Holyfield's wins against...

[Russell]

Holmes and Foreman. I'm curious how much weight both of them carry in your opinion. Was one more impressive than the other? If so, why?

Holyfield's win over Holmes was the fight Larry had immediantly before his amazing performance against Mercer. He obviously still had quite a bit left in the tank.

Foreman also had a bit left in the tank when Holyfield beat him.

Neither fighter was in their prime... Both were 42 when they met and lost to Evander. But, just because they weren't mirror images of their younger selves doesn't mean they were lesser fighters. But learnt quite a bit during their second careers. Like a fine wine and all that.

Thoughts on Holyfield's wins against them?

[streetsaresafer]

I think Holyfield's win over Foreman is more significant for a number of reasons.

For one, Foreman was a more dangerous opponent and I think a bit better than Larry was in the 90s. He did reclaim the HW title by taking Moorer out so that has to go a long way.

Also, I think the Foreman of the 90s did some things better than the prime Foreman circa 1974. He paced himself better, used his jab more effectively, and overall was a more technically sound fighter in the 90s. Now there is no question he did not have the speed or reflexes, or even some of the awesome power he had in his prime, but my point was that he did some things better.

Holmes on the other hand, was not measurably better in any way over his prime self. I just saw a much more diminished and slow fighter than in his prime. Yes he still competed at a high level, but I didn't see any advantages the 90s Holmes had over the prime Holmes.

In addition, Holyfield looked much more impressive against Foreman than Holmes. He beat Foreman decisively, winning 9 of the rounds on my card. He even had George hurt a few times, and looked like he might put him out. Also, I think Evander's 15 punch combination in round 7 is still amazing to this day. When I think of prime Evander, I think of that combo.

Holyfield won clearly against Holmes, but not impressively. The one thing that cannot be overlooked is that Holyfield suffered a bad cut in the 5th or
6th round, and from that point his corner told him to be careful and just go for the decision win on pts. So that has to be factored in.

Overall, for Holyfield, the Foreman victory is one worth touting and counting for something significant. Where as the win over Holmes is one that is not worth touting much. Interesting fights nontheless.

[Russell]

Good stuff. Thanks for your input, streetsaresafer.

[Thread Stealer]

They are decent wins over aged (but not shot) greats.

What I don't like is how Holyfield's own inconsistency made quite a few people value the win over Foreman more than they originally did, because Foreman won the title over Moorer.

[AnthonyJ74]

I think the reason Evander looked better against Foreman than he did against Holmes was due to styles. George was a plodding type of a fighter who didn't use much movement; Holmes was much more mobile and was a faster fighter. Plus, Holmes fought a defensive fight and greatly limited Evander's opportunities to score against him. Foreman fought more aggressively, but he left himself open more to Evander's punches.

And, I just can't see Foreman doing anything better than he did during his prime. The reason he seemed to pace himself better was because he had no choice. Even if he had wanted to, he didn't have the speed or the endurance to go wild with his punches.

[Seamus]

I think streetaresafer shut down this thread with his very thoughtful and comprehensive comments.

I will only call task his assertion that Foreman did not carry his power into th 90's. I believe his punches were more measured, as a mature fighter would be, but his power remained. Those jabs he hit Moorer with leading up to the KO were brutal. Also, his destruction of a still viable Cooney was impressive.

Thus, Holy's defeat of Foreman is pretty damned impressive.

[AnthonyJ74]

I think streetaresafer shut down this thread with his very thoughtful and comprehensive comments.

I will only call task his assertion that Foreman did not carry his power into th 90's. I believe his punches were more measured, as a mature fighter would be, but his power remained. Those jabs he hit Moorer with leading up to the KO were brutal. Also, his destruction of a still viable Cooney was impressive.

Thus, Holy's defeat of Foreman is pretty damned impressive.

What leads you to believe that Cooney was still a viable fighter? To me, the Cooney fight was picked very astutely by George and Co. to gain exposure by beating a "name" fighter who was safe.

