I don't think Povetkin fits the profile of the typical Foreman victim.:bart Foreman more of a tomato can crusher.
you mean the whole top five in your division apart from ali. meanwhile pov chooses...charr. good one.
forcing the same level of scrutiny on an old fighter that is on an active fighter would be something you would consider stupid.:yep
Oh look, another thread by energie asking a question (irrelevant as it is) and then slamming ppl for answering and actually trying to give ****ysis. If you can't handle the discussion, don't make the thread kid.
it actually is one of the dumbest things written. Coolidge, u are this short of going on ignore simply your posts appear to come from some topsy turvy world.
It's more to do with the methodology of your scrutiny than the scrutiny itself that is flawed. Foreman started boxing late, having his first amateur fight in 67 when he was 18. Povetkin at the same age was already world junior champion so had a far more extensive amateur career. Foreman was Olympic champion the year after he turned pro which is an incredible achievement. Can you imagine a fighter having his first amateur fight today and winning gold at Rio 2016? Povetkin of course won Olympic gold in 2004 at the age of 24 after a long amateur career. Foreman at 24 was world heavyweight champion having beaten Frazier an ATG. Even if you take their amateur careers out of the equation. 4 years into Foreman's pro career he was THE heavyweight champion, 5 year in, he had beaten 2 hall of famers in Frazier and Norton. 4 years into Povetkins career he was fighting Firtha a well known journeymen. 5 years into his career he had picked up a paper WBA title and not even the real WBA title but the regular WBA title which is basically the equivalent of a intercontinental title from the other sanctioning bodies.
Again, the "hall of famers" statement, since active fighters aren't capable of being in the hall of fame or even hinted at being in the hall of fame what's the point? Besides, Boom Boom Mancini and I believe Ingo Johansen are in the hall of fame so the significance of that isn't all that it is supposed to be. I have to say that if a neophyte George Foreman was capable of winning a gold medal in the Olympics what does that say about the strength of that particular era? Makes them seem kind of on the weak side.
Depends upon how you want to see it. You could say Foreman was just that good or his opposition was just that bad. I'll add one of Foreman's opponents at the 68 games went onto win a silver medal in the following Olympics and another went 15-0 as a pro.
whats weak about Olympic gold being won by ali frazier and foreman. they were all outstanding top 10 atg. pov has yet to translate his amateur success into any kind of world success apart from earning a title shot of course (which is something).
im very intersted in what your saying but i rather llisten in english not chineese / but im very interested in what you have to say so please tell me more