1991 George Foreman vs todays David Haye

[Elroy1]

why is everyone comparing the foreman morrsion fought to the holyfield fight? george was much quicker and more energetic against holyfield which happened 2.5 years earlier. foreman wasnt the same after that fight and slowed considerably after that. plus morrison hit like a mule so foreman had to be more careful and cautious than he would be against the lighter hitting haye. dont get me wrong,,,haye has big power and can crack but he doesnt have the same one punch pop and heavy hands as morrison had

I don't think Haye quite had the same power as Morrison either, but Haye did have even better speed and movement than Morrison did, I think Haye and Morrison are actually fairly comparable to be honest.

I honestly see no version of Foreman being able to ever beat either of those 2 fighters.

Foreman never fought any opponents with the combination of speed, power, athleticism, movement etc as these 2 and won.

Holyfield was a better boxer than Morrison but he did not have Morrison's power or even Haye's so these opponents are even more dangerous for Foreman because they are still good enough to easily outbox Foreman, but can hurt him more as well.

The problem with Foreman is this... The younger version was faster and more energetic and aggressive of course. But this version had bad stamina and didn't even know how to box. He was possibly the technically worst boxer of all time.

He DID learn how to box in his 40's and this assisted him greatly. And his sheer size helped as well! But that middle aged version was too slow to really catch the great young fighters like Morrison, Haye and Holyfield.

[LacedUp]

Muhammad Ali - LOST
Ron Lyle - WON, but could have gone the other way very easily, basically an uncoordinated slugfest.
Jimmy Young (only somewhat decent) - LOST
Evander Holyfield - LOST
Tommy Morrison - LOST
Michael Moorer - WON, But got the living **** punched out of him and half won through nothing more than Moorers own ******ity.
Axel Schultz - WON, but really, he LOST! lol
Shannon Briggs - LOST, except I acknowledge Foreman could have received this decision just as easily, but then again, Briggs was never really that good anyway.

What other decent, relevant opponents were there?

Funny you discredit him in wins, but just put LOST when he loses. Clear sign of a biased poster.

I'm not getting drawn into this bs with you. You know he beat Frazier and Norton too.

[dan_cov]

Haye couldn't handle Thompsons relentlessness or Mormecks and he
was exhausted and blowing out of his ass bigtime against Chisora in only the 4th & 5th round and was taking shots.
Imagine Big Georges pressure and the fact his jab was more powerful than their right hands.

George would beat Haye down.

[LacedUp]

Haye couldn't handle Thompsons relentlessness or Mormecks and he
was exhausted and blowing out of his ass bigtime against Chisora in only the 4th & 5th round and was taking shots.
Imagine Big Georges pressure and the fact his jab was more powerful than their right hands.

George would beat Haye down.

Foreman's jab was much more powerful than probably any right hand Haye has taken outside of Wlad's.

[dan_cov]

Lol @ discrediting Georges wins and not adding Frazier, Cooney, Norton, Qawi when Hayes HW wins consist of a 40yr old Valuev, 40yr old Audrey, 40yr old Barrett, some Polish brickie called Bonin and C level Chisora.

[Mr.Fantastic]

If Haye uses good movement, he actually has a chance but boyyyy if he gets caught.

[LacedUp]

Lol @ discrediting Georges wins and not adding Frazier, Cooney, Norton, Qawi when Hayes HW wins consist of a 40yr old Valuev, 40yr old Audrey, 40yr old Barrett, some Polish brickie called Bonin and C level Chisora.

Wait for him to bring up the subject of their weights.

[dan_cov]

Foreman's jab was much more powerful than probably any right hand Haye has taken outside of Wlad's.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was on par with Wlads right hand it was that heavy
I think I'd rather get him in the face with a bag of bricks than that jab.

[Elroy1]

Funny you discredit him in wins, but just put LOST when he loses. Clear sign of a biased poster.

I'm not getting drawn into this bs with you. You know he beat Frazier and Norton too.

They are bums.

Ok so they were better than the general mill of lambs to the slaughter that Foreman beat up on..

They were as good as or better than say Shultz in their day.

But the overriding principle is that they were featherfists with extremely weak chins.

Ken Norton had some good skills and high athleticism to be sure, but he never once beat any sort of really good opponent (besides Ali) and got smashed up by bums.

Frazier was diminutive, over-light, fat and out of shape, featherfisted, chinny, half blind, and had no skills to back it up. It's laughable to credit this as some sort of GREAT win for George.

The main, the ONLY reason Ken and Joe are famous/respected at all, is because they beat and gave tough fights to Ali! That's why OTNB HAVE to promote them because otherwise their hero is exposed everybody knows it too, it's nothing new!

Compared to Holyfield, Morrison and Haye, these 3 in particular, Norton and Frazier are nothing! That is pure fact mate.

[Elroy1]

Foreman's jab was much more powerful than probably any right hand Haye has taken outside of Wlad's.

That is pure BS!

George's right hand would have been stronger than Haye's. Haye's had more pop than George's.

Haye's right hand smacks big, strong, athletic dudes down HARD, not like George's punches that mainly mess with their equilibrium.

And Foreman's jab being harder than Haye's or even most modern HW's rights is basically science fiction. It has no basis in truth.

And I would expect Georges right hand to have similar effect on Haye as it did Moorer as I believe their chins to be fairly comparable. Problem is that Moorer, who was really much better than George based on their fight anyway, was nowhere near as good as Haye is.

I GAVE George his large punchers chance. It's also obvious that a Haye UD is where the money should go.