George Foreman's KO fight against SHW Jack O'Halloran

I just notice that Jack O'Halloran looks like a cross between Richard Kiel (Jaws from 007) and Jesse Ventura (Blaine from "Predator").

That wasn't a problem for Foreman.

 

Richard Kiel… you mean Carnera’s cousin?

 

hhahha - yes

 

O’Halloran is now 82 and still looking pretty good.

Not bad for a man of such size and sufferer of acromegaly.

At best, he looked to be all muscle, no fat.

 

I find it fascinating that a 14 fight, still growing 21 year old novice Foreman is somehow "exposed" for not being able to easily overpower an older boxer who was 3 inches taller, and 21 lbs heavier. Nope, this proves Foreman didn't have above average physical strength for his size and we can ignore our lying eyes and the testimony of multiple opponents who all said he was the strongest opponent they faced. Thank God for this upload to dispel all the myths and narratives...!

Equally puzzling is how weight is so incredibly important to some people, yet the disparity here is irrelevant and Foreman was apparently supposed to go above and beyond manhandling Jack with ease.

 

Jack O'Halloran did well against Ken Norton too. Despite the wide cards some felt a draw was appropriate. They were scheduled to have a rematch but I forget who, one of them got hurt and the fight was called off.

 

Agree completely and it's time that we revisited my Golovkin vs Joe Louis hypothesis.

 

Golovkin lost to Canelo whose not half as skilled as Joe Louis.

A size difference is even more significant when the bigger opponent has the skill advantage.

Golovkin is a jab merchant with an iron chin. Joe Louis had an equally great jab, along with literally everything else.

 

Right there we disagree

 

Michael Hunter beat Bakole while at a 4 inch height disadvantage, 3 inch reach disadvantage, 40lb weight disadvantage and punching power disadvantage

You don't ever see this size discrepancy below heavyweight because diminishing returns become more apparent after 200 pounds

Goofies tying to compare this to Golovkin vs Joe Louis LOL

 

Which fact do you disagree with?

The fact that Golovkin lost 2x to his best opponent?

Or the fact said opponent isn't as skilled as Joe Louis?

 

Canelo is much more versatile than Louis. I'll give Louis kudos for being the prototype of a modern boxer, but Canelo is a more complete package.

 

Versatile how? Switching between Mexican brawling and doing a poor man's dollar store impression of Mayweather with head movement and counters? The latter only worked against low level opposition and Golovkin himself, he never quite managed to out slick a world class opponent.

-Canelo is not as good of a combination puncher as Louis. He was a bit more mechanical and stiff while Louis threw fluid, fast combinations with better technique.
-His parrying is worse
-His accuracy is worse
-His timing is worse
-His ring IQ is worse
-His footwork is worse

The only thing Canelo arguably does better is body punching and even that's debatable.

Even if I granted Canelo was better than Louis in every way, how does Golovkin losing to Canelo twice prove Golovkin is better than Louis? Golovkin is a jab merchant who got by on his decent fundamentals and iron chin.

 

Gee you make him sound downright ****. Meanwhile in the real world:

This content is protected

Louis' defence

This content is protected

Yeah I like Louis' combinations too. However, ginger is no slouch either

This content is protected

Pssht idk where you get this. Cement feet Louis has never been anybody's model for good footwork.

I guess ice cream being tastier than a pile of dog**** is debatable too.

Wow, sounds like Louis except with with footwork and an iron chin.

 

Yeah, because being worse than Joe Louis means someone is trash? So there's only two ratings: trash, and Joe Louis level skill?

Let's see Canelo use that fancy head movement against an elite opponent. He didn't use it successfully against Bivol, Lara, Cotto, or even Daniel Jacobs.

It's heavyweight, anyone can get caught and knocked down.

Galento hits about 3x harder than Golovkin, so that isn't helping him.

Since we're posting highlight reels:

This content is protected

Canelo has had cement feet for 95% of his career. The only time he looked particularly fast is against the even slower Golovkin.

You're talking like a casual. Slower feet doesn't=bad footwork. Louis had superb footwork. He was always in a good position to punch or create angles with superb leverage.

If you think Joe Louis' body shots were "dog ****" in comparison to Canelo, I can only conclude you 1) have never watched Louis fight and 2) you must've sucked off Canelo in a locker room

Yeah, because all Louis did was spam jabs, he didn't have good combinations.

Oh wait, you already admitted Louis had good combinations in the same post.

What a dumbass.