Who had the greater physical advantage Vitali or the 70's George Foreman?

Foreman wasn't a giant heavyweight like Vatali during his prime. His average weight was around 220 pounds.

 

Vitali was taller, but Foreman was extremely strong. I'd bet the house on him winning.

 

NOPE

Vitali had 20+ more pounds of PURE MUSCLE and was taller

AND a kickboxing background and a Slav, one of the hardest peoples to ever exist on this world, from one of the most brutal athletic programs ever. To say he's not as tough or tougher is extremely reaching.

There is no (scientific or otherwise) way that Foreman could be more physically advantaged in comparison to Vitali.

You might not respect the Klits, but people should stop being crazy. I once thought that the current heavyweights were so weak that all the past heavyweights would just steamroll over them all (Yeah, even Jack Dempsey could). But once you look at how these two brothers fought, their skillsets and sheer massive size coupled with a certain amount of speed and reaction timing, you have just got to be kidding me.

It's the same way I think Lennox would just brutalize a lot of other guys from the past. The TOP heavies of today are just HUGE + SKILLED + TALENTED. They even have speed, not like the old huge heavies of the past. The huge heavies of the past could be likened to Dimitrenko or Fury.

 

For their size, the Klits are very talented. If they were 6'2" or so maybe not so much. Foreman he was just naturally strong. He lacked the Klits speed, but Im sure he was as strong or stronger than both.

 

That statements rings awfully hollow looking at the Byrd fight.

I wonder what the likes of Danny Williams or Katsidis could of accomplished if they had gone through this brutal slav training program! :scaredas:

 

Foreman flashy? I always thought the guy was a brawler and a banger.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzy6tErgQZI[/ame]



To the OP, physical advantage doesn't mean **** unless you have the talent to do something with it. It's like using a tool the wrong way, you don't get the most out of it if you don't use it correctly. The Bitchsko Sisters are good examples. If a slick black American fighter had their frame, size and power, the HW division wouldn't be such a bore.

 

The Byrd fight, Vitali was dominating and up on the scorecards. He quit because if he loses his entire shoulder, he will never probably have fought again. If you don't have heart, you would probably have never gotten out of the Soviet system. They have said greater talents were broken by that system. They just managed to survive it.

But all that doesn't matter, your post doesn't actually refute the rest of my post.

 

:yep They must have forgot. Foreman never got punked like that in his entire two careers. In fact, I never remember any time that Foreman quit during a match due to injury. Ali, Frazier or Holmes either.

 

chad dawson is a bore, Bhop is a bore, PBF is a bore, Andre Ward is a snoozfest. And they are smaller categories fighters

you were saying?

 

If one or both Klits had faced a prime George Foreman, they'd both be featured on this highlight film getting KTFO! :yep

 

lol because Ali isn't stand 1 foot infront of Foreman in that pick. :rofl

It's called depth of field...

Foreman listed by HBO at 6'4 when he was 48 and presumably had shrunk a little.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7jrUVyjMM[/ame]

 

What possible realistic reason could you give why either Klitschko wouldn't be a massive favourite to beat any version of frazier?

 

Stick to the program. The thread is about Foreman, not Frazier. :good

 

Well, Brewster landed a couple of left hooks that Wlad didn't seem to favor, but, then again, Frazier wasn't known to have much of a left hook.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFDs5mT4JUs[/ame]