How Good Was the Comeback George Foreman's Chin?

Holyfield set down on his punches againstForeman more than Morrison did. Tommy abandoned his usual style of slugging for the Foreman fight, and used a lot more footwork ( which is why he managed to survive ). It could also be said that Evander was a rather underrated hitter in the late 80's-early 90's. He was really putting heavyweights to sleep in those days. Morrison could certianly bang, but again he did not set down on his shots against Goerge, plus his power may have been deceiving to begin with, given the level of opposition he had come up fighting.

 

Timing and accuracy also probably played a part. Holyfield seriously hurt Foreman at the end of round 9 with a perfectly placed and timed counter right hand over a jab. I don't think Foreman saw it coming.

I also think Foreman was tired as the fight was pretty fast paced, especially for a 40+ year old.

 

George was older in his 40s, but also bigger and stronger physically, with significantly increased muscle mass. Had Cooney hit the younger Foreman with the short hook he connected with against the aged version, the youthful George probably would have gone down. Conversely, I suspect the elder Foreman would have stood up to Lyle's bombs where Ron managed to register knockdowns in 1976.

I do believe Foreman had a better chin in middle age. He stood up to a great deal more punishment in a number of longer bouts than he had to sustain as a youngster.

Morrison discovered early on that he didn't have the physical strength to stand his ground with George, and that necessitated the utilization of movement he employed.

Although the younger edition of Foreman might have beaten more of the heavyweight division's other champions, styles make fights, and I think the older vintage of George would have forced his earlier self into retreat, withstood the younger man's best shots, and taken out the youth late in a head to head matchup.

Foreman reported that the impact force of his youth was missing somewhat during the earlier stages of his comeback, but that it was returning as he continued to progress. He later admitted that like Jeffries, he held back on delivering fully powered shots, afraid of breaking somebody's neck. Therefore, it's possible that he forfeited some knockout victories, and even defeats, by way of granting his opponents "mercy."

 

Could it have been the number of shots Holyfield landed, always landed in his fights, the cumulative effect?

 

I think it is more a case that punching technique beats brute power every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

 

To an extent technique and number of punches thrown and landed are almost the same thing. The cleaner the technique, the more combinations you can get off. Holyfield, who was small for a heavy, had to be that much better of a boxer to survive with those guys, no?

 

They were very sharp indeed.

Watch the end of the 3rd round: Holyfield lands a HARD combination. You can really see him putting everything into it. Then right after that, Foreman wants to counter but catches another flush, hard shot as he is about to punch. Watching years of boxing, it's clear to me that the knockout punches are not just the hardest ones that land right on the spot, but the ones that land right when the victim is about to commit to a punch: that is when you will never see it coming. Two of the most famous knockdowns, Frazier knocking Ali down and Marciano knocking out Walcott both occured when the opponent was about to throw a shot himself.

Back to Holyfield. He landed the absolutely perfect punch when Foreman already took two hard hits right on the button. How he did no more than stagger is nothing short of amazing, even if Holyfield wasn't that big a puncher back then. Foreman's comeback durability as awesome - whereas i think it was no more than "good" during his first career.

 

According to the IBHOF Heavyweight Tale of the Tape (which could be admittedly a dodgy thing in terms of accuracy), his neck went from 17 inches to 20 inches. His forearm went from 13-1/2 to 14-3/4 inches, biceps 15 to 20 inches, calf 17 to 20, and thighs 25 to 28. Increases in these measurements tend to reflect changes in muscle mass, not bodyfat. In a bodybuilding context, these would be impressive improvements indeed. The three inch gain of his neck circumference would be particularly revealing if true. (His waist increased from 34 to 38, while his chest expanded by a whopping five inches.)

That's just it. Cooney's hook was extremely well placed, and Gerry drove right through George's head with it, instead of catching him on the end, when much of the energy would have been expended (as is often the case with an aimed shot, or one that's been wound up first). Ringside observers said it was a massive blow, and I'd tend to favor such eyewitness reports over the limitations of what television can convey.

 

Absolutely.

I do think however that boxers with good punching technique hit above their raw power punch for punch. They dont hit as hard but it stings more.

Holyfield at heavyweight is a good demonstration of this in this and a few other fights.

 

Yeah, how much power is lost through sloppy technique is something that alot of people don't get.

 

Part of it muscle mass perhaps, but most of it was fat. His biceps were huge, but a fat girl-friend of mine also has quite big arms. Doesn't mean that she's muscular. Foreman barely had any definition during his comeback.


I do think that extra mass, mostly fat, helped him take those punches however.