My interest in the "he never beat a fighter as good as the one I am matching him with in this dream match" is almost zero. Of course. This is almost always the case. Not here though. Is a young, inexperienced Joe Louis better than Holyfield? Possibly not, but I think there isn't a great deal between them.
I don't recall Scmeling ever fighting Marciano nor Peter ever fighting Holyfield, but since your heart is set on the whole posting random pictures ****, then who am I to deviate from your rules? This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
The pictures weren't random, nor were they posted in response to the thread title. As you know, they were posted in response to your claims that modern fighters are better trained and nourished. I posted them because they contradict this claim.
I think that if we limit the claims to the best men Holyfield fought, it might hold some validity. Of course Buster Douglas and a 42 year old Foreman don't do the claim much justice, but I think their are plenty others which back my feelings on the matter.
Don't forget the circumstances of the second Louis fight, or the kidney punch, or the solar plexus punch. Under different circumstances I bet it would have been far more competitive.
Schmeling was good but I think a prime Holyfield would have been too much for Max. Holy was bigger and faster and utilized the jab and combination punching to a greater degree that the heavies of Maxs' day. Baer was a powerful puncher but he threw his shots one at a time and didn't throw a jab to set up his right. He just threw the right like a kid in a schoolyard fight. Evander was a much better boxer. And like previous posts pointed out, Evander fought much bigger men with better skills than Baer or Carnera et al. I just don't see a 185-190lb Max outboxing, outspeeding or hurting a prime Holyfield. At best I see Max losing a rather lopsided decision. At worst I see him being taken out midway thru the fight.