George Foreman in 1991 (vs. Holyfield)

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 17 Aug 2006, 10:00

There are a couple of clips on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... +holyfield

It's impressive what the old man could do in 1991. Sure, Holyfield fought a stupid fight, trying to slug it out with old George rather than boxing. But George showed good handspeed and threw variable punches, and even his defense was quite decent. Compare this to Rahman-Maskaev - for many the best heavyweight fight in recent years - and picture what the 1991 big George would have done to these guys.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 17 Aug 2006, 11:41

pundit wrote:There are a couple of clips on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... +holyfield

It's impressive what the old man could do in 1991. Sure, Holyfield fought a stupid fight, trying to slug it out with old George rather than boxing. But George showed good handspeed and threw variable punches, and even his defense was quite decent. Compare this to Rahman-Maskaev - for many the best heavyweight fight in recent years - and picture what the 1991 big George would have done to these guys.

Maybe the most exciting heavyweight title fight in recent years, but not the best heavyweight fight. What about Brian Minto's stunning 10th round KO win over Vinny Maddalone I in 2004? Sure was fun to watch.

I'm drawing a blank after that ...

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 17 Aug 2006, 11:49

One of the great achievements in sports history is how Foreman was so very competitive in his 40's V the younger guys. Watching him go 12 rds with a peak Holyfield is something special. And he was nowhere close to being as devestating as the 1970's version. I don't think George would have lost against Holyfield peak V peak. Holyfield would be facing a stronger and much faster version

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 17 Aug 2006, 12:38

walshb wrote:One of the great achievements in sports history is how Foreman was so very competitive in his 40's V the younger guys. Watching him go 12 rds with a peak Holyfield is something special. And he was nowhere close to being as devestating as the 1970's version. I don't think George would have lost against Holyfield peak V peak. Holyfield would be facing a stronger and much faster version

Holyfield would not lose to 1970s version of Foreman. That version was stronger and faster but had worse defense and terrible stamina. If Holyfield gets past the first four, which is very likely, it becomes more and more unlikely that Foreman lasts the distance.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Aug 2006, 12:45

dont forget the 1970s foreman was much more powerful too. alot more snap on his punches.

holy did not impress me in this fight. the HOPRRIBLY slow wide looping 42 year old foreman found holyfield easy to hit. he was nailing holy with shots all night. imagine wut the killer 1970s foreman will do to holyfield when he lands. it will be lights out. i never understood why a 1990s foreman gave holy that much trouble. holy should have killed him. 1990s foreman lost to alex stewart, axel shulz(robberies), tommy morrison, etc basically any good boxer he faced he lost.

foreman TKO 3 holyfield

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Aug 2006, 12:46

holy seemed to lack top power. when ron lyle hit foreman once foreman went down. holy hit foreman with flush shots all night and foreman still didnt go down.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 17 Aug 2006, 12:53

I think prime Holyfield would have a very difficult time with the 70’s (prime) Foreman. While Holy is clearly an all time great, he also was not the type of fighter that troubled George at any time in his career. In the 70’s George had problems with movers and defensive specialists like Peralta, Ali and Young. Holy’s defense was quite good, but in general he liked to fight inside and was very good at it, but I think against Foreman that would lead to a relatively quick KO loss.

George’s second career was quite amazing, but you have to put it in perspective. It was also amazingly well managed, as George was steered clear of anyone who was a slick boxer and steered towards those who either liked to rumble, or were so slow that they posed little threat of being able to stay away for any length of time. Holyfield fit this mold pretty well, and I think George and his management recognized and realized that there was a possibility of winning. Notice you don’t see any Tubbs, Williams, Tucker, or even Douglas or Hunter on George’s 80’s-90’s resume. Not trying to besmirch George, just trying to be realistic. Most likely, had the 80’s-90’s George fought the same Young, Peralta or Ali that the 70’s George fought he would have looked even worse than the 70’s version.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 17 Aug 2006, 12:58

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:dont forget the 1970s foreman was much more powerful too. alot more snap on his punches.

