I agree with those who have picked Holyfield, On the surface, it might seem as though that just because a 42 year old Foreman took a peak Evander the distance, that the only logical conclusion is that George would have prevailed in his youth, but that doesn't work in this scenario. Foreman's ability to pace himself, pick out his shots and utilize a far improved defense, is what took him to the cards against Holy in 1991.. Throwing massive shots and exerting yourself early, isn't what gets the job done against the real deal. George would have tagged Evander in the early rounds, perhaps even dropped him, but he wouldn't stay on the canvas. Foreman's only chance would be to unload and hope for a sensitive referree to stop the action, but once things go beyond the 5th round, Evande is taking over.... Holy is currently 47 years old, and has been boxing professionally for 25 years, yet no one has taken him out earlier than 8, and I can't see anybody doing it to a prime version.
A Younger Foreman would have stopped Evander Holyfield. Too durable too powerful. Evander would have made a good fight of it but he'd succumb to the power.
Holyfield would bravely brawl with Foreman for a bit - BUT nobody can last v.long doing that. Foreman KO4.
Evander Holyfield exchanging with prime Foreman can only end one way, like Frazier/Foreman did. You can't swarm over a guy like young George Foreman. Not many succeeded in trying to box him either. The size, strength, and power difference would put Evander's lights out before double digit rounds. Just because Muhammad Ali was able to last against this guy doesn't mean Holyfield would. He has been dropped and rocked before.
There is only one way to find that out for sure, and it ain't happening Let's clear up one thing right now, before this turns into a 10 page debate. Evander Holyfield was NOT Joe Frazier, and there are very few similarities in their styles. Furthermore, Holyfield's chin and overall durabilty ecplipses Joe's. There isn't a heavy weight in history that I would pick to stop a peak Evander within the sort of time frame that Foreman would need to do so... Also, asside from Jimmy Young and Muhammad Ali ( who beat him ), what other boxers did Foreman beat who were on Holyfield's level? Couple of things: Evander Holyfield stood 6'2" 1/2, while Foreman was 6'3"... A Prime Foreman was around 220 lbs, while Evander was about 210, and solid muscle.. The size dimensions were nothing significant. In addition, I'm not so sure that Foreman was stronger, but only that he hit harder... Holyfield controlled bigger and stronger men in the clinches, and George would not just be able to push Evander into mid range the way he did to other men. A prime Foreman was not accustomed to men standing up to him, and in the rare instance that one did, he either lost or struggled mightily... Holy on the otherhand, made his living dealing with impossible adversity... Foreman's undeveloped guard in the 70's, would have left Holyfield with a lot of openings for hooks, crosses, jabs, etc... If Foreman followed Evander with no respect, he might even be apt to getting decked with the same kind of uppercut that Holy KO'd Douglas with.... This statement does not do anything to validate your argument... Muhammad was decked by both Joe Frazier and Henry Cooper, along with having his jaw broken by Ken Norton, all before facing Foreman... He was also 32 years of age, and proclaimed by many as being past it... And Foreman was also dropped twice by Ron Lyle and once Jimmy Young.. To clearify, I have already stated that George would very conceivably stagger and drop Evander, but he wouldn't stay on the canvas.
I don't know if the term " better " is what we should even be looking at, but rather the expression " more durable." There is no way that Ken Norton ( or even Joe Frazier ) can take a shot better than Evander Holyfield.. To even make the implication that they could, is ridiculous to say the least.
Just for interests sake then, why did prime Holy not stop a version of Foreman that had a ten year absence from the ring and was 18 years older ?
I think Holyfield would win. Foreman was more aggressive in the early rounds in his youth and he was also wide open for the kind of counter rights and counter combos that Holyfield was great at. Holyfield thrived against aggressive opponents. Young Foreman really didn't past many tests against high calibre fighters. Frazier was perfect for him, he just comes in taking every big punch George throws, and Norton froze and was just not in Holyfield's league anyway. I think Holyfield would pick Foreman apart in a gruelling fight. He'd figure George out quick and then just grit it out, taking some lumps but make Foreman pay three-fold every time.
because old george was a wily, irrascible fighter....he learnt patience, had a far better defence, a better chin..(really, it improved with age), was sooo much physicaly stronger than the younger version and learnt how to pace himself....old george would have been hard for ANYONE to knock over..
Holyfield would suffer the fate of all opponents of George's who were not defensive in nature..and who were warrior types who could be reached....and Holyfield could always be reached.
Young Foreman would KO Holifield - Holifields bravery would be his undoing Imagine Holy was against a Young Foreman and not Bert Cooper. The Frazier who Foreman steamrolled would give Holifield a life and death struggle anyway. Its a bit like saying that Valuev who had a close fight with Old Holy would beat a prime Holy
Foreman is a freak. I tend to think that he is a bad matchup for Evander, George is simply too physically strong and could overwhelm him.
Old Foreman went life and death with the likes of Alex Stewart, where the 70's Foreman was making unbeaten ATG champions like Joe Frazier look like they didn't even belong in a boxing ring. Let's not make 90's Foreman into something he is not. I think 70's Foreman is under rated and 90's Foreman much over rated.