BoxRec

Cooper did almost knock Holyfield senseless --- it's true. Holyfield was more than stunned. Did he recover quickly? Remarkably so. However, for that brief period, & again later in the round to a lesser extent, he was absolutely on queer street, & it was a single blow which did it. Before you point out how swift his recuperation was, this was Bert Cooper. LOL. George Foreman, a slightly more dangerous prospect.

Bowe was hell on Holyfield because he was bigger, stronger, & able to flat-out over-power him. Those factors were at least as relevant as Bowe's in-game & jab. At least.

Fact is, Holyfield isn't swift enough (or disciplined enough) to outbox Foreman. He has neither the chin nor the punch to out-slug him, & is an entirely-hittable fighter. He doesn't do anything well enough to beat Foreman, IMO.

This much, & one thing more. Holyfield wouldn't beat Ali 1 in 100, let alone one in ten. Hell, my scorecard had him going 0-3 against Bowe.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

I suppose that concludes this discussion.

I don't think the vastly over-rated Bowe was any more skilled than Foreman. If Evander lays on the inside like he did with Riddick, when Foreman starts throwing those uppercuts he practically killed Frazier and Norton with, Evander is just taking those and storming back??? To me that is just utter fantasy, and I like Holyfield.

George needed room for his power. His uppercurts certainly weren't of the short variety that Bowe's were. It's easy to predict Holyfield getting destroyed, but like you said. That's pretty much a fantasy.

It's, "easy" to predict it, because he's no tougher, or better, than Frazier.

He's different than Frazier. Much more versatile and every bit as tough. Evander wouldn't wade into Foreman. He would counter George's rushes. Holyfield loved guys coming at him and always looked good against them.

But yeah, we are done here. Holyfield couldn't possibly be competitive in your eyes. As crazy as that is to me, I know better than to try and change your mind.

That's why people bet on fights, nobody knows who is going to win. People know even less about who is going to win in hypothetical fights like '91 Holyfield vs. '73 Foreman or '67 Ali or whatever. Fun to discuss, but in the time I have been reading this forum I've never read a post where one person changed his/her mind after reading the post of someone else. It's not worth getting mad about!

John Galt wrote:That's why people bet on fights, nobody knows who is going to win. People know even less about who is going to win in hypothetical fights like '91 Holyfield vs. '73 Foreman or '67 Ali or whatever. Fun to discuss, but in the time I have been reading this forum I've never read a post where one person changed his/her mind after reading the post of someone else. It's not worth getting mad about!

Let me assure u that Foreman would be a lovley safe bet to win this fight!
His jab would set Holy up for right crosses and very painful body hooks!
If u want a yard stick here then u only hav2 look at the 91 fight, were the slower then dripping treacle fat old man gave the young prime Holy some trouble. Also bear in mind that Foreman took Holys best punches and still kept coming.
Now the 70s version of Foreman would put a work r8 on Holy that would slow him to a standstill. Not that he would last that long anyway. How any1 can possibly think Holy could win this is beyond me.
Foreman KOs Holy around 5 rounds.

I don't think anyone is mad. It just gets to a point where you're wasting your time and it's better to move on.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I don't think anyone is mad. It just gets to a point where you're wasting your time and it's better to move on.

As usual ur full of crap!!!!

gambler49 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I don't think anyone is mad. It just gets to a point where you're wasting your time and it's better to move on.

As usual ur full of crap!!!!

I stand corrected, but you're always mad.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gambler49 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I don't think anyone is mad. It just gets to a point where you're wasting your time and it's better to move on.

As usual ur full of crap!!!!

I stand corrected, but you're always mad.

Well at least u admit 2 being corrected.
BTW I aint mad.

gambler49 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gambler49 wrote: As usual ur full of crap!!!!

I stand corrected, but you're always mad.

Well at least u admit 2 being corrected.
BTW I aint mad.

Your anger corrected my statement that nobody was mad. I'm sorry to confuse you.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gambler49 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
I stand corrected, but you're always mad.

Well at least u admit 2 being corrected.
BTW I aint mad.

Your anger corrected my statement that nobody was mad. I'm sorry to confuse you.

Lic my crack Saad!

