Holyfield dominated both of them. Foreman during his comeback was nearly impossible to stop and Holmes always was a tough *******, only stopped by a peak Tyson. Holyfield is not a big hitter, what do you want him to do? On a sidenote, you're still screwing up the quote-system. Just have a [ / q u o t e] for each [ q u o t e ] and things are fine.
..............Precisely. Holyfield did absolutely nothing wrong with Foreman; he went to the aged man's body, he threw in combination, he did every single thing one could do to wear down a 42 year old man and it just didn't work. At some point you have to let reason into the mix and give credit to the other guy. Holyfield fought a very good fight. Against Holmes, what the hell else was he supposed to do? He pressured the older legs, but Holmes was cagey, and leaned on the ropes and counterpunched. Few in history have been as savvy as him in picking off punches and he was tough in addition to that. Its very easy to say he should have stopped him fom our standpoint, but an unrealistic expectation otherwise.
Duran/Barkley probably shows you how good Duran was rather than to damn the late 80s Middleweights. By schooling Nate Miller, Tommy showed that even in his late 30s and being 30+ lbs over his best weight, he would of competed with any Cruiserweight of the 90s. Joe Bugner showed he could still be a fringe heavyweight contender in his late 30s. Bennie Briscoe only lost to top fighters in the late 70s, despite being in his mid 30s. Ray Robinson still gave Middleweights of the 60s an argument, in his 40s.
Although both Janitor and Chris are making good points, I have always had a different theory that goes back to the very first time I saw those fights live. I don't think it had all that much to do with either man being too terribly difficult for Holy to stop, nor Holy being incompetent against aging fighters for that matter. I seriously think that he prepared for those fights with the distance in mind. When I watch his other matches against rated contenders in their primes around that period, he his aggressively going after them and landing monsterous shots that are sending them all over the place. We did not see this in the Holmes or Foreman fights. Part of it I believe, had to do with the fact that In order for Evander to become dangerous, he needs to be drawn into a war before he usually knocks anyone out. Holmes for one, certainly did not do this, and in fact their were times when he fought lazily off the ropes, while Evander took his time picking and chosing shots without much conviction. Foreman was a man who I think Holy prefered to box rather than slug with...
These two champs did overlap, but probably shouldn't have. Zarate took about 7 years off after losing a close one, and his title, to Pintor. His comeback started with a string of wins but ended in disappointments against Fenech & Zarazoga. Would have been interesting if they'd clashed earlier. IMO Zarate would have been much tougher (and perhaps too good?).
I don't want to go into detail as we've discussed it into depths far too deep before, but i would like to make three remarks: 1. How long ago has it been since you saw Holyfield vs Foreman/Holmes? 2. As for Holyfield not being aggressive, i'm sure you remember the sequence where "Commander Evander" landed something like 25 punches in a row with Foreman covering up but shipping at least half of them flush. He threw 49 punches a round which is more than heavyweight average, and landed a whopping 61% of them - even Bowe's opponents didn't have that high percentages. As for Holmes, he was a bit of a spoiler when laying on the ropes. Holyfield watched the Mercer fight and didn't fall for the trap. Intelligent fighting, but not something that makes one popular. 3. This was Foreman's first legitimate fight during his comeback. The fact that he was able to last the distance and stun Holyfield on one occasion was pretty dramatic. It's no secret that fighters who perform above the expected norm, often get more credit than deserved as emotional response. I think this is the case with Holyfield's fights against both aging legends. The crowd will always be on the underdog's side, especially with these already established icons. :bbb
Let me first clerify that I'm not making excuses for those men going the distance. In fact, it was refreshing to see that no one got badly hurt, and it did nothing to make me think any less of Evander. Secondly, its been quite some time since I have seen either of those matches, but I clearly remember thinking that this was not the aggressive Holy that went after Dokes, Stewart, Qawi, etc. He fought a different kind of fight, against both men ( though I don't think he would have stopped Foreman anyway ). Against Holmes however, there were times when both men were playing with one another, and even giving off a smile or two. And who could ever forget seeing Holmes throwing up water all over himself after the final bell.
1981 Joe Frazier coming back & holding contender Floyd"Jumbo"Cummings to a draw. A fighter Smokin' Joe would have put away in his prime. Not bad.
Patterson-Liston I immediately comes to mind. The 1950s heavyweights meet the age of the superheavies. It takes precedence over Holmes and Foremans' 90's fights because, unlike Holmes/Foreman, Liston and Patterson were both in their prime (or at least damn close to it). Truly a case of two eras colliding... unfortunately for Floyd!
You left out the classic example of George Foreman! Didn't even need a time machine to win a heavyweight belt in 1994.
Fair enough. Ironically, Holyfield finds himself in the same position as Foreman and Holmes did against him, in a few days against Valuev. Father time catches up with everyone, no matter how great.