Holyfield beat a better version of Foreman than Ali did

Because old Foreman doesn't engage in the kind of fight young George did and, whisper this, big Ron wasn't all that....Lyle wouldn't drop old George, and his chin would fail him at some point.

 

But this is just you saying things, though. Old Foreman beat one fighter who was on Lyle's level or above and that was by one punch KO after losing every round.

Those are the cold hard facts. As you can see, for most of us they weigh heavier than your loose guesses.

 

Hey man, that's cool. We disagree, and that's what a forum is for, discussing things. I dont rate the young Foreman as highly as others do, never have, and I think his style is made for the methodical, defensively responsible, heavy handed and accurate fighter his older self became. But, as you say, that's only an opinion. Have a wonderful day, peace and love, gbn x

 

Lets not dumb down the argument by making a blanket assessment that a 40 year old can't be better than he was in 20's.

99% of the time thats true but there's only one case that being discussed and there's only ever been one phenom like George Foreman.

Are there dimensions to comeback Foreman that were better ? 100%. Thats undisputable.

Comeback Foreman had a better jab , higher ring IQ , paced himself better and had a higher level of mental fortitude.

Since boxing is mostly mental , comeback Foreman was better in these attributes.

And since styles make fights in boxing , Foreman being elevated in these attributes would give him a stylistic advantage over a certain type of opponent.
The reverse is also true. Young George holds a stylistic advantage over Morrison.

Comeback Foremans approach is harder for Ali doing the rope a dope and a Jimmy Young who was excessively holding. Bot spent too much time in the contact zone. Those guys are literally giving Foreman an advantage and feeding into his strengths.

But wait , there's more.

Beating Holyfield is one of Lennox's greatest accomplishments. This was Holyfield 8 years after he fought Foreman. After multiple losses. Multiple wars. Written off twice. An apparent heart attack. And one retirement.
Holyfield was slower , older and less powerful.

Here's some data for fight number 2

Jabs Lewis landed on Holyfield - 76
Jabs Foreman landed on Holyfield - 108

PP Lewis landed on Holyfield - 191
PP Foreman landed on Holyfield - 80

Total punches Lewis landed on Holyfield - 195
Total punches Foreman landed on Holyfield - 188

The "geriatric" version of Foreman didn't do that bad compared to Lewis in terms of offence.

The difference is Foreman fought the quickest , fittest , sharpest , most agile and skilful version of Holyfield that ever existed.

Holyfield fought the safest and most cautious fight of his life and still got landed on with the percentages shown above.

Based om Lewis' fights against shop worn Holy , reason says he doesn't do much better than old Foreman.

 

I think many people forget, or ignore this. The Holyfield George fought was an incredible fighter and he was competitive throughout. To add a cat to the pigeons, I think that Holyfield beats young George...but, that's only an opinion...I think the old geezer's losing effort against a prime Holyfield was his best effort, and best achievement even surpassing his title winning fight...I've said it before, I'm a contrary old bugger, ain't I?

 

If Foreman's tactics in both fights are taken into account, then it is definitely "Holyfield beat a better version of Foreman than Ali did".
Foreman didn't have to bite the rope-a-dope.

 

Because Vegas odds are a reflection of how you're perceived and not of pugilistic ability. Young Foreman was supposed to be this monster who bulldozes everybody, including an Ali who was already pretty clear past his best. Instead, Foreman underperformed and fought a thoroughly moronic fight where he was easily befuddled and was readily hit. Against Holyfield, he was perceived as an old dude looking to pick up a few cheques and who looked ponderous and plodding with his more patient style. Holyfield was thought to be much closer to his prime than Ali and was seen as a more dangerous fighter than Ali in 74. Foreman underperformed against an ageing Ali and over-performed against a prime Holyfield. Holyfield in 91 is, imo, a better fighter H2H than Ali was in 74. Foreman went the distance and gave a more competitive, more complete fight to a younger man thanks to him being a more complete and thus better fighter. That's just my thought process anyway.

 

Zaire Foreman doesn't go life and death with a journeyman like Axel Schulz, get lumped up by Alex Stewart, and lose to Tommy Morrison and Shannon Briggs.