The other interesting slant on this that no one has mentioned is, the first george foreman was supposedly one of the 3-4 most intimidating HW's of all time while conversely Holyfield is supposed to be the guy who throughout his career was immune to being intimidated.

I read someone else make the point George mk 1 wasnt a good infighter! I would retort george mk 1 was such a good infighter his massacre of Joe Frazier the first time, made Joe do something he hadnt done his entire career in the second fight,which was to fight backing up and moving around so much had he lost confidence in his ability to fight george on the inside.

The other interesting slant on this that no one has mentioned is, the first george foreman was supposedly one of the 3-4 most intimidating HW's of all time while conversely Holyfield is supposed to be the guy who throughout his career was immune to being intimidated.

I read someone else make the point George mk 1 wasnt a good infighter! I would retort george mk 1 was such a good infighter his massacre of Joe Frazier the first time, made Joe do something he hadnt done his entire career in the second fight,which was to fight backing up and moving around so much had he lost confidence in his ability to fight george on the inside.

gambler49 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gambler49 wrote: Well at least u admit 2 being corrected.
BTW I aint mad.

Your anger corrected my statement that nobody was mad. I'm sorry to confuse you.

Lic my crack Saad!

You're a strange individual, from your nuthugging of Tony Tubbs to your inability to spell lick.

mugabi wrote:The other interesting slant on this that no one has mentioned is, the first george foreman was supposedly one of the 3-4 most intimidating HW's of all time while conversely Holyfield is supposed to be the guy who throughout his career was immune to being intimidated.

I read someone else make the point George mk 1 wasnt a good infighter! I would retort george mk 1 was such a good infighter his massacre of Joe Frazier the first time, made Joe do something he hadnt done his entire career in the second fight,which was to fight backing up and moving around so much had he lost confidence in his ability to fight george on the inside.

I didn't say George wasn't a good in-fighter. He just wasn't as good inside as bowe or Holyfield. He was better with full extension on his shots.

I think Jimmy Young, who was nearly put to sleep by a short left-right-left hook combo on the inside by Foreman, would disagree with George not being the superior in-fighter here.


I was re-watching some Bowe last night and man it says a lot when a young Foreman actually had a much better DEFENSE than Bowe did . . .

dempseyfire wrote:I think Jimmy Young, who was nearly put to sleep by a short left-right-left hook combo on the inside by Foreman, would disagree with George not being the superior in-fighter here.


I was re-watching some Bowe last night and man it says a lot when a young Foreman actually had a much better DEFENSE than Bowe did . . .

The 90s HWs were overated! Wen Foreman and Holmes came outta retirment they PROVED this. I mean show me a 40+ yr old 90s HW that can compete in the 00s! Mercer, Morrison, Bowe, Golota, Tua, Moorer, Holyfield were good fighters but they wern't a lic onda 70s HWs. Also I think a prime Thomas, Witherspoon were better then any 90s HW apart from from Lewis and Holyfield. BTW Bowe had a crap deffence. Also I think Foreman was off key wen he battled Young.
Come 2 think about it he wernt rly da same after he lost 2 Clay.

I think there's little doubt the 70's HW's were better than the 90's crop.
But the 90's crop is far far superior to the 2000's crop.

So many of these guys are too lazy and soft to get down to 220-225 lbs and show their true athletisicm. They prefer to come in overweight at 240-250 and it shows in the lack of footwork, handspeed and ability to get up when they go down!!

David Haye is an inshape 220 pounder and I think thats why so many pin hopes on him taking the HW division back to the way it should be ie inshape athletes

Got to say I favour Saad’s assessment of the 2 Foremans and believe that Holyfield-Foreman is a 55-45 fight in Evander’s favour.

Holyfield was inconsistent but on his best night I see him stopping Foreman.

I'd definitely bet on prime Holyfield vs. '73 Foreman, but that is why it is called gambling - who knows what would have happened? When I think about the fight, I can't see much in Foreman's favor. Holyfield is quicker, more skilled, better stamina, a great chin, just a much better boxer.

I think of weaknesses I saw in Foreman in fights against people other than Frazier, Chuvalo, and Norton. The ones who think Foreman was a force of nature probably think of the Frazier, Chuvalo, and Norton fights. It is all about perception, but IMO, the young Foreman had glaring weaknesses that Holyfield would exploit.