller Frazier, Holyfield eventually succumbed to the might of Bowe. BUT, put Foreman and Holyfield in the same ring, and there is not going to be a great difference in height, weight, reach, or strength. And outwith power, Holyfield is the superior fighter in every way.

Holyfield wins this one all day long.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG4Vaw_w8bc[/ame]

 

Well they were no were near as succesfull as Foreman. But wasn't Mercer 41 when he challaged for the WBO Heavyweight Title?

In McCall's last 15 fights. He has last just lost once by world class JC Gomez. In that time he knocked out Yanqui Diaz, who in turn knocked out JC Gomez in a round.

I'd say McCall's has had success in his 40's. There has also been talk of a title shot in the near future. I'd say that's success.

 

Larry Holmes is a rare bread that was great.............. Aside from "The Homer" who else up in age was able to keep pace from their youthful days?? It sure as hell wasn't Benny Leonard or Ray Robinson........ Robinson looked real slowed and faded ata ge 41 against Fullmer in fights 3 & 4........

As for Archie Moore...... Moore was a boxer / puncher.............. Moore was slick and cute, but not extremely fleet of foot or a flash with his paws...... Moore generally had good defense, despite being tagged by several key fighters, but he was never really graceful like a dancer.........

Most aging fighters who are known to plod and slug generally get outboxed by a younger tiger.... Plodders / Sluggers are normally slower than slick boxers.... As a slugger, these dudes get slower with age..........

MR.BILL

 

And see how it ended up.

When Diaz hadn't won in 5 fights in a row.

If he ever gets a title shot then it's a title shot he deserved for what he did in the 1990's. Because he certainly hasn't done anything to deserve one for what he has done recently.

 

.

But it's still succes getting a title shot at that age and he got a future Hall Of Famer in Wladamir Klitschko. To Just get a World Title shot at 41 is a success.

He still had knocked out JC Gomez do. And he was alot younger than McCall.

Maybe. But he has won 14 out of his last 15. I think maybe he deserves to go in a eliminater of some sort. And for me that is successfull.:good

 

You mean the third fight where he was robbed in against the reigning middleweight champ?

Robinson was not the Robinson of old, but he was still world class well into his 40's.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2Gi4wQA-JQ[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpNCXfQHTQU[/ame]

The young Archie Moore was actually a quick combination puncher comparable to the many prospects you often see today. As he got older, he changed his style into a more energy-conserving slickster. He always carried a heavy punch but he had a lot more than that to his game.

True. I think a lot of the times it's the slugger who gets worse at a younger age, often not because he has gotten that much worse physically but because he has been figured out.

Max Baer was a strong puncher with an equally strong chin yet he was finished by his 30's if not earlier.

Ron Lyle was shot to bits at 37. Shavers was decent until his mid/late 30's. Sandy Saddler was fading in his late 20's although his career was cut short. Julian Jackson was done in his mid 30's. Pipino Cuevas was done at 24.

 

90's Foreman was a lot, lot bigger than his 70's former self. They say for powerlifters that they don't always reach their peak until late 30's or 40, definitely the case for old George in that his brute strength was never better.

The Foreman that fought in the 90's also fought a lot smarter than the younger version. It's hard to draw a lot of conclusions from their actual fight, as the older Foreman was so unlike the younger one.

 

Prime 70s Foreman:

Weight - 220lbs, Height - 6'3 1/2", Reach - 82"


90s HW Holyfield:

Weight - 215lbs, Height - 6'2 1/2", Reach - 78"



I repeat: Put Holyfield and Foreman in the same ring, and there would not not be a great difference in weight, height, reach, or any other physical factors.

Holyfield is the better fighter in every way except punching power.

 

The difference will look at lot bigger in the ring. Foreman was 217 to Frazier's 213 yet he looked like a giant next to him. He did not have to add 40 pounds to his frame as Holyfield did, he was a natural 220 lber.

 

The thing is though, there were several fighters better than Foreman in almost everything except punching power and they still lost. Power is the great equalizer.

 

George didnt beat Fraizer cause he was smaller, there was only what a 10 pound size advantage. He beat Fraizer cause Joe couldnt get away from his shots. People call Foreman wreckless, which he was but he was also very effective.

 

My man Foreman was indeed effective, but only cuz he was matched / pitted against mothers' Big Dick Sadler knew he could beat...... Foreman was never threatened on paper until he met Frazier in 1973......... Foreman won a lot of early fight based on size and power; not skill...............

MR.BILL

 

Sure he got bigger but not all of that weight was going to be useful for him in the ring. Lets not forget that he once got down to 235, a weight he did fight at during his prime.

This content is protected

This content is protected

I do agree that there was a difference in their fighting styles but truthfully, Foreman was still a wild puncher in 1991, just an even slower one.