Do you guys rate Holyfields wins over Foreman and Holmes?

CREDIT MUST BE GIVEN TO BOTH HOLMES AND FOREMAN

for giving an ATG heavyweight in his prime and good fight. they must have still been good to do that

 

Considering Holyfield's style, strengths and weakness I dont think you could expect a better performance against a very spirited and stubborn Foreman.

Imagine that particular version of Foreman against Lennox Lewis. Now, I imagine Lewis is CAPABLE of poleaxing Foreman BUT I reckon he'd have been quite likely to play it safe, and end up being open to some even harsher (and mostly unfair) criticism than what some level at Holyfield. That's hypothetical of course but it's not unlikely.

Fighters knew old man Foreman's only chance was to go for a KO, and they suspected he had the punch and the savvy to do so if given a chance or enough chances. Moorer was the only guy who perhaps looked better againt Foreman - and actually a less active and older Foreman - but of course Moorer didn't beat Foreman, he got too careless. Holyfield, who always tended to brawl a bit and use sharp and sustained counter-attacks, actually managed to look exciting, and dominant, and survived unscathed.

It's a tricky proposition looking very "impressive" against a slow old guy who can nevertheless cause humiliating career-defining embarrassment with one punch. Tommy Morrison retreated all night, but if HOLYFIELD had done like that we'd consider that a poor performance FOR HIM (whereas it wasn't at all bad for the "weak-chinned" "one-dimensional" underdog Morrison). Moorer looked good against Foreman but probably wanted to go one better than Holyfield and Morrison and "close the show" inside distance, and now we remember him as being the 27 year old guy who got KO'd by a 45 year old.

I cant think of any heavyweight of that era who I'd guarantee looking more impressive against Foreman.

Bowe might've stood on the inside (where he really knew how to fight, it must be said) and on the inside against Foreman he's at big risk of being KO'd.

Lewis might've backed off all night and tapped out a safe points win, gotten accused of being "boring" and failing to KO the old man. Or if he'd gone out to destroy big George he's at similar risk of getting iced as Bowe or Moorer, it just takes one punch.

The 90s Tyson lacked the sharp defensive skills of his prime that you'd want him to have against Foreman, and with his short reach coming in I reckon he'd be in big danger of at least getting rocked/hurt by old George, thereby open to the customary criticisms. And who knows, a fired-up Foreman might just finsih a hurt and sub-par Tyson off (and you can be sure Foreman would've been VERY motivated against Mike Tyson).

Even at his advanced age George Foreman had his way of imposing his will into a fight and dictating at least some degree of how an opponent reacts to him. He was no joke, even if he looked at face value "slow" and "easy to hit", and possible to beat by that "wide margin". He was also one mean, STRONG and extraordinarily stubborn man who represented REAL DANGER, and in his maturity he had absolutely no PSYCHOLOGICAL weakness (a fact that in itself was enough to spook or unsettle an opponent). He still carried into the ring a certain uniqueness, a certain greatness.

 

Holy's run as HW champ really isn't that impressive.
Thanking Buster for winning the lottery, 40+ Foreman, 40+ Holmes, Cooper, 1&1 with Bowe (with series ultimately lost), before losing to a LHW.
The Real Deal? I don't get the big deal? Holyfield at HW gets a free pass for EVERYTHING. I just don't get it. Lewis gets butchered in some quarters by the very people that will defend that run against Lewis's FAR superior body of work at the weight.
I find Holy a vastly underrated fighter on p4p lists, but on the HW 'open weightclass' basis, he is hugely overrated.

 

The best fighter Lewis ever beat was a 36/37 year-old version of Evander Holyfield.

I dont think Lewis's body of work is "vastly superior" at all, that seems a inflated statement and possibly a knee-jerk reaction to those who you think "butcher" Lewis.
It's easy to just throw around dismissive statements with negative slants. Holyfield earned his reputation all the way, he proved time and time again he shouldn't be underrated at heavyweight. Holyfield beat a hell of a lot of good heavyweights, as did Lewis.
At at times in his prime, and in his best performances, Holyfield looked sensational or left us shaking our heads in deep admiration.
Lennox Lewis sure as hell respected him as a fighter, a truly great heavyweight at that.

