What Are Holyfields Chances Against Foreman (Ali Fight)?

Walcott, Moore.

 

If you're talking greatness points, sure. Foreman got the right set of circumstances to grab the lineage, and it was impressive he pulled it off at his age.

If we're talking head to head, this forum sometimes mentions 42 year old Foreman from the Holyfield fight as his second career peak. That Foreman wasn't in a different league from Wlad or Vitali at a comparable age, and they had been boxing solidly since they were teens, IIRC. 42 year old Foreman probably wasn't a hugely superior contender to the absolute best 40+ contenders from the 90s onward, either.

Where Foreman was interesting is that he managed his decline a lot better during his later 40s than any other modern heavyweight I know of. He had the judges' help for the latter part of that, but even so.

 

Wlad wasn't fighting at 42yo. His last fight was when he'd just turned 41 and that was his first fight in a year and a half. Given Joshua's checkered career it's hard to be extremely confident Wlad may have fighting at Foreman's level. Maybe he was, it's hard to say.

Ironically Vitali had his last fight at almost the exact same age to the day as Wlad. He was still fighting quite strongly for sure.

Putting aside Foreman's second career peak, which i think I'd agree was around Holyfield, would those two be fighting as well as
Foreman at 45? Who would know, and it's certainly not something one could remotely assume. Once boxers get around that age things can go downhill - fast.

He had some help from the judges, but that's matched by him getting ripped off against Briggs, for the lineal title on the line no less. He must have been about 48 then. It may have been a blessing in disguise, it was a good time for him to retire.

 

The difference between 41 and 42 isn't much, which is why I said they were comparable.

41 and 48/49 is a big gap. Foreman was able to manage his decline from his second peak better than anyone I know of; I don't think many tried to fight on so long.

Very relevant for greatness discussions. Less so for head to head, since we know Foreman's ceiling in his second career.

The usual pattern for using Foreman's 90s career in head to head discusssions used to be, "Look at what old Foreman's second career looked like. Imagine if he'd been young; he would've slaughtered everybody."

But I think this way of thinking is a carryover from the old days when sports medicine was more primitive. At the time of the Holyfield bout, it looked incredible to be that good at 42. If Louis had fought that well at 42, the boxing public would have assumed that fighters from Louis's era must have been giants to have been able to share the ring with him.

But the game is different today. Vitali, Wlad, Chisora, Zhang, Ortiz, etc. all can perform at a high level in their early 40s. Doesn't make Foreman any less great, but it brings head to head extrapolations from his second peak back down to earth.

 

The Holy of the Bowe 1 fight does ok the first 2 rounds, goes into Warrior mode and is knocked out in 4.

And this is coming from someone who thinks Holy a significantly greater ATG.

 

Yes hence me passing Vitali. I raised Wlad as he'd been retired for 2 years and it was a one off. It's an awkward fight to judge, that one off. You could paint it negative or positive and put up a decent debate.

Yeah it's a crazy gap isn't it. It would have been interesting if some did fight on that long, but it's better that barely any do for obvious reasons. apart from that many would surely lose their durability by that point and get destroyed. It's eye opening that Foreman could still ship big punches so well.

True.

I can't say I've seen many saying Foreman would slaughter everybody if young. What he did when old as the hills certainly adds weight to his abilities however. To compete and succeed as he did multiple era's later sure shows he could cut it. As a physical speciman he had KO punchers like Tommy Morrison turning to safety first game plans completely against type as they knew they couldn't handle him physically. We know Morrison was all roided up too. There's no doubt Foreman as an absolute physical freak, boxing wise.

Yes and Foreman missed the guts of that. Since Foreman's actual comeback it's come ahead much further. The guys looking good at almost 42 now have had much more at their disposal than foreman ever did. His success was more due to being a freak. Holmes did well too, within a different style. Holmes too would easily compete with anyone in recent years.

Yes totally agreed. Plenty of these guys have been caught out steroid wise and have plenty of supplemental help on their side which makes it an entirely different game. They also fight less and are loads older when starting to fight contenders than Foreman was.

 

The real breakthrough in training technology came years before Holyfield/Foreman, when Shilstone built Spinks up for the Holmes fight. By Foreman's comeback, you had top contenders using the new techniques - Douglas, Holyfield, Old Foreman himself. There's been some development since then, but the mid-80s thru 90s were the watershed.

It's hard to compare 70s Foreman to the 90s version. If we assume the arc of Foreman's career decline up to the early 40s was similar to somebody like Vitali, then he was probably a little worse at 42 than he was in his prime. But late 20s Vitali availed himself of the modern training revolution, while 70s Foreman didn't. (If anything, 70s Foreman's strength & conditioning training might've been counterproductive at times.) Based on that, the 42 year old Foreman might have been better than his younger incarnation. But then again, we don't know how the 10 year gap and second career re-tutoring buildup affect that comparison.

Career #2 shows that 70s Foreman probably would've been a top 10 guy in the 90s, but I don't know how much more you'd get than that. And I think most people would agree that 70s Foreman could probably break through the top 10 today, even if they don't think much of the 70s.

