George Foreman's comeback - fraud or for real?

Foreman's come back was a great story for boxing. Maybe 1 out of a 100 comebacks has the fairy tale ending as Foreman’s did. It took Foreman three chances to win a belt. Popularity and good match making had something to do with it.



I do not view Foreman as a top 5 heavyweight in the 1990's, but I do think he did enough to be a solid top ten guy, and doing that his age in a talented era is nothing short of amazing.

I think the comeback was for real, but if Foreman was matched vs Tyson, Bowe, or Lewis, he would have been exposed, and never come back as good as he did off decsion losses.

 

I thought Holyfield exposed Foreman in their fight. Granted, Foreman did better than a lot of people expected, and he showed great determination and resiliency in going 12 tough rounds with Evander, but the fact remains that the fight itself was not very competitive nor close. Foreman went from fighting class D and C opposition to the big leagues, and the difference was quite apparent.

He then fought Alex Stewart, a guy who was once a rising prospect but who had been bombed out by Tyson and Moorer prior to facing Foreman, who ended up pushing George to the brink and tearing his face up something gruesome. AGain, George showed great resiliency and determination, but against only a "decent", middle of the road heavyweight, George just squeaked by.

 

While I agree Holyfield easily beat Foreman, that was Holyfield at his best. Foreman did enough to win some moments. Holmes did bettter vs Holyfield.

One of the biggest myths about Foreman was he was a lights out puncher in his come back. He wasn't lights out vs anyone decent and this includes the Stewarts, and Morrsion's of boxing who were not that hard to floor.

 

Moorer.

But yes, he was nothing like he once was.

 

Pound for pound, Holyfield's best was probably between 88-92. However, as a heavyweight i think he was better for the Bowe rematch. That extra 10 pounds gave him more authority on his punches: against almost all his previous heavyweight fights, i.e. Dokes, Thomas, Bowe, Holmes, Foreman he almost looked featherfisted, despite throwing sharp, accurate punches often even landing in combinations. The only exception there is Douglas, although he could've gotten up.

After that, his workrate went down (also related to his advancing age), but he scored very impressive knockdowns against Bowe, Mercer and Tyson.

I'm not saying that everything is about power, but it seems he was a lot better once he crawled over that, threshold if you will and could pull off a wonderful performance like the one against Tyson both times. While i think he would've always troubled Tyson, i think the 1990 version of Holyfield would've had a lot more trouble doing it.

 

Good points. Yeah, the Holyfield that fought Foreman was awesome; his combination punching and his quickness were phenomenal. As another poster pointed out here, Holyfield seemed to gain punching power as he aged, but he also seemed to lose his exceptional combination punching ability and overall pizazz.

In terms of Foreman's punching power during his comeback, I definitely agree with you. He was not the big, one-punch knockout artist that he was routinely advertised as being. But that was part of the George Foreman package; the big, bonebreaking former heavyweight champion of the world who terrorized the 1970's with his prodigous punching power, who was now unleashed and ready to wreak havoc on the modern heavyweight division.

George Foreman had his schtick and his act, and his reputation as a devastating puncher was part of all of that. Even though it was highly exagerrated!

 

Many good points here all around. I'd like to add one:

I don't remember anyone making a comeback after a significant time away (and George's time away was a full decade where he was nowhere near the sport, had ballooned well above 300 pounds until he began training for a return) and coming back to the success that Foreman had.

His approach was unlike anyone's that I can recall -- most guys jump right back in against a top contender or champion, or perhaps take a tuneup or two. Foreman treated it like he was starting a new career, fighting often and going through journeymen at a pace of one every three or four weeks in many cases as he honed his reflexes and worked to get back in fighting shape. There was no quick cash-in plan. Every so often he stepped up against a carefully selected name guy like Qawi or Bert Cooper or Rodriguez, then back to the grind until he had raised his profile enough that a Holyfield (or later Moorer) would give him a shot based on name recognition and economics (he brought more money to the table).

You can argue that he didn't "deserve" his title shots, but you can argue the same about a lot of fighters. Look at it as if Foreman wasn't a 1970s great and you'll see his comeback resume compares to many up-and-comers who "earn" title shots -- you beat a few name fighters and gatekeepers and journeymen and you get in the top 10 and you'r eligible.