 

i liked reading ur post until this. this is a joke of a theory. old foreman was mediocre, he got shutout by glass jaw slugger tommy morrison who is nowhere near even a 1991 tysons ability and punching skills. alex stewart fought 10 even rounds with foreman, the same stewart who was dismantled in 1 by mike. mike knocked out larry holmes in 4 rounds, he could knock out foreman, and if not he could easily outpoint him in 12 like he did ruddock.

 

Tyson was rocked by Bruno, and Ruddock landed plenty of punches on him. I think Foreman, against a fighter coming aggressively at him, hits at least as hard as both, and threw straighter punches than Ruddock at least, and had more of a killer instinct than Bruno.

Yes, a 1991 Tyson would be a good bet to beat Foreman, but I'd expect him to at least get hit once or twice, which would put him in the danger zone.

The old Foreman wasn't mediocre, he was a good fighter and still a very powerful puncher.

 

But that's just it, he was good but no longer great. Foreman had the punch, chin, and will going for him and those were about the last of his great traits. He won controversial decisions against many of the top contenders, and got the **** beat out of him by Morrison and Moorer (until he landed that 1-2). I feel that Foreman's comeback is overrated by some. They make it seem as if he dominated the division without ducking anyone and made everyone look bad. No. He beat the hell out of 20-30 journeymen and landed a good 1-2 on Michael Moorer to knock him out.

 

His comeback is not overrated.
He retired at 28, totally left the sport and returned 10 years later, at age 38. Most people (just about everyone) expected his comeback to end after a few fights, or him to get badly hurt by any sort of contender if he ever stepped up against top 10 or top 20 fighters.

His comeback is the greatest comeback in the history of boxing. They say it's the greatest comeback in the history of sports (I dont know, I'm no expert).

Therefore it cannot be overrated.

He beat some good fighters in his 1987-'97 boxing stint, and became world champion.

And what's worth noting is even this "second career" featured "comebacks" within it. The comeback was declared finished by some when Holyfield beat him, and more join the chorus when he struggled against Stewart, and he certainly seemed retired again after Morrison beat him. But he came back each time.

Foreman was a puncher so it makes absolutely no sense when people dismiss his win over Moorer as "just a 1-2" or "just a lucky punch".

Some of the men Foreman beat were actually good fighters. By all logic, at over 40 years of age, and after a full 10 year lay-off, Foreman should have been expected to be fall well short of becoming a contender again, nevermind a champion.

Simply the greatest comeback ever.

I'm not sure who you mean when you say some people make it seem as if Foreman dominated the division, I've never encountered that point of view. I think some people just give him his due credit, and acknowledge that his second career contributes to his overall greatness and high ranking.

 

But many of his best comeback wins were arguable to say the least. I give Foreman plenty of credit for winning the title back, but after he acheived this goal he was a terrible champion. His comeback was very strategic and he picked his opponents well. His record was built up by 20-30 journeymen that he beat the **** out of, then he fought and struggled against every top contender he faced. Yes, obviously his 2nd career contributes to his overall greatness, but I still feel it is overhyped.

 

Well, after he beat Moorer he forfeits the right to be called champion because his remaining fights were against such mediocre challengers, and he was gifted against Axel Schulz, I agree with that. But I dont really count those post-Moorer fights as anything.

His wins over good fighters like Adilson Rodrigues and Pierre Coetzer were not at all questionable. He actually looked better against Coetzer than Bowe or Bruno did. I thought he was lucky to get the win over Stewart but I scored it a draw. Stewart was a good fighter too.
Foreman definitely hand-picked some soft touches but beat some good fighters too. I thought he was robbed against Shannon Briggs in his last fight as well.

No one's claiming Foreman came back and defeated all the top contenders, but it's wrong to dismiss all the wins he had as meaningless ones.

 

I don't dismiss all of his wins, but most of his big wins were controversial and he may have gotten lucky on the cards. I also feel he got screwed on the cards against Briggs BTW.