As to steroids, people like Zhang, Wlad, Chisora (or even Vitali) don't have any more positive tests at the pro level than Foreman himself, IIRC...If we assume they were doping, the same assumption might be made against Foreman. Certainly, there was even less regulation of those substances in the early 90s, and they might have even been legal -- and not against the rules of boxing -- during that period. I don't think Foreman using them would've even been cheating for most of his early comeback, since their regulation started in earnest in 1990. It's speculation beyond noting the limits on evidence for most of these guys, though. My personal default for my own purposes is to assume PED use for modern era boxers, but that's not something I'm going to argue either way in a versus thread without the evidence.

 

Shilestone had to build Spinks up, Foreman had to build down. What specific 80's thru 90's techniques and advances in training technology are we speaking of, exactly?

Which of the new techniques and technology did Foreman use? I am a bit behind on his training methodology in his comeback.

Foreman and Vitali's career arcs aren't comparable, really, at all. Vitali was about 32 when he lost to Lewis, let alone won a title. Foreman was 24. Vitali hadn't even started pro boxing when Foreman was lineal and among his defenses.

If you are conveying Foreman might have been better H2H at 42 because of new training techniques and a bit of pacing and crossing his arms i don't know what to say. His "old" training techniques got him past an ATG in Frazier via blowout and a guy many consider near great in Norton.

Do you think the likes of SRR, Armstrong, Duran, Monzon, Foster and co would struggle today against fighters their own in the ring size because of these advances?

Foreman would be deep in the mix today as would the likes of Ali, Holmes and co. Guys like SRR and Duran would be having a great time.

Vitali was caught out in his kickboxing career so it's not as if he was against cheating with steroids. Wlad is his brother. There's a lot more smoke there than there is with Foreman. Ortiz got busted, a guy you used as an example of fighting at a high level in his 40's. Chisora does speak heavily against them. It's not impossible Foreman hit them, but for me it's more unlikely.

But yes peds are an awkward one. Even assuming everyone was on them i have little doubt the modern peds and application would be ahead of the 90's. I just give everyone the benefit of the doubt unless there's been enough smoke to the contrary. I wouldn't overly give the benefit regardless of whether he was "caught" pre boxing. I'd also be wary of Wlad too, tho less than Vitali. Ortiz is a ped man. Interestingly Zhang fired a sot over the Joyce bow regarding peds.

I agree tho, it's muddied waters.

 

If you read manuals from 30s thru 70s guys, retrospective accounts from interviews, and some newspaper articles at the time (like they did with Marciano and his blueberries on this forum), there's a definite pattern for the volume and type of training heavyweights could do back then. Broadly: Morning roadwork, afternoon in the gym with some combination of bag work, sparring, calisthenics, shadow boxing, etc. several days a week. Plus eating in a generically healthy way. This is still a good approach for someone not on PEDs. Foreman did it this way during his first career, although by his own account he also dehydrated himself in a way that he acknowledges now was counterproductive.

The stuff that invades boxing in the 80s and early 90s has some of the same ingredients, but a lot of new stuff, and it's organized differently. Weight training is a major difference; it's used to improve everything from strength, to power, to stamina, to prehab / injury prevention. Different approaches to stamina training, built around knowledge of energy systems, heart rate monitors, etc. Plyometrics. Better organized nutrition, plus supplements, PEDs, etc. The entire shebang is periodized. It's lots of little things based on (mostly) Soviet research that cumulatively make a big difference. Training volumes are much higher overall, without overtraining. (In at least some provable cases, this is aided by PEDs; Hatfield's program for Holyfield is a good example.)

You'll sometimes see responses like, "Yeah, but here's an example of a plyometric exercise from the 1920s where a guy is skipping or doing clap push-ups. Here's some sprinting a contender did in 1954. Fighters in the 1960s 'peaked' before fights." Yes, there are these bits and pieces. The modern approaches didn't invent 100% new stuff; but the overall approach was new to boxing, lots of the individual techniques were also new, and they understood how it all fit together. If you want a really stark contrast, read through Marciano's training analyzed through newspaper accounts on this forum, and compare it to Holyfield's before the Tyson fight.

Heck, even the PEDs -- because they weren't tested for, and were actually legal for part of this period -- were probably better in the 90s. You didn't have a drug testing arms race.

You said in a previous post that training in the 90s was primitive compared to today, so Foreman didn't have much back then. What post-90s advances are you referring to?

I am conveying that based on the performance of other long-lasting guys in the 40+ range, 42 year old Foreman wouldn't have been that much worse than when he was in his prime. If the number 42 is a hurdle, take Old Foreman from a year or two earlier, when he was fighting Cooney or Bert Cooper. He doesn't seem any better in those than in the Holyfield fight, but if you want to compare people with identical numbers of years on the clock, that's fine.

Oh, forgot Tony Thompson. Had his last title shot at 40, IIRC. I'll throw in more as I think of them.