Look at Mike Tyson -- he got his shot off of wins over a shopworn Quick Tillis in a relatively close fight (and Tillis was coming off of two straight losses and something like three losses in five or six fights IIRC) and Marvis Frazier, who had done nothing to establish himself as a guy who should vault someone into a title shot. So did Tyson "deserve" his shot? Id' say he did, much as Foreman did, because you don't have to be THE top contender to get a shot, just A contender.

Foreman's comeback was an amazing accomplishment by any measure. So many fighters today would do well to find someone to guide their careers with the skill and smarts with which Foreman's comeback run was managed.

 

I've always thought something was off about that fight though.

Stewart landed some shots but no more (actually far less) than Holyfield, Moorer and even Morrison did yet George's face looked like a gargoyle very quickly against Stewart whereas he was a little bit swollen but otherwise fine at the end of the fights against the others.

I know Stewart was heavy handed but not that much to do that amount of unprecedented damage against Foreman imo. It would be interesting to see how Stewarts hands were wrapped (or what with) that night.

 

I never thought of that, but I think it could have been something of a freakish occurance rather than dirty work afoot. I seem to remember reading that George's sinus had been busted open -- basically that he had internal bleeding in that area of his face, causing it to puff up.

You could literally hear it sloshing every time he got hit. It was sickening. I've never been able to watch that fight again because it was so gruesome. George is one tough man.

 

I thought it was kind of strange too. Stewart didn't land THAT many hard shots. He was landing a pretty consistent jab, but did not land clean hard power shots as frequently as Holyfield did.

I would just say it was a freak occurrence or just shows how boxing can be unpredictable. Sometimes fighters just bleed or swell up more in certain fights than others. You would think by looking at Foreman's face afterwards that Stewart landed a lot more bombs on him than Holyfield did, but that wasn't the case.

Those 2 KDs not only saved Foreman on the cards, but also probably made Stewart extra cautious throughout. Stewart apparently did have some confidence issues going in as his manager openly questioned his confidence, but Stewart had an old man in front of him whom he couldn't miss and looked like the elephant man, but Stewart still fought like he was too respectful/fearful of George.

He just wouldn't let his hands go like he should have.

 

It was a bit of both. Foreman is a physical marvel and he did prove that he could hang in there with the best, at an advanced age. Not many people can do that. In fact, at heavyweight no one really has besides George, though you could argue Holyfield or Holmes.

The fraud part was that George was given some breaks and shots that weren't deserved. I think getting the shot against Holyfield was fine, but George had lost his previous fight (Morrison) before getting the Moorer shot. There were definitely more deserving people around. And he definitely snagged a few decisions that were questionable.

 

What George did was remarkable. To take ten years off from any sport and then compete again at it's highest levels is among the most incredible feats of all time.
Having said that, his return was carefully (and brilliantly) managed. He worked himself into shape fighting inferior talents and occasionally fighting smaller name guys like Coetzer, Quawi.
I think the peak of his comeback was 91 against Holyfield. Again Holyfield was viewed at the time as a blown up cruiser. I think George hoped to capitalize on that, got into great shape for his age, and gave his best performance of his comeback.
He was cleary not elite in his comeback. Top ten material (which is amazing given his age and lost time) but not a top 5 heavyweight. He lost clearly to Morrison. S****ed by Stewart. Should of lost to Schulz. Squeaked by Savarese in a debatable fight and lost to Briggs in a fight I felt he won.
He was wise not to fight the Tyson's, Bowe's, Lewis, of the world. Probably a few other guys.
He got the perfect opponent in Moorer and he capitalized. He hung tough absorbed a shellacking and landed his bomb.
It was a great win. A remarkable comeback for the ages but he clearly was never the top in his division during anytime of his comeback and should not be viewed as such.
His record in both careers is heavily padded.

 

Part show, part hand picked opponents, part good results, part favorable judging.

While Foreman lost to Holyfield and Morrison, he did pull off the upset vs Moorer.

 

it was an unprecendeted event. cant believe theres people here knocking a 40something coming back after a ten year break.

Its almost like he really did have the power of God on his side.