Prime Foreman vs Holyfield

90s Foreman had brains, skills and resilience that the 70s version did not. That much is obvious from watching both versions fight.

70s Foreman's glaring deficiencies were exposed by such luminaries as Ron Lyle and Jimmy Young, I'm pretty confident that Evander Holyfield could do better.

Holyfield can resist a war, he boxed and moved when he had to. You can't just assume he wouldn't box and move if he felt he had to in order to win, the man isn't a drunken ****** in a pub carpark, he is an intelligent boxer-puncher. He wouldn't stand in front of Foreman and get KO'd, same as he didn't get KO'd by Bowe (a far bigger man than George) in 2 out of 3 fights.

Holyfield would have the nous and the ability to box and move, standing and trading only sporadically, frustrating and outboxing big overrated George. As soon as Foreman gets hurt or feels the fight slipping away from him, his telegraphed swings get even wider than they were initially, his movements gets even less measured than they were initially, and he gradually becomes wide open for a skilled and accurate puncher.

Foreman is horrendously overrated because of wins over fighters who he stylistically couldn't lose to, and because of his celebrity. Holyfield is superior to the 70s version in every way conceivable other than punching power, and Holyfield has the brain to be constantly wary of that power, much like Jimmy Young was.

 

Ain't got time to get through this as I have work now, but when I get back we'll discuss more. One thing's for sure, I'd rather fight Foreman of the 90s than the 70s. Talk soon.

 

Foreman won "4" rds against Holy on my card back in 1991......... Yes, we all know Holy won on points over the course of the 12 rounder, but Foreman was there to fight / perform........... The card was good and the PPV sales were huge.............. I was happy for a guy being on the losing end of 200 USA bucks....... I dropped 200 on Foreman in Vegas at the Stardust......... Cheers....

MR.BILL

 

Whether Holyfield could do better is debatable, but I don't think it's fair to Foreman to pick these two performances as references for example, against Lyle he was coming off a long layoff. Probably the version to use would be the one who fought Frazier the first time.

 

The '75 crap card in Toronto was pretty damn stinky for Foreman................. I obtained a copy of this event a while age and I must say Foreman faced some sorry mothers in that stinker up in Canada.............. Foreman was really never threatened at all by any one fighter performing in that circus show............

MR.BILL

 

I would classify Foremans comeback as being competitively beat up by the better fighters he faced, if there is such a classification. He hung in there just enough for people to say he was competitive, but in reality it was George taking a lot of lumps until he finally found someone dumb enough to stay put long enough for him to land his slow motion wrecking ball. Kudos to him for doing it. How many rich guys would take that kind of punishment for the amount of time he did?

 

I actually think this would look like the Lyle fight...a little. Holyfield boxes Foreman's ears off at points, maybe hurts him, maybe scores a knockdown. However, aside from the inspired Tyson performances he was such an inconsistent fighter, I can see him abandon his jab or get caught in a brawl and stopped. Evander reacted well to being hurt and knew how to get himself out of trouble, but he often took so much unnecessary punishment and Foreman was such a dangerous finisher...it could happen. Or maybe this looks like the Young fight..Holyfield gets caught a few times but sticks to his gameplan and overcomes. Tough call, but I think it all depends on Evander.

 

I don't know if this is one that's worth coming back to mate. You seem utterly convinced that Foreman would crush Holyfield, and I know I'm equally convinced that Holyfield would beat Foreman. I think this is what the French call an 'impasse'.

I would definitely rather fight the 90s Foreman too, but that doesn't mean that the 90s version was inferior in every way. He had strengths in areas that the 70s version did not. They were two different animals, and any opponent fighting both of them would encounter two different opponents and two completely different fights would ensue. Foreman's extra weight, extra resilience, extra smarts, extra defence in the 90s make him a harder opponent to hurt, drop or stop. But this is balanced by him being far less mobile, slower, and without the same explosive attacking and punching that he had in the 70s. Totally different fighters.

 

I agree mostly, although Foreman did win 2-3 rounds. But that seemed to mostly be because 'Vander took a break.

Foreman did better than anticipated, went the distance, and ate that 15-punch combo at the end of the 2nd... emotional, Rocky stuff and you can't help but feel great for George, but that doesn't erase the fact that Holyfield won rather easily.