holy did not impress me in this fight. the HOPRRIBLY slow wide looping 42 year old foreman found holyfield easy to hit. he was nailing holy with shots all night. imagine wut the killer 1970s foreman will do to holyfield when he lands. it will be lights out. i never understood why a 1990s foreman gave holy that much trouble. holy should have killed him. 1990s foreman lost to alex stewart, axel shulz(robberies), tommy morrison, etc basically any good boxer he faced he lost.

foreman TKO 3 holyfield

I agree. If Holyfield stands in front of Foreman like in this fight all you would see is a replay of Foreman-Frazier. 42-year old Foreman could throw Holyfield of balance and open up his defense with punches on the arms. Imagine what 24-year old Foreman's punches would have done.

But then, Holyfield fought stupid. If he would have boxed Foreman rather than slugging it out the fight would presumably have been much more one-sided.

This said, I would favor 42-year old George Foreman over ANY of today's heavyweights except Vlad Klitschko (and perhaps Chris Byrd).

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 17 Aug 2006, 13:00

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:dont forget the 1970s foreman was much more powerful too. alot more snap on his punches.

holy did not impress me in this fight. the HOPRRIBLY slow wide looping 42 year old foreman found holyfield easy to hit. he was nailing holy with shots all night. imagine wut the killer 1970s foreman will do to holyfield when he lands. it will be lights out. i never understood why a 1990s foreman gave holy that much trouble. holy should have killed him. 1990s foreman lost to alex stewart, axel shulz(robberies), tommy morrison, etc basically any good boxer he faced he lost.

foreman TKO 3 holyfield

Umm, Holyfield fought all the top fighters from the 80s, 90s, and 00s in the cruiserweight and heavyweight divisions. No one EVER came close to actually stopping Holyfield in three rounds. Holyfield had one of the greatest chins and recooperative powers in both division's histories.

If you want to say Foreman beats Holyfield, fine. Don't say some stupid crap like Foreman TKO 3 Holyfield, which is totally ridiculous.

1990s Foreman gave Holyfield trouble because he took a good punch, had deceptive defense (improved by cross arm defensive master Archie Moore), great power, great poise, and outweighed Holyfield by FIFTY pounds. He also was a more rounded fighter than the 70s version.

Holyfield also was trying to KO Foreman to prove to his critics that he had a heavyweight punch. Not the best idea to slug with Foreman. How many fighters in the 70s or 80s or 90s slugged with Foreman and actually won by a comfortable margin? Stewart had success but was dropped twice himself which hurt him terribly on the scorecards. Tommy Morrison ran for dear life. Michael Moorer, at his heavyweight peak, was KO'd.

The 1991 Holyfield TKOs the '71-'77 Foreman in seven rounds. That version of Foreman was slightly shorter (6'3") and thirty to forty pounds lighter. A 6'3", 217 lb George Foreman agaisnt a 6'2 1/2", 208 lb Holyfield? Almost a wash in physical stature. Holyfield is faster, has better stamina, better technique, better combination punching, and better moral resolve. Foreman tires quickly after trading with Holyfield early and Holyfield turns up the heat to drop Big George in seven with a double left hook. He jumps on Foreman after he rises and the ref stops the fight.

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 17 Aug 2006, 13:03

Holyfield would last 12 w/the younger Foreman IMO. He had all of the tools to use against Foreman, and the heart and chin. The only thing that would be his downfall is his willingness to brawl at times. He got hit flush by great heavyweights and didn't go down: Bowe, Lewis, even from Foreman himself!!!!

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 17 Aug 2006, 13:17

IMO The young Foreman is Taylor made for Holyfield. The old one did what he could and put up a decent fight but I think Holyfield would easily survive young Foremans bombs and KO him.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 17 Aug 2006, 13:18

evndrbsn wrote:Umm, Holyfield fought all the top fighters from the 80s, 90s, and 00s in the cruiserweight and heavyweight divisions. No one EVER came close to actually stopping Holyfield in three rounds. Holyfield had one of the greatest chins and recooperative powers in both division's histories.

If you want to say Foreman beats Holyfield, fine. Don't say some stupid crap like Foreman TKO 3 Holyfield, which is totally ridiculous.