 

Maybe better opposition was a stretch but I think they're roughly equivalent. Prime Holyfield is better than anybody Foreman fought in his first career imo. For clarity, I do think that the 70s HW contenders are often elevated to a level of greatness they didn't achieve in their own career oftentimes for the sake of aggrandising the notion that the 70s was the best era or that Ali was the GOAT (not that I disagree with either statement mind you). Someone like Ron Lyle for example was a good contender but he really doesn't boast that many good wins. He holds wins over two aged Argentines in Bonavena and Peralta, and the wins over Shavers and Ellis are pretty good but, again, the perception of the 70s as a golden era means that these men are enshrouded in a layer of mysticism they quite probably don't deserve I feel. Moorer and Morrison are both of roughly equal caliber to Norton or Chuvalo in my view. And I do think that Young Foreman was so reckless in his defence and so wild (and also a tad predictable) in his offence, that a big puncher like Morrison would still cause him considerable trouble while the movement of Moorer would likewise befuddle Foreman, who would get frustrated and not have the taciturn patience to find that right hand he set up in their actual match. I likewise believe that Holyfield would beat Young George more convincingly. I am just very convinced that Foreman was a better fighter because of how more intricate his technique became and how considerate he was in what he was doing in the ring and how he planned for fights. He was of course worse athletically and some shrewd matchmaking helped conceal some of his flaws (not to say that didn't happen in his first career though) but I really do think that his new found focus on actual ring-craft and his more relaxed style made him a more capable fighter.

 

If he was more relaxed Muhammad could be more relaxed and to whose benefits does that inure to?

 

You say Holyfield is better but didn't Holyfield also struggle against a 42 year old Holmes who employed his own rope a dope tactic vs Holyfield and won between 4 and 5 rounds ?

Ali may of been past his best vs Foreman but he was in great shape for the fight infact it was the last time I believe he was truly in great shape for a fight as his weight was never as low as that again.

What I don't understand when people say old Foreman is better that means you're basically saying young Foreman does worse against the likes of Stewart, Moorer, Morrison, and that to me makes no sense.

Old Foreman had considerably slower feet and couldn't cut off the ring as effectively, he was also far slower in regards to his handspeed and that in itself was a detriment to his power. Because Foreman had issues landing the extra punch against better opposition and that's what Morrison said in the post fight interview, he explained that he could take Foreman’s single punches and avoid the follow up because Foreman was simply too slow.

I'm also hearing that old Foreman had a better jab ? Go back and watch the 1st Frazier fight in the 1st round Foreman is landing a thudding jab and he's always had a great jab that's not exclusive to his 2nd career.

 

I think this is a well reasoned, impartial post. Kudos

 

There is some logic to this post’s premise. I do think Foreman was physically a bigger beast in ‘74. Just a relentlessly powerful force of nature. But mentally, in terms of skill, ringmanship, poise, relaxation, and pacing, he was wiser and smarter in the 90s. Which was better is debatable. I think the two versions were different. What he lost in one area he gained in another. Personally, I would be more afraid to fight the 70s version than the 90s version. But both could take you out.

it is a testament to how truly talented Foreman was that he could take 10 years off, come back and still be so successful and competitive against far younger foes from essentially a different generation. What other fighter in history could take off that amount of time and come back and do what he did? Even when he lost he still was the guy coming forward the entire fight, and no one put him down or out. Amazing. Yet, he never did fight the Tyson, Bowe, Lewis level of really powerful guys. He was smart and selective about his choice of opposition. I do think 70s Foreman has a better chance against those three than 90s Foreman.

 

He had a powerful jab but not a great jab. He doesn't even feint the jab, nor does he probe with it , two things he learnt to do in his second career. Foreman also had much worse balance in his first career, he often leaned over the front foot when he threw his jab and left himself off-balance, out of position, and available to be hit. He would usually throw his jab from his chest and brought it back low too. That isn't a a bad thing but it can be when your rear hand is stretched out to parry the left hook like Foreman's and meant he still had an open punch lane for jabs and crosses, the biggest counter to the jab and pretty much the only counters available at the distance Foreman threw his jab from. Foreman improved pretty much of all these issues with his jab for the most part in his second career thanks to the fact he couldn't rely on his power to the same extent. He went from power-brawling to power-boxing. His approach was more scientific and he put more focus on technique.
Again, much worse as an athlete and much slower, but far improved technically. He was still excellent at cutting off the ring btw. He was less likely to chase fighters across the ring and instead held the centre of the ring and applied pressure by edging his way forward, applying foot pressure, and by breaking distance with his jab and feints.

 

You can fight at a fast pace and still be relaxed. Just look at pretty much Chavez's whole career. If you aren't relaxed in the ring, you burn up unnecessary energy with nervousness or excitedness. One of the hallmarks of someone "fighting green" is them being jittery and lacking the calmness which comes with experience.