How much credit do you give Holyfield for beating Holmes and Foreman?

Much credit.

Joshua gets much credit for beating 41 y.o. Wlad in a war.

Holyfield should too, especially considering that Wlad retired immediately while Foreman won lineal HW title 3.5 years later and Holmes came close to win WBC belt 3 years after his loss to Holy.

 

Not that much.

When you matched a prime Marciano, Ali, or Holmes, against the best heavyweight of the previous generation, you got a massacre!

The 90s heavyweights did not do what they should have done, against the dregs of the previous generation!

 

Apart from when Tyson obliterated Holmes, but I guess he was more of an 80s guy, his only regret was that he had boneitus. Also for me, the best heavyweight of the 90s was Lewis and sadly he didn't fight Foreman or Holmes. That being said, although Lewis would be a firm favourite, there's still doubts there. By no means would it have been a foregone conclusion.

 

None. They were just punching bags. Holi would have impressed me more whipping bowr and moorer ... Live competition

 

Tyson obliterating Holmes, kind of adds to the case for the prosecution.

Yes I think that we might have seen a similar result if they had faced Lewis, but we are talking about Holyfield here.

 

That's true, I think the fights came down to styles more than anything. Foreman had an iron chin and elite power still. A come forward fighter that wasn't afraid to put himself in harms way is always going to be at risk against that guy. At the same time, Holmes rarely mounted any sort of attack on the front foot if memory serves, although it's been a while since I watched that one. I just have this image of Holmes in the first round almost rope-a-doping Holyfield when ever he was forced backwards, trying to land uppercuts while Evander tried to get inside and throw combinations, I'm not so sure Holmes ever really had a chance to spoil his way to victory due to the sheer volume Evander could produce.

If they were in the top 10 at the time then he deserves some credit and both were soundly beaten

 

Holy took a lot of slack then and now!

Holmes stated in his autobiography walking to the ring...first fight he ever had doubts.

That tells me he lost the fight, right then and there. How else did Tyson KO him so easily, but not Holy? Holy whooped Tyson's azz. He wasn't afraid of him.

And Foreman came out of retirement to fight Mike. Too many interviews where he said it, yet that didn't happen.
I credit Holy because Mercer was supposed to have been the fight, but the style of Holmes prevented that. He didn't KO Larry, but he made him throw up.
Not bad for a beefed up Cruiser, so they say.

 

Not too much credit. He was doing good business. Those guys especially Foreman were stars and big names bring $. It was just the business of boxing.

 

Different circumstances.

He took the Tyson fight cold, inactive, for the money.

For Holyfield, he had fought himself into shape and contention and learned the limitations of his body at that age. He knew what he could and could not do and how to better compensate for his slower reflexes.

Anyone who rates Moorer or Ray Mercer and then says these guys were over the hill and Holy shouldn’t get credit isn’t looking at the results. This isn’t like Rademacher, who had never had a pro fight, or some other no-hoper. Big George and Larry were well within contender status by every measure ... and probably better than a lot of other guys he could have fought at those times.

And I don’t recall Evander ducking anyone. He took two large paydays to fight these guys but still fought the best of his era and did more than OK against them.

 

I agree with your assessment/comparison. Spot on!

However , I don't minimize a loss if a fighter was cold, inactive, unmotivated. A loss is a loss, no excuses. And again, his bio stated he had doubts. Later on Holmes said "Some fighters you just can't beat"
Not sure if U seen this interview, about 2 minutes... I think it agrees with us both. I forgot at the time Holmes was trying to sing, as U stated he was doing other things...out of shape.
But he also said Mike Tyson? Me fight him? Oh, schittt!!! As U stated...for the money...And of course getting his hand caught up in the rope I think saved the prolonged beating that was inevitable

This content is protected

 

But he did beat Bowe and Moorer. Same Moorer who was stopped in 10 by Foreman.

 

I don’t agree that all losses are equal. Beating a fighter in his prime is not the same as beating one who is at the tail-end of his career taking a final few paydays as he loses 10 of his last 12 fights.

Tyson beat Holmes. Holy beat a better Holmes. Spinks beat a better Holmes than Holy defeated (although the first fight was close and the second I thought Larry deserved a close decision). Nobody beat a prime Holmes.

 

many guys didn't want to fight them then, and Holmes beat Mercer.. So he beat them when they were beating most other guys they fought.

 

Agreed. Leave the age and their former lives to one side, and both Foreman and Holmes were established as top 10 contenders when Holyfield beat them.

Holmes was coming off the win against Mercer, and had developed into an extremely awkward customer as his physical ability declined. Mixed with his ATG chin/heart/recovery, and very few fighters were going to walk through this version of Holmes. Even a few years later he was giving McCall fits.

Foreman version 2.0 probably peaked with the Holyfield fight, and was a real handful. Enormous physical strength, heavy hands and constant pressure, backed up by an iron resolve and chin. He was obviously slow and crude, but again very few fighters would do a demolition job on this version of Foreman.

Holyfield was slaughtered at the time for not stopping the geriatics, but it looks better with the passage of time. It's less of an anomaly for fighters to be competitive into their 40s, and Foreman and Holmes showed enough after the fight to show that they were not easy pickings.

Certainly not the same as beating them in their prime, and the fights can be used to support an argument that Foreman and Holmes were better fighters overall. However, they are solid wins against difficult opponents. Nothing less, but equally nothing more.