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

Sure, but he undoubtedly got older.

 

Two judges scored 5 of the rounds for Foreman but they were different rounds and only one judge scored 5 rounds for Foreman. If that doesn't make sense I'm struggling to find the words to describe what I mean but you should know what I mean.

The Young fight shows he could go 12 with Foreman. But either way he wouldn't need to.

 

If Evander Holyfield fights in the right style he can beat any version of George Foreman, in my view. He was fast enough and talented enough, with good enough punch resistance for when Foreman catches him occasionally. He would have to maintain discipline, though.

 

He learned to box in the 90s, because he would have got wiped out using his 70s style.

He didn't learn to box in the 70s, because he didn't need to.

 

To park alongside @JohnThomas1 per another thread , a couple of relevant quotes from the thread linked below: -

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/prime-george-foreman-vs-evander-holyfield.665654/

And now, some quotes from this current thread: -

Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt nor is Agenda just a label for males/females.

 

An older and much slower Foreman modified himself in the 90s - by no means did that make him a better fighter in overall, net terms - nor did it morph him into a completely different fighter.

Young Foreman’s jab was an absolute stand out in his first career. Nothing new. Foreman’s power in his first career was otherworldly, again, nothing new.

Young Foreman was immensely strong and used that strength to great advantage, yet again, nothing new.

Putting aside the obvious impact of stamina issues, Young Foreman was also plenty durable.

Old Foreman was simply that much slower and more reserved. He fought more in deference to the longer haul.

Old Foreman also did not possess the acute accuracy that he often displayed in his first career and his power of punch was no longer aided by the speed with which he threw those punches.

Old Foreman, working off a terrific jab, put Holyfield in enough moments of serious bother to reasonably calculate that Young Foreman would inflict so much more damage and finish the job - mooting any questions of how the fight might unpack after 6 rounds.

 

Don't you know if you change your mind after 4 years that means you're inconsistent and wrong you have to never change your mind its how we get geniuses like this midwit

 

Yawn….you were just proven to have contradicted yourself and you cop out with the old cliche “weirdly invested”.

That was a happenstance find at any rate and involved one simple search.

A period of 4 years of learning and now it’s a resolute win for Holyfield over a Foreman of whom you don’t think much? Right, sure.

Just another easily anticipated, lame excuse/deflection on your part. Sing it out along with me - AGENDA.