[Thread Stealer]

Cooney hadn't won a fight in nearly 4 years when Foreman annihilated him.

Cooney still had a name, and still had a punch, but that's about all.

[Seamus]

Man, Cooney kicked the shit out of Eddie Gregg.

Seriously, a win over Cooney at that point isn't the greatest but was fairly emphatic. The real point is Foreman was far more measured in his second career and didn't so badly suffer the stamina problems he did earlier. I think his power was fairly intact.

[streetsaresafer]

Yeah I think Foreman's power was mostly there, but I have to think that speed wise he had lost a bit, and thus his power punches would not be quite as powerful if only because they wouldn't be as fast as the 70s Foreman.

[DamonD]

Yes, both guys were old, but both guys were also ATGs in their prime.
I think they would have to count as very good wins for Holyfield, even if the Holmes performance in particular was pretty lacklustre (thanks to Holmes).

The Holmes fight hurt Holyfield in the eyes of the media more, because of the comparisons to what Tyson had done and Holmes's style and tactics stopping Holyfield from getting into any kind of solid rhythm. Now sure, in terms of preparation and ring rust it's unfair to compare Holmes 88 to Holmes 92, but to the casual audience they were grumbling about that.

The shadow of Tyson hung over Holyfield for many years. It's no wonder he wanted to defeat him so bad.

[ChrisPontius]

Both fights were impressive outings. I think Holmes was the better fighter going into it, as he had a win over a legitimit top contender (Mercer), while Foreman only had tomato cans and a big smile.

In terms of what it adds to Holyfields resume, they are decent to good wins. Holmes was a top contender, i don't know if Foreman was, but if he was he didn't deserve to be at that moment. Many people remember Foreman knocking out Moorer, but seem to forget him losing rather one-sided to Holyfield and Morrison, not to mention his struggles with fringe contenders Schulz, Stewart and Savarese.

The way Holyfield beat them was the most impressive thing about them. He put together some beautiful combinations and counter punches, particularly against Foreman.

[Sonny's jab]

The win over Holmes was more impressive because Holmes had EARNED a high ranking. He'd totally outboxed Ray Mercer, who was undefeated, in his prime and a top 5 or 6 heavyweight in the world. Holmes deserved a high ranking for beating Mercer. In fact, with Tyson in jail, Holmes may have been the fighter out there with the best credentials. Lewis and Bowe hadn't beaten anyone as highly ranked as Mercer at that time.

I thought Holyfield beat Holmes clearly, but Holmes gave a good account of himself in the first 4 or 5 rounds, and his style is the type to make Holyfield look less impressive. Holyfield had to adapt his style.

The win over Foreman was more hyped, had caught the public's imagination, but Foreman hadn't earned his shot by beating any really top ranked fighters. He was a dangerous active fighter though, no joke.
Holyfield looked better against Foreman because he had a better style to look good against.

The win over Holmes is better in my eyes simply because I ranked Holmes higher.

[rekcutnevets]

I pretty much agree with Sonny's jab

[janitor]

To me, the Cooney fight was picked very astutely by George and Co. to gain exposure by beating a "name" fighter who was safe.

I think that Cooney and Co made exactly the same cynical calculation.

Diference is that the older Foreman won. And make no mistake it was a tough test for him to step up to at his age.

[Russell]

Funny how Cooney and co thought they could just half ass everything in the kill or be killed boxing world for YEARS and hope to still get by and see those dollar signs.

Guys inactivity was insane.

[janitor]

Funny how Cooney and co thought they could just half ass everything in the kill or be killed boxing world for YEARS and hope to still get by and see those dollar signs.

Guys inactivity was insane.

They got him two fights for the lineal title despite their flaws.

The rest was up to him.

[AnthonyJ74]

Yeah I think Foreman's power was mostly there, but I have to think that speed wise he had lost a bit, and thus his power punches would not be quite as powerful if only because they wouldn't be as fast as the 70s Foreman.