Who else came close to stopping Frazier before Foreman did - in two? Or Ken Norton?

1990s Foreman gave Holyfield trouble because he took a good punch, had deceptive defense (improved by cross arm defensive master Archie Moore), great power, great poise, and outweighed Holyfield by FIFTY pounds. He also was a more rounded fighter than the 70s version.

Except for the cross-armed defense I don't see much "rounding". Plus the 1990s had less power and was even slower on his feet than the 1970s version.

Holyfield also was trying to KO Foreman to prove to his critics that he had a heavyweight punch. Not the best idea to slug with Foreman.

I believe this point is crucial.

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 17 Aug 2006, 13:29

The 90's Foreman though tremendous was not on par with the 70's in all areas including stamina. If George fights clever I don't see how Evander beats him. Foreman has all the physical advantages. Big Daddy gave Holyfield hell and I think George would do the same. He's just too good of a big big man for Evander. KO victory for Geoge, e lands cleaner and much more frequently than the 91 version, with even more power

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 17 Aug 2006, 13:37

pundit wrote:
Who else came close to stopping Frazier before Foreman did - in two? Or Ken Norton?

Frazier had a good chin but not a better chin than Holyfield. Plus Holyfield proved his chin throughout an entire career of durability, even proving it when he was far, far past his prime. Norton was KO'd in even more brutal fashion after he fought Foreman. Remember Earnie Shavers or Gerrie Cooney?

pundit wrote:

Except for the cross-armed defense I don't see much "rounding". Plus the 1990s had less power and was even slower on his feet than the 1970s version.

As I said, the 90s version of Foreman was much more poised and able to go a full 12 rounds. The 70s version of Foreman could not go 12 rounds in a back and forth fight. He'd collapse. Watch his fight with Jimmy Young.

evndrbsn wrote: Holyfield also was trying to KO Foreman to prove to his critics that he had a heavyweight punch. Not the best idea to slug with Foreman.

pundit wrote:I believe this point is crucial.

The point is that he fought using a stupid gameplan and still won fairly easily. It is most likely he'd use a different gameplan against 70s Foreman, but even if he didn't, I don't see George's stamina taking him past seven rounds with Holyfield at that pace. He barely made it out on his feet against Ron Lyle, who was not near the fighter Holyfield was.

Holyfield had problems KOing much, much larger fighters at heavyweight. George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Riddick Bowe, and Ray Mercer were the only fighters Holyfield failed to KO at heavyweight from 1988 to 1997. Foreman and Holmes were only stopped once each in their careers and weighed 49 and 23 pounds more than Holyfield respectively. Riddick Bowe weighed 30, 29, and 27 pounds more than Holyfield in their first, second, and third fights and was never KO'd in a 44 bout career. Ray Mercer had one of the best chins in the business and was not stopped until he was 41 years old in 2002, seven years after Holyfield sent him to the canvas for the first time in his career with a left hook to the head in 1995. Everyone else that he fought, he stopped or knocked out, including Iron Mike Tyson and Michael Moorer in the rematch.

Holyfield would not be facing a much larger opponent if he ever met 6'3", 217 lb George Foreman in the ring. In fact, he'd be fighting a man tailor made for his style of fighting.

Holyfield TKO 7 Foreman

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 17 Aug 2006, 13:38

walshb wrote:The 90's Foreman though tremendous was not on par with the 70's in all areas including stamina. If George fights clever I don't see how Evander beats him. Foreman has all the physical advantages. Big Daddy gave Holyfield hell and I think George would do the same. He's just too good of a big big man for Evander. KO victory for Geoge, e lands cleaner and much more frequently than the 91 version, with even more power

