Holyfield's wins against...

I think Holyfield's win over Foreman is more significant for a number of reasons.

For one, Foreman was a more dangerous opponent and I think a bit better than Larry was in the 90s. He did reclaim the HW title by taking Moorer out so that has to go a long way.

Also, I think the Foreman of the 90s did some things better than the prime Foreman circa 1974. He paced himself better, used his jab more effectively, and overall was a more technically sound fighter in the 90s. Now there is no question he did not have the speed or reflexes, or even some of the awesome power he had in his prime, but my point was that he did some things better.

Holmes on the other hand, was not measurably better in any way over his prime self. I just saw a much more diminished and slow fighter than in his prime. Yes he still competed at a high level, but I didn't see any advantages the 90s Holmes had over the prime Holmes.

In addition, Holyfield looked much more impressive against Foreman than Holmes. He beat Foreman decisively, winning 9 of the rounds on my card. He even had George hurt a few times, and looked like he might put him out. Also, I think Evander's 15 punch combination in round 7 is still amazing to this day. When I think of prime Evander, I think of that combo.

Holyfield won clearly against Holmes, but not impressively. The one thing that cannot be overlooked is that Holyfield suffered a bad cut in the 5th or
6th round, and from that point his corner told him to be careful and just go for the decision win on pts. So that has to be factored in.

Overall, for Holyfield, the Foreman victory is one worth touting and counting for something significant. Where as the win over Holmes is one that is not worth touting much. Interesting fights nontheless.

 

They are decent wins over aged (but not shot) greats.

What I don't like is how Holyfield's own inconsistency made quite a few people value the win over Foreman more than they originally did, because Foreman won the title over Moorer.

 

I think the reason Evander looked better against Foreman than he did against Holmes was due to styles. George was a plodding type of a fighter who didn't use much movement; Holmes was much more mobile and was a faster fighter. Plus, Holmes fought a defensive fight and greatly limited Evander's opportunities to score against him. Foreman fought more aggressively, but he left himself open more to Evander's punches.

And, I just can't see Foreman doing anything better than he did during his prime. The reason he seemed to pace himself better was because he had no choice. Even if he had wanted to, he didn't have the speed or the endurance to go wild with his punches.

 

I think streetaresafer shut down this thread with his very thoughtful and comprehensive comments.

I will only call task his assertion that Foreman did not carry his power into th 90's. I believe his punches were more measured, as a mature fighter would be, but his power remained. Those jabs he hit Moorer with leading up to the KO were brutal. Also, his destruction of a still viable Cooney was impressive.

Thus, Holy's defeat of Foreman is pretty damned impressive.

 

What leads you to believe that Cooney was still a viable fighter? To me, the Cooney fight was picked very astutely by George and Co. to gain exposure by beating a "name" fighter who was safe.

 

Cooney hadn't won a fight in nearly 4 years when Foreman annihilated him.

Cooney still had a name, and still had a punch, but that's about all.

 

Man, Cooney kicked the **** out of Eddie Gregg.

Seriously, a win over Cooney at that point isn't the greatest but was fairly emphatic. The real point is Foreman was far more measured in his second career and didn't so badly suffer the stamina problems he did earlier. I think his power was fairly intact.

 

Yeah I think Foreman's power was mostly there, but I have to think that speed wise he had lost a bit, and thus his power punches would not be quite as powerful if only because they wouldn't be as fast as the 70s Foreman.

 

Yes, both guys were old, but both guys were also ATGs in their prime.
I think they would have to count as very good wins for Holyfield, even if the Holmes performance in particular was pretty lacklustre (thanks to Holmes).

The Holmes fight hurt Holyfield in the eyes of the media more, because of the comparisons to what Tyson had done and Holmes's style and tactics stopping Holyfield from getting into any kind of solid rhythm. Now sure, in terms of preparation and ring rust it's unfair to compare Holmes 88 to Holmes 92, but to the casual audience they were grumbling about that.

The shadow of Tyson hung over Holyfield for many years. It's no wonder he wanted to defeat him so bad.

 

Both fights were impressive outings. I think Holmes was the better fighter going into it, as he had a win over a legitimit top contender (Mercer), while Foreman only had tomato cans and a big smile.

In terms of what it adds to Holyfields resume, they are decent to good wins. Holmes was a top contender, i don't know if Foreman was, but if he was he didn't deserve to be at that moment. Many people remember Foreman knocking out Moorer, but seem to forget him losing rather one-sided to Holyfield and Morrison, not to mention his struggles with fringe contenders Schulz, Stewart and Savarese.

The way Holyfield beat them was the most impressive thing about them. He put together some beautiful combinations and counter punches, particularly against Foreman.

 

The win over Holmes was more impressive because Holmes had EARNED a high ranking. He'd totally outboxed Ray Mercer, who was undefeated, in his prime and a top 5 or 6 heavyweight in the world. Holmes deserved a high ranking for beating Mercer. In fact, with Tyson in jail, Holmes may have been the fighter out there with the best credentials. Lewis and Bowe hadn't beaten anyone as highly ranked as Mercer at that time.

I thought Holyfield beat Holmes clearly, but Holmes gave a good account of himself in the first 4 or 5 rounds, and his style is the type to make Holyfield look less impressive. Holyfield had to adapt his style.

The win over Foreman was more hyped, had caught the public's imagination, but Foreman hadn't earned his shot by beating any really top ranked fighters. He was a dangerous active fighter though, no joke.
Holyfield looked better against Foreman because he had a better style to look good against.

The win over Holmes is better in my eyes simply because I ranked Holmes higher.

 

I pretty much agree with Sonny's jab

 

I think that Cooney and Co made exactly the same cynical calculation.

Diference is that the older Foreman won. And make no mistake it was a tough test for him to step up to at his age.