Agreed. I don't think George hit nearly as hard during his comeback as he did in the 70's. His lack of speed deflated a lot of snap out of his punches. His punches in his comeback were powerful, but they weren't the crisp, snapping bombs of his prime.

[AnthonyJ74]

I think that Cooney and Co made exactly the same cynical calculation.

Diference is that the older Foreman won. And make no mistake it was a tough test for him to step up to at his age.

I don't think it was much of a test. There were a load of young and active heavyweights on the scene at the time who would have loved to have fought George. George picks Cooney, a guy who hadn't fought since being knocked out by Michael Spinks, and after how many stints in rehab?

[janitor]

I don't think it was much of a test. There were a load of young and active heavyweights on the scene at the time who would have loved to have fought George. George picks Cooney, a guy who hadn't fought since being knocked out by Michael Spinks, and after how many stints in rehab?

That was Foremans calculation.

I think Cooney made the calculation that Foreman was an old man, posibly further gone than himself and a name fighter. Foreman had no significant wins in his comeback at this point and Cooney did not know what Foreman would go on to achieve.

Cuts both ways.

[ChrisPontius]

I don't think so, Janitor.

Of course it is only speculation at this point but i highly doubt Cooney had a thorough comeback plan of which Foreman was the first phase.

It was Foreman who smartly picked "name" opponents that posed little threat, not Cooney. Cooney was just taking the fight and making money to get some new lines.

[Mendoza]

I pretty much agree with Sonny's jab


Same here. I thought Holmes was the better win for Holyfield, but Foreman was the better " event " for Holyfield.

When a prime champion faces an older X champion, the prime champion should dominate the older X champion or knock him out.

Foreman had his share of moment’s vs Holyfeild. Holmes cut Holyfield and won 4-5 rounds. I have little doubt Lewis or Tyson would have won in more impressive fashion.

I guess the end result is Holyfield beat still formidable, but clearly past their prime versions of Foreman and Holmes. Holyfield legacy does not take a hit because he won these fights, but the fact that he had his share of problems in these fights and other fights vs Cooper, Mercer and Moorer suggests he was not a top ten all time great. After all, Foreman Ko'd the same Morrer, and Holmes schooled the same Mercer.

[fists of fury]

Holyfield did what he was expected to do, namely beat two old men. Neither Foreman or Holmes were seiously expected to trouble Evander, and that's how it turned out.
I remember reading a World Boxing issue entitled "How to get rid of 260 pounds of flab in five minutes." That magazine didn't think Foreman would last more than 3 rounds.

I don't think Holyfield's defences agiainst these to old legends deserves any special mention, other than it's not every day you get 40+ fighters fighting for world titles.
Trial horse Bert Cooper, who took the fight on short notice, put up a much better effort than either Foreman or Holmes.

[Russell]

I doubt he took Cooper anywhere nearly as serious as he did Holmes and Foreman.

[Ted Spoon]

The conventional way to decide the worth of a victory it to look at the quality of the performance and the quality of the opponent - if you do this one might say Holyfield was under-par on both occasions, but when you consider what Foreman and Holmes were still capable of at that age and the fights they put up, you have to give Holyfield credit for sticking it out.

They were not particularly quality victories, going off the 'conventional' thought, but legit and well earned title defences none the less.

Circumstance wise, the Foreman victory was worth perhaps a little more, but Holyfield struggled more with Holmes, so he gets kudos for wrapping things up.

[My dinner with Conteh]

The win over Foreman was impressive. George looked like he came to win, Peanut Head didn't.

[Ted Spoon]

The win over Foreman was impressive. George looked like he came to win, Peanut Head didn't.

Look a little closer and you'll see a potato. 'Sugar' Ray Leonard is the fabled 'Peanut Head'.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Look a little closer and you'll see a potato. 'Sugar' Ray Leonard is the fabled 'Peanut Head'.


