I think Holyfield beats 70s Foreman is that an unpopular opinion?

It's an opinion I respect though I don't agree.

I so love Holy, he is a top 5 ATG and deserved legend. He was in his own way quite heroic during battles.

And, heart-breakingly, that last would be his downfall against George. Holy took things personally at a certain point in many of his fights and just traded punches. He came back again and again from terrible assaults (Bowe in particular).

But it's not same with prime George Foreman. Holy would probably do well early on, doing his usual darting in and out with effective (but rarely heavy) shots, I think he'd win maybe the first two or three on sheer busyness; but around the 4th George is going to **** him off (probably takes one too many of those horrible jabs), and he'll trade and George will end it. It'll be over so quick, like Bowe Holy III.

Holy couldn't take those shots, he admitted he was out on his feet a few times during the Foreman fight. That George was nowhere near as good as the pre-Zaire Foreman. Foreman would take advantage of Holy's darting style to push him off balance and spin him around. Holy would look more busy but he would rarely land effectively, partly because of George's muscling and partly because he wasn't (generally perceived as) a puncher.

Straight ko by Foreman in 4.

 

I don't know how one could look at the 91 Holyfield v Foreman fight and think Holyfield would beat prime Foreman. Its incredibly unlikely Holyfield would go the distance without getting knocked down. But for the sake of argument lets say he does. Foreman won 5 rounds in 91. You don't think Foreman 15-20 years younger couldn't have won two more rounds against Holy?

Holy from the 2nd Moorer fight would have a punchers chance because he was automatic that fight. And while Moorers chin is not as weak as some make it out to be Foreman is not Michael Moorer. Whose to say if Holyfield hits him with his best Foreman goes down at all? Moorer won the first two rounds there if prime Foreman wins the first two rounds Holyfields either out or in serious trouble.

 

It's more realistic than Toney beating Foreman. I'll give that to you. However I still think he loses. Especially if it's Prime Holyfield. Post 92 Holyfield could pull it off, but I pick George to win via TKO in 7.

 

5 rounds seems generous to Foreman. I didn't score but it felt wider than that.

 

I meant 2 judges gave him 5 of the rounds(though not the same 5).

They also deducted a point.

 

Speaking of training and such: On the boring, purely physical qualities, I wonder which Holyfield we're using. Early 90s Holyfield probably wasn't much stronger than Ken Norton. He was also a smidge smaller, which puts in in a range where Foreman could still bully him physically. I doubt that's the case with Holyfield from the Tyson fight.

 

OLd George went 12 against Holyfield in his prime, so no he's not beating 70's George, gives a great effort but Foreman stops him.

 

Evander,,,Ain't Muhammed Ali

 

This is a difficult fight to predict, as I have to stay completely objective when it comes to Holyfield because I'm a huge fan of his.

Having said that, I agree with most that Foreman would get it done, probably knocking Evander out somewhere around rounds 5 or 6. I believe Holyfield's chin is not as good as it's generally said to be. He was amazingly good at riding with shots on the inside during the exchanges and took a lot of the sting off of the heaviest blows that were landed against him.

 

You know, watching Holyfield, I always think he looks much better as a midrange fighter rather than an inside one, which he liked doing for some weird reason. Like, even in his first Bowe fight, when he was fighting on the outside with his in-and-out movement, I think he had much more success than when he decided to fight on the inside for whatever reason.

But anyway, I think I agree Holyfield is much better than Foreman, who, at his best, was a 3-4 round fighter. I think if Holyfield fights smart, he'd use his speed to land combinations and then get out where Foreman can't catch him. He has the power to keep Foreman occupied, and eventually, when Foreman gasses, Holyfield would take over and probably even stop him late.

Now, if Holyfield decides 'screw that' and fights Foreman on the inside, that's when things could get dicey. Though, I think if he could stand up to Bowe's power, he could probably do the same with Foreman's, but I wouldn't bet money on it.

Either way, I think Holyfield takes it, but one way is much safer and a more guaranteed victory.

 

I don't think picking Holy over any heavyweight in history should be very controversial. He's an iron chinned atg and he's pretty versatile.

 

Looking at their actual fight it was suprising that old slower Foreman seemingly couldnt miss Holyfield with his jab. Younger George might make the fight harder than it needs to be by distaining his jab.

The older Holyfield who fought like a heavyweight would be a stiffer challenge than 91 Evander.
70s Foreman had reflexes, he could pull the trigger on his heavy artillery. It may end up like Frazier/Foreman with Holyfield not giving up.

 

This is what I think.

People confuse 70s Foreman and 90s Foreman.

90s Foreman was stronger, tougher and had more stamina, with a much more educated jab. 70s Foreman was more explosive and much more active but he could blow his wad if he didn't bomb you out and then he was there for the picking. It's really not as simple as saying "oh Holyfield had a tough fight against old Foreman, a younger version would wipe him out."

A younger version of Foreman might well have been sucking wind after the 4th and have had Holy beat him to a pulp.

For what it's worth I think Old Foreman is a horrible matchup stylistically for his younger self. I think the burger peddlin pastor takes the young'un to school.

 

It depends on what version of Holyfield we're talking about.

The late 80s early 90s Holyfield who got involved in wars too much I think could be stopped by a prime Foreman.

But if Holyfield of the 2nd Bowe fight who bulked up a bit and used lateral movement firing off quick combinations getting in an out then I think it's plausible that version of Holyfield could win yes.

Frazier is a great and Norton was very good but neither could fight on the back foot using lateral movement like Holyfield plus Norton doesn't have the recuperative powers of Holyfield.