Foreman was not a big man compared to Holyfield. In his prime, he had half an inch on him in height and about 10 lbs in weight. Like I said, they are about the same in size.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Aug 2006, 13:52

holyfield loved to brawl. he would be drawn into a brawl with a prime foreman. also were talking the 1971-74 foreman. NOT the 76-77 past his prime foreman. were talking the 1971-74 destructive machine foreman!
bert cooper nearly knocked holy out. cooper was one punch away. the ref was close to stopping it with holy being battered along the ropes. holy was easy to hit. a 40 year old HORRIBLY SLOW FOREMAN WAS ABLE TO TAG EVANDER EASILY. imagine wut the 1970s wrecking machine foreman would do? dont say holy wasnt close to being knocked out cause journeyman bert cooper almost did the job. if that had been a prime foreman he would have stopped holy. the 1990s foreman was not more well rounded. the 1990s foreman was horribly slow, horrible reflexes, no snap on his punch, slower of foot. the 1971-74 foreman was an entirely different monster than the 1990s foreman.

foreman bounced frazier off the canvas like he was his daddy. frazier was better and just as durable as holyfield. holyfield would not be able to take foremans punches.

foreman TKO 3 holyfield- holy tries to brawl with foreman and foremans blasts holyfield to the canvas 5 times before the ref stops the one sided slaughter.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Aug 2006, 13:53

evndrbsn wrote:
walshb wrote:The 90's Foreman though tremendous was not on par with the 70's in all areas including stamina. If George fights clever I don't see how Evander beats him. Foreman has all the physical advantages. Big Daddy gave Holyfield hell and I think George would do the same. He's just too good of a big big man for Evander. KO victory for Geoge, e lands cleaner and much more frequently than the 91 version, with even more power
Foreman was not a big man compared to Holyfield. In his prime, he had half an inch on him in height and about 10 lbs in weight. Like I said, they are about the same in size.

foreman had a huge build. foreman weighed 225lb vs norton in his prime. thats 30lb more than evander weighed.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Aug 2006, 13:54

The 70s version of Foreman could not go 12 rounds in a back and forth fight. He'd collapse. Watch his fight with Jimmy Young.

foreman was past his prime and dehydrated vs young. that was not the 71-74 killer foreman anymore!

if u mention foremans career in 76-77 again, i will start using holyfields fights in 94-95 against him

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 17 Aug 2006, 13:57

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:holyfield loved to brawl. he would be drawn into a brawl with a prime foreman. also were talking the 1971-74 foreman. NOT the 76-77 past his prime foreman. were talking the 1971-74 destructive machine foreman!
bert cooper nearly knocked holy out. cooper was one punch away. the ref was close to stopping it with holy being battered along the ropes. holy was easy to hit. a 40 year old HORRIBLY SLOW FOREMAN WAS ABLE TO TAG EVANDER EASILY. imagine wut the 1970s wrecking machine foreman would do? dont say holy wasnt close to being knocked out cause journeyman bert cooper almost did the job. if that had been a prime foreman he would have stopped holy. the 1990s foreman was not more well rounded. the 1990s foreman was horribly slow, horrible reflexes, no snap on his punch, slower of foot. the 1971-74 foreman was an entirely different monster than the 1990s foreman.

foreman bounced frazier off the canvas like he was his daddy. frazier was better and just as durable as holyfield. holyfield would not be able to take foremans punches.

foreman TKO 3 holyfield- holy tries to brawl with foreman and foremans blasts holyfield to the canvas 5 times before the ref stops the one sided slaughter.

Frazier was not better or as durable as Holyfield. Look at both of their careers again. The 1976 Foreman was much better than the 1973 Foreman. Look at Foreman's two fights with Joe Frazier. He showed little technique in the first bout and looked quite amateurish. In the second fight, he showed better boxing skills and fought from the outside to beat Frazier. Joe was past his best but implemented the strategy he should have used against Foreman in the first fight.

The 1970s wrecking ball Foreman would collapse face first in round seven against Holyfield. Holyfield TKO 7 Foreman.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Aug 2006, 13:57

Holyfield would not be facing a much larger opponent if he ever met 6'3", 217 lb George Foreman in the ring. In fact, he'd be fighting a man tailor made for his style of fighting.

ill take the 225lb foreman of the norton fight.

holyfield is tailor made for foreman. holy loves to brawl, doesnt have very good defense(42 year old HORRIBLY slow foreman landed flush on holy the whole fight), foreman will tee off on holy like its his job. look wut riddck bowe did to holy with his uppercut. imagine wut foremans uppercut will do to holyfield.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Aug 2006, 13:59

The 1976 Foreman was much better than the 1973 Foreman. Look at Foreman's two fights with Joe Frazier. He showed little technique in the first bout and looked quite amateurish. In the second fight, he showed better boxing skills and fought from the outside to beat Frazier. Joe was past his best but implemented the strategy he should have used against Foreman in the first fight.

are u kidding me?

the 1976 foreman was much worse. he was rustier, he was out of shape(230lb), he looked HORRIBLE VS RON LYLE.