Depends which ones we're talking about.

Duran, Armstrong, and SRR are often listed as the top 3 or 4 guys ever pound for pound. You're talking absolute tip of the bell curve among elite fighters. Foreman was never the best head to head fighter in either of the eras he fought in. Also, Foreman has a steeper hill to climb because he's in an unlimited weight class. Even Ali would have trouble today, and he was an at-least-generational talent who continued to control the division even when he was past it and had Parkinsons.

(Duran admitted to attempted PED use as well...)

But yeah, put them on modern training and they'd be better physically than they were.

I think if you're saying Foreman would be at/near the top of the heap today, based on his performance in the 90s, you'd have to differentiate him from other 40+ guys. That his performance at 40 or 41 or 42 was drastically worse relative to his prime than some of the other long-lived guys. Foreman's training history suggests the opposite, IMO; he got the better stuff comparatively late in life, which he didn't have access to in the 70s. We know comeback Foreman was a top 10 guy in the 90s, and that he had a mixed record overall against other elite 90s heavyweights. It's a jump from that to 70s Foreman being a shoe-in in 2024's division for the top or almost top guy.

 

So you believe Foreman was using such techniques? Sporting a different approach to stamina training based around energy system knowledge, he was utilizing heart rate monitors, plyometrics etc? you also think he was periodizing his training? Did he also raise his training volume to a lot higher standard? What exactly (new wave scientific/modern) did he add to make his success at such an old age easier to pull off? Foreman used weights for injury rehab, not to try and match 90's heavyweight for strength or make big gains.

Holyfield stood out from the field, as did Spinks. His regime was immensely different to the mainstream and not remotely anything like Foreman himself was doing. He was trying to make weight and strength gains, among other things, to allow him to compete with the big boys.

How much modern plyometrics did Foreman incorporate into his training? Holyfield's regime has little to do with Foreman's tho i appreciate you are noting differences in some modern training.

How many do you think were training like Holyfield?

Boxing long held the view building bigger muscles were a detriment so many weren't interested in delving in. Did some? no doubt. All? Not a chance. Did the likes of Holmes and Foreman? Personally i'd highly doubt it.

I can't find where i used "primitive" per a search. Can you zoom me in to the similarly worded comment and i will address it. I have no doubt i mentioned today was more advanced per being effective at an older age but can't find it at present.

What other 40-42yo fighters can you proffer up that were fighting at Foreman's standard at 23yo. All these 40-42yo studs seems to be guys that were barely fighting pro at 23 let alone lineal champs.

Even Holmes, who fought at a very respectable level at basically the same time as George when aging was only just going pro when Foreman was on top of the world and was about 28 when he hit the top of the Heavyweights.

Would you say Holmes wasn't much better at 40 odd than he was at his peak? Do you think Holmes at his peak could hit the top of the division today? Do you think Holmes training regime from 78-80 would allow him to succeed against all the new plyometrics and weight training etc? How about Ali? Forget that, you say below he'd have trouble. Lets focus on Holmes who is invariably rated below Ali.

Personally i think Larry Holmes would go great guns presently.

Thompson was at the 12 year mark as a pro at 40. Turned pro at what, 29? All these guys have far less years and fights under their belt than Holmes and Foreman. It needs to be added that Thompson was a proven drug cheat and was pro doping prior to getting banned.

There's no doubt others were fighting to a high standard at 40-42, even if not around 45+. The things is all these guys started late. I'm not arguing other guys around 40 or just over didn't fight to somewhat similar high standards as oldies, on a H2H basis.

Well lets talk about Curtis Cokes, Lloyd Marshall, Chavez, Azumah Nelson, et al. Some of these guys are 70 years behind in sports science. Would they be able to compete do you think? Surely all the new training methodology and science would make some of them defunct regardless of division, left behind?

Remind where that comment was again? In his book i think? What exactly did he say?

Would you say they'd be better fighters under modern training?

What would you say to the numerous believers in here that the old school boxing specific training and plenty of fighting and sparring from the days of SRR and co were better?

Foreman's 70 successes were rather big even if he did burn out early, mentally. His 70's performances are there for all to see, like Holmes 70's and start of the 80's performances. Holmes almost mirrors Foreman here, with Foreman going a half dozen years further back and Holmes having less break. I will say right now i immensely doubt Holmes 90's success is due to the 90's sports science vs say, 1980. Did Holmes even change his training routine, excepting allowances for age?

It's blatantly obvious to anyone with two eyes that Holmes was a vastly better fighter in 1980 vs when he was 43. Hell, he was a vastly different fighter from 1980 to 1986. Foreman was also a vastly more effective fighter in 1973. Could he have been a tad better with a few training changes in 73? For sure but not enormously so. He could have ran longer distance and concentrated some more on cardio and less on weight. Absolutely. As was he was still a monster at that time but unfortunately for him there's only one GOAT and he was far from the only ATG to find this out.

 

What significant training advances available to older fighters today are you saying were unavailable in the early 90s? (If any.)