George Foreman vs Vitali Klitschko

Bernie, your stupidity is breathtaking. Way to ignore the entire point of my post and fail to meaningfully respond to anything I posted. We are talking about someone from an age where sports world has passed by in every objectively observed manner. Look up the record books and track the progression of records, moron.

 

George said he could Not beat Vitali........people forget George got beat by Jimmy Young ...Vitali by late tko

 

They are better than Vitali's! Foreman would hammer both brothers at his peak.

 

You are right. This is the shittest era ever in Heavyweight history. The K's have nobody of class on their records. Even the 80's era was better; Holmes, Weaver, Witherspoon, etc. They would all give the K's trouble. The Klitschko's are good, not great.

 

Not really, mate. We know something about boxing history. Anyone who trades with George gets beaten. Watch the Chuvalo fight and you'll see how athletic Foreman was. He'd have mullered Vitali in 5. All you hear from Klit fans is how big they are. Bruno was bigger than Frazier; who was the better fighter?

 

Vitali would box his ears off

 

Average power? He was hurting Holyfield with his ****ing jab at 40! He hit harder than either Klitschko. :huh

 

I'd pick Prime Foreman by ref stoppage TKO inside 7. Vitali could win 2-3 rounds but I'd say Foreman stops him.

Old Foreman loses a decision (he wont be KO'd. was 48 years old and prime Briggs couldnt even stun him. Tommy Morrison,Moorer,Holyfield,Cooney)

 

Foreman would stop Vitali on cuts and he would KO WLad in round two similar to Cooney.

 

VK would destroy him.

 

WOW! anyone who thinks Foreman wins is crazy. did you see how a prime Foreman dealt with a trash can like Young when he went on the back foot? it was a joke. Foreman can't fight properly on the front foot at all.

could you imagine the skill, long arms and out and out awkwardness of a prime Vitali?? he would bust up Foreman from the outside, hurting Foreman with ease it would be ridiculous. Foreman would look like he's in the middle of a full on storm. utter domination by Vitali, with the cherry on top when he stops Foreman after giving him the biggest ****ing kicking you could imagine.

Foreman has the much better resume. there is no argument about that. but H2H, Vitali would strip him down. shockingly easy work for him.

 

yes. it wouldn't even come close to being competitive.

 

Foreman easily. He would dominate even now in this weak HW era.

 

It is hilarious how some people here go with "Vitali never fought someone like Foreman, so he will lose!" "Today's boxers are all weak compared to the old ones" "Vitali quit against Byrd, so he loses to Foreman" "Klitschko brothers would never defeat one of the old boxers" etc etc etc.

Boxing evolves, everything does, nothing goes back. Boxers now are generally better than boxers from the past, it's damn natural, it will always be that way. It's just that some people are too stupid, too ignorant or too nostalgic to accept the truth.

What do you get by convincing yourself in something which is absurd? I've even seen a thread "Dempsey vs Wladimir", I don't know if some people really think that boxers from 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s etc would be able to compete with present boxers, but the comparison looks silly from a realistic side of view.

People in all sports only get better and better. Can you imagine sprinter from 30s competing with Usain Bolt? Some swimmer from 50s winning against Michael Phelps? Pole Vault woman from 80s against Yelena Isinbayeva? Basketball player from 70s competing with LeBron James? Hell no. It is just people who can't accept the truth for some reason (hatred towards Eastern-European boxers being a good example). So yeah, all of you claiming this nonsense can continue being ignorant and look extremely stupid to any reasonable person.

 

X2 :good