During his prime, Foreman seemed to hit harder but also went down more easily and most important: tired quickly. What has Foreman always been bothered by?

-A skillful boxer that can move;
-An opponent with a strong beard.

Holyfield has both in spades. However, he also had a tendency to slug it out when it wasn't in his best interest. For this reason, i think Foreman can beat the '91 Holyfield. However, the '94 wiser version, i'd pick him to TKO an exhausted Foreman late.

 

That's not the point though. The point is that 70's Foreman arguably had more defensive flaws and wasn't as adaptable. 90's Foreman was still resilient and still had power, but added a more educated jab and smarts to his game.

 

Both versions of Foreman could be hit, but that's not going to matter, because Evander doesn't hit hard enough to score a knockout and he isn't elusive and disciplined enough to box for 12 rounds. When someone hits Holyfield hard, his instinct takes over, and he starts throwing bombs back. It's true, comeback Foreman had a better jab and smarts to his game, but he didn't have the physical attributes to make it all work for him. Foreman of the 70s was more mobile, threw shots with better leverage, and possessed the same amount of power, and produced a better output. Holyfield would have to run for 12 rounds to win on points, and that ain't Evander Holyfield.

Foreman would knock him out.

 

I seem to remember this exact phrase being chucked around about David Haye before he fought Valuev - and Haye managed it fine, because he felt the situation called for it.

I really think Evander Holyfield is more intelligent, had greater composure, and greater tactical discipline than the Hayemaker. He beat Bowe, he could and would use the right tactics to beat someone with so many glaring weaknesses as big overrated as hell George.

 

Bowe was in horrible physical shape, and Evander lost the plot in the second half of the fight anyway. He started to get tagged, and it made the fight a lot closer than it should have been had Evander stayed disciplined. David Haye aside, who isn't relevant here, Holyfield went to war with Riddick Bowe, Mike Tyson, and didn't shy away from a 6'5 Lennox Lewis. He's a warrior, he'll box for a few rounds and then revert to his old ways. Foreman will land, and Holyfield would get shut down. Cooper almost stopped him, as did Bowe. Foreman hits harder than Bowe...and by a significant margin.

You can't see where I'm coming from at all?

 

I can just write the same paragraph, but instead of concentrating on Holyfield, I could talk about Foreman's glaring weaknesses being exposed by Ron Lyle and Jimmy Young, neither of whom would have lasted long with Riddick Bowe or Lennox Lewis. As I've said, I don't think Holyfield was Micky Ward and I credit him with far more intelligence than you do. A cruiserweight who has an illustrious career at heavyweight is not an imbecile. He wouldn't run in on a feared powerpuncher and get KO'd. He never did in his own career, why would he against Foreman? Holyfield would see the weaknesses in George's game, and know the fight was his for the taking if he took the David Haye route lol and outboxed the beast. Holyfield would not have to betray his own nature to do so, he could be far more active and aggressive than Haye's shameful performance against Valuev, he could stick and move, trading sporadically then moving again. I just don't see Foreman having the thrust or the nous to close him down then land the necessary shot to swing it in his direction. After 6 or 7 rounds, Foreman is well behind on the cards, and gets reckless. And a reckless 70s Foreman is just knockdowns and punishment waiting to happen. Power just isn't enough, and that's all that Foreman has on his side in this encounter.

 

As you rightly pointed out, it works both ways. Neither Bert Cooper or Michael Dokes would have made it out of the first round against 1970's George Foreman. I think Foreman was lacking confidence as a result of what happend in Zaire, but if you think Lyle would have always posed that many problems for Big George, that's your prerogative.

You're comparing Haye fighting Valuev to Holyfield fighting Foreman? Really?

Foreman was walking through lead right hands all night long in a desperate attempt to break Muhammad Ali down, who took some unbelievable body shots. Do I think Evander takes those body shots as well as Ali did? No. Do I think Holyfield is disciplined and elusive enough to keep from getting hit with big shots? No. And this is the clincher for me, would Foreman have the power to knockout a former Cruiserweight if he landed flush? Absolutely. Foreman was much better than Valuev, and he was clearly a lot more confident in his own ability before the loss to Muhammad Ali.