Funny how Cooney and co thought they could just half ass everything in the kill or be killed boxing world for YEARS and hope to still get by and see those dollar signs. Guys inactivity was insane.
Agreed. I don't think George hit nearly as hard during his comeback as he did in the 70's. His lack of speed deflated a lot of snap out of his punches. His punches in his comeback were powerful, but they weren't the crisp, snapping bombs of his prime.
I don't think it was much of a test. There were a load of young and active heavyweights on the scene at the time who would have loved to have fought George. George picks Cooney, a guy who hadn't fought since being knocked out by Michael Spinks, and after how many stints in rehab?
That was Foremans calculation. I think Cooney made the calculation that Foreman was an old man, posibly further gone than himself and a name fighter. Foreman had no significant wins in his comeback at this point and Cooney did not know what Foreman would go on to achieve. Cuts both ways.
I don't think so, Janitor. Of course it is only speculation at this point but i highly doubt Cooney had a thorough comeback plan of which Foreman was the first phase. It was Foreman who smartly picked "name" opponents that posed little threat, not Cooney. Cooney was just taking the fight and making money to get some new lines.
Same here. I thought Holmes was the better win for Holyfield, but Foreman was the better " event " for Holyfield. When a prime champion faces an older X champion, the prime champion should dominate the older X champion or knock him out. Foreman had his share of momentÂ’s vs Holyfeild. Holmes cut Holyfield and won 4-5 rounds. I have little doubt Lewis or Tyson would have won in more impressive fashion. I guess the end result is Holyfield beat still formidable, but clearly past their prime versions of Foreman and Holmes. Holyfield legacy does not take a hit because he won these fights, but the fact that he had his share of problems in these fights and other fights vs Cooper, Mercer and Moorer suggests he was not a top ten all time great. After all, Foreman Ko'd the same Morrer, and Holmes schooled the same Mercer.
Holyfield did what he was expected to do, namely beat two old men. Neither Foreman or Holmes were seiously expected to trouble Evander, and that's how it turned out. I remember reading a World Boxing issue entitled "How to get rid of 260 pounds of flab in five minutes." That magazine didn't think Foreman would last more than 3 rounds. I don't think Holyfield's defences agiainst these to old legends deserves any special mention, other than it's not every day you get 40+ fighters fighting for world titles. Trial horse Bert Cooper, who took the fight on short notice, put up a much better effort than either Foreman or Holmes.
The conventional way to decide the worth of a victory it to look at the quality of the performance and the quality of the opponent - if you do this one might say Holyfield was under-par on both occasions, but when you consider what Foreman and Holmes were still capable of at that age and the fights they put up, you have to give Holyfield credit for sticking it out. They were not particularly quality victories, going off the 'conventional' thought, but legit and well earned title defences none the less. Circumstance wise, the Foreman victory was worth perhaps a little more, but Holyfield struggled more with Holmes, so he gets kudos for wrapping things up.
Bigger punchers than Holyfield (eg. Alex Stewart, Tommy Morrison, arguably Michael Moorer) didn't have any subsequent success in KOing Foreman or even rocking him as bad as Holyfield did, so I disagree with those who see Foreman going the distance as being anything to deem Holyfield's performance "sub-par".
Why do you think George is better? Larry was smarter and seemed to hit a little harder. He gave up speed for power, and IMO it was a good trade off considering he couldn't move like he used to. Foreman never would have got the title if Moorer didn't get careless and George didn't see it. George was getting the **** kicked out of him until he landed that right. IMO Larry won more rounds against Holyfield. I had Holmes winning 4 rounds, and George only 3. 4 rounds means Larry won 1/3 of the fight, which isn't bad at his age. Also, you have to take into account that Larry had a detached retina in the Holyfield fight. IMO Larry wasn't quite as good or the same fighter as he was in the Mercer fight. The Mercer fight IMO was he last dominant performance against a top and dangerous fighter. After that, his tank was never the same. He damn near became the linear title against a prime and game Olivar McCall in 1995, losing only by 1 point on 2 of the scorecards.