2nd fight with frazier? foreman was fighting a INCREDIBLY FAT COMPLETLEY SHOT JOE FRAZIER. FRAZIER WAS COMPLETLEY GONE IN 1976.

foreman was a killer......a wrecking machine in his PRIME 1971-74. 76-77 was a different worse version of foreman

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Aug 2006, 13:59

joe frazier was defintley better than holyfield. frazier would knockout holy too.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 17 Aug 2006, 14:01

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
evndrbsn wrote:
walshb wrote:The 90's Foreman though tremendous was not on par with the 70's in all areas including stamina. If George fights clever I don't see how Evander beats him. Foreman has all the physical advantages. Big Daddy gave Holyfield hell and I think George would do the same. He's just too good of a big big man for Evander. KO victory for Geoge, e lands cleaner and much more frequently than the 91 version, with even more power
Foreman was not a big man compared to Holyfield. In his prime, he had half an inch on him in height and about 10 lbs in weight. Like I said, they are about the same in size.
foreman had a huge build. foreman weighed 225lb vs norton in his prime. thats 30lb more than evander weighed.

How was 225lb Foreman 30 pounds heavier that Holyfield? Holyfield's lowest weight at heavyweight was 202 in his first heavyweight outing. Thats 23 lbs more. When Holyfield fought Foreman, he was 208. That is only 16 1/4 lbs less than George at 224 3/4. Almost half of your 30lbs more that Foreman supposedly was. Also, Foreman looked physically better against Frazier in '73 and Ali in '74 at 217 1/2 and 220 lbs.

Holyfield also had a large frame. He also had a ton of muscle, which KO'd all the heavyweights his size in his prime.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Aug 2006, 14:05

were taking the 1971-74 224lb foreman of the norton fight vs the 205lb holy of the buster douglas right correct?

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 17 Aug 2006, 14:07

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
The 1976 Foreman was much better than the 1973 Foreman. Look at Foreman's two fights with Joe Frazier. He showed little technique in the first bout and looked quite amateurish. In the second fight, he showed better boxing skills and fought from the outside to beat Frazier. Joe was past his best but implemented the strategy he should have used against Foreman in the first fight.

are u kidding me?

the 1976 foreman was much worse. he was rustier, he was out of shape(230lb), he looked HORRIBLE VS RON LYLE.

2nd fight with frazier? foreman was fighting a INCREDIBLY FAT COMPLETLEY SHOT JOE FRAZIER. FRAZIER WAS COMPLETLEY GONE IN 1976.

foreman was a killer......a wrecking machine in his PRIME 1971-74. 76-77 was a different worse version of foreman

Nope, I'm not joking. Foreman was 224 in the second fight with Frazier. Frazier was past it, yes, but Foreman used great technique in that fight. He started using a great jab from the beginning, setting up his distance better than he did previously, in my opinion.

You are basing your opinion of Foreman on two fights, the first Frazier fight and the Norton fight. Borderline heavyweight Peralta took Foreman 20 rounds. Foreman never looked truly devastating against a quality opponent in the 70s except Frazier and Norton. His only other title defense was against Jose Roman, who is from the Tampa area I live in and was thought of then as much as now as a major joke. Plus Foreman got a tainted victory over the terrible Roman when he pelted him when he was down.

Holyfield proved himself over several fights over several years unlike Foreman, who only had spectacular wins in his prime over two fighters.

George Foreman in 1991 (vs. Holyfield)

George Foreman in 1991 (vs. Holyfield)

Re: George Foreman in 1991 (vs. Holyfield)