70s Foreman vs Vitali Klitschko

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by baconmaker, Jun 27, 2016.

  1. N_ N___

    N_ N___ Boxing Addict Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2014
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    93
    Frazier was durable.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  2. foreman&dempsey

    foreman&dempsey Boxing Addict banned

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2015
    Messages:
    4,805
    Likes Received:
    148
    Foreman out ****s vitali like a prostitute against the ropes crying "stop it"
     
  3. foreman&dempsey

    foreman&dempsey Boxing Addict banned

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2015
    Messages:
    4,805
    Likes Received:
    148
    Vitali klitschko stronger than george foreman? Get out of my view
     
  4. foreman&dempsey

    foreman&dempsey Boxing Addict banned

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2015
    Messages:
    4,805
    Likes Received:
    148
    chinny ron lyle? Chinny ron lyle? Foreman could bomb out smaller chinny fighters? Do you think really that anyone will take you seriously? Jesús...
     
  5. HerolGee

    HerolGee Loyal Member banned Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    41,974
    Likes Received:
    4,029
    not if he got stopped before half time by retiring ali/frazier/foreman (an old lewis equivalent), or quit against bob foster/chris byrd equivalent

    That wouldn't be a monster, he'd be doing as good as Jean