Prime Holyfield vs. younger Holmes and Foreman

[bigjack]

Holmes would outpoint him,Foreman would lose on points.

[MrGuy]

You see, you ( much like Kolon ) are the sort of idiot that should you tell someone it was a lovely day, they would need to look out the window to check for themselves.

He won. He also lost 4-5 rounds to each fighter embarassing himself. Why fixate on the nonsense of total score? Because it makes it look like he won by far more. Priceless......

What part of Unanimous Decision is too difficult for you to comprehend, and the points total is completely relevant.

You are some kind of joke with your cretinous slating of Holyfield for losing 4 or 5 rounds in a 12 round fight. So for you to consider a guy a winner of a fight he needs to score a shutout does he.

What a muppet.

What part of when fighters are shot you dominate, dont you understand? You have to be a fan of someone who smashed Holyfield.

[MrGuy]

What part of Unanimous Decision is too difficult for you to comprehend, and the points total is completely relevant.

You are some kind of joke with your cretinous slating of Holyfield for losing 4 or 5 rounds in a 12 round fight. So for you to consider a guy a winner of a fight he needs to score a shutout does he.

What a muppet.

What part of when fighters are shot you dominate, dont you understand? You have to be a fan of someone who smashed Holyfield.

So Foreman had put 24 wins together in the previous 4 years all by stoppage bar one, and you claim he was shot when Holyfield beat him.

Similarly Holmes was no more shot when he lost to Holyfield than he was when he fought tyson. The only difference was he was far more active.

Quite delusional. Old Foreman was fat and basically smashed out bums. Yes Holmes was more active. But nobody can claim a heavyweight fighting 19 years after his pro debut is nowhere near his prime. Tyson smashed the inactive Holmes out. How that validates Holyfield struggling against an ancient fighter isn't understandable.

[Kalan]

Old Foreman was fat and basically smashed out bums. Yes Holmes was more active. But nobody can claim a heavyweight fighting 19 years after his pro debut is nowhere near his prime. Tyson smashed the inactive Holmes out. How that validates Holyfield struggling against an ancient fighter isn't understandable

Three things that an old fighter has that a young one might not are 1. patience... 2. craft... and 3. wisdom.... His physical assets are diminished but he knows how to pace himself and set traps.... It was smarter for Holyfield to use his youth and quickness to easily outpoint the old boys - rather than risk a Michael Moorer episode.... It showed Evander's level of maturity.

A 21-year-old Tyson didn't have to do that... Mike was so fast and powerful at his peak he just smashed people.

But the money was too easy for MIke at that time - and the world was his oyster....

By the time he was 23 he was chasing tail and paying no attention to 42-1 underdogs

[HomicideHenry]

Much as I like Holyfield, the fact that both fights he had with Foreman and Holmes when they were in their 40s were competitive and fun, only demonstrates to me that had Holyfield fought them in their 20s or early 30s he'd of most likely lost: though it'd of been ultra competitive and bruising (to say the least).

[Boxing Writer]

If thats meant to imply old George fought him better than a younger version could've, you're dreaming. His fans claim the same thing over his win over Holmes. More hittable, less speed and power........Prime Foreman destroys him.

The only dreamers on this forum are the soppy Foreman fans whose revisionist imaginations are running riot, in their determination to convince themselves the pre Young Foreman was anything other than a crude slugger.

Holyfield, though by no means a slickster was not some come straight forward idiot, tailor made for Foreman to crudely shove back and tee up for his telegraphed shots. That is why both Ali and Young made him look a gormless fool.

His head shots were crude. However the guy had a great jab, and was great at cutting off the ring. Was also very effective with shots to the body. He wasn't some neanderthal. Holyfield wasn't even in the same class as Young and Ali as a pure boxer. Struggled against ancient Foreman and Holmes. Almost got ko'd by Cooper. Beat by average Moorer. Beat twice by average Bowe. This was "prime" Holyfield. Ignoring that is being a revisionist.

Moorer and Bowe weren't average. Moorer was excellent (and very smart) boxer with a bad chin. Bowe was great offensive boxer with a poor defence.

[MrGuy]

His head shots were crude. However the guy had a great jab, and was great at cutting off the ring. Was also very effective with shots to the body. He wasn't some neanderthal. Holyfield wasn't even in the same class as Young and Ali as a pure boxer. Struggled against ancient Foreman and Holmes. Almost got ko'd by Cooper. Beat by average Moorer. Beat twice by average Bowe. This was "prime" Holyfield. Ignoring that is being a revisionist.

Moorer and Bowe weren't average. Moorer was excellent (and very smart) boxer with a bad chin. Bowe was great offensive boxer with a poor defence.

Why confuse a good opinion with inconvenient realities? Folks like him and kolon think everyone a fighter beats is average when they have an agenda against him. The same way as they believe a fighter is either prime, or shot, with no middle ground.

So who did Bowe ever look above average against that wasn't washed up besides Holyfield? All that skill means nothing if you can't properly use it. Moorer fought bums, only impressed against Holyfield. Outside of Holyfield who did he ever beat? I guess saying Bowe and Moorer were bland takes away from Holyfields wins over them. Meaning beating Holyfield wasn't some huge achievement.

[MrGuy]

Why confuse a good opinion with inconvenient realities? Folks like him and kolon think everyone a fighter beats is average when they have an agenda against him. The same way as they believe a fighter is either prime, or shot, with no middle ground.

So who did Bowe ever look above average against that wasn't washed up besides Holyfield? All that skill means nothing if you can't properly use it. Moorer fought bums, only impressed against Holyfield. Outside of Holyfield who did he ever beat? I guess saying Bowe and Moorer were bland takes away from Holyfields wins over them. Meaning beating Holyfield wasn't some huge achievement.

So Schultz, Botha, and Bean were either " washed up or bums " were they?

This from a fool who get schoolgirl like excited about the rapist beating garbage like Bruno, Berbick, Tillis, Green, Gross, Smith, Thomas, and Williams. A bigger collection of drunks, junkies, weirdo's and misfits you would be hard pushed to find. Oh and the icing on the cake, 38 year old inactive Holmes, and some crippled Light Heavy.

Before you judge other fighters resume's look at the shite your own hero feasted on. And never forget if Holyfield was so " average " what the fuk does that make the rapist scum?

Schultz, Botha, and Bean sucked. Never said Holyfield was average. Just very overrated.

[Cojimar 1946]

One issue is that both Bowe and Moorer seem to have extremely thin resumes aside from Holyfield. I don't think Botha, Schultz or Bean were even ranked in the top 10. Frank Bruno for example would have been heavily favored to beat anyone Moorer beat at heavyweight aside from Holyfield and people generally don't see him as a great fighter.