Definitely. Leonard does have a peanut shaped napper no doubts. :D

[Sonny's jab]

Bigger punchers than Holyfield (eg. Alex Stewart, Tommy Morrison, arguably Michael Moorer) didn't have any subsequent success in KOing Foreman or even rocking him as bad as Holyfield did, so I disagree with those who see Foreman going the distance as being anything to deem Holyfield's performance "sub-par".

[Bill1234]

I think Holyfield's win over Foreman is more significant for a number of reasons.

I think a bit better than Larry was in the 90s. He did reclaim the HW title by taking Moorer out so that has to go a long way.


Holmes on the other hand, was not measurably better in any way over his prime self. I just saw a much more diminished and slow fighter than in his prime. Yes he still competed at a high level, but I didn't see any advantages the 90s Holmes had over the prime Holmes.

In addition, Holyfield looked much more impressive against Foreman than Holmes. He beat Foreman decisively, winning 9 of the rounds on my card. He even had George hurt a few times, and looked like he might put him out. Also, I think Evander's 15 punch combination in round 7 is still amazing to this day. When I think of prime Evander, I think of that combo.

Holyfield won clearly against Holmes, but not impressively. The one thing that cannot be overlooked is that Holyfield suffered a bad cut in the 5th or
6th round, and from that point his corner told him to be careful and just go for the decision win on pts. So that has to be factored in.

Overall, for Holyfield, the Foreman victory is one worth touting and counting for something significant. Where as the win over Holmes is one that is not worth touting much. Interesting fights nontheless.


Why do you think George is better? Larry was smarter and seemed to hit a little harder. He gave up speed for power, and IMO it was a good trade off considering he couldn't move like he used to. Foreman never would have got the title if Moorer didn't get careless and George didn't see it. George was getting the shit kicked out of him until he landed that right. IMO Larry won more rounds against Holyfield. I had Holmes winning 4 rounds, and George only 3. 4 rounds means Larry won 1/3 of the fight, which isn't bad at his age. Also, you have to take into account that Larry had a detached retina in the Holyfield fight. IMO Larry wasn't quite as good or the same fighter as he was in the Mercer fight. The Mercer fight IMO was he last dominant performance against a top and dangerous fighter. After that, his tank was never the same. He damn near became the linear title against a prime and game Olivar McCall in 1995, losing only by 1 point on 2 of the scorecards.

[Cojimar 1945]

Stewart and Moorer do not have any wins at heavyweight that would suggest they were bigger punchers than Holyfield. Neither kayoed any really durable top contenders as far as I can tell.

[streetsaresafer]

Bill1234 - I would agree that Moorer was certainly dominating that fight against Foreman, but nontheless George still did land the right hand and become HW champ, that has to be worth something.

Larry did win more rounds than Foreman but you have to remember that Holyfield suffered a bad cut halfway through the fight, which meant he fought very cautiously the rest of the fight against Larry. Perhaps had he not been cut, Holyfield would have won more rounds against Holmes.

I agree that Holmes win over Mercer was very impressive and that is something that has to be factored in, I guess I put just a little more weight on the fact that George knocked out Moorer and recaptured the HW title.

I guess I disagree with the notion that the Holmes of the 90s had any significant advantages over the prime Holmes. I suppose he was a bit more powerful, but considering what he had lost in terms of speed, I don't think that was a good trade off.

Where as the Foreman of the 90s was clearly better in some respects to the prime Foreman. Would you not agree? 90s Foreman had better stamina, used his jab more effectively, and overall was a smarter fighter tactically than the prime Foreman. Now no question prime Foreman was still superior overall given the vastly superior speed and reflexes which he was able to throw punches (which makes his power a little better as well in my opinion since he was throwing his power shots with more velocity).

Also, remember the question was which win is more valuable to Holyfield. No doubt Holyfield looked much more impressive against Foreman than he did against Holmes - to me that is part of the reason it is worth more.

Now whether George or Larry was better in the 90s is a different question = I am willing to concede that Larry might have been a shade better (I have not seen most of Foreman's or Larry's HW fights from the 90s).

But I would still say that for Holyfield, his win against Foreman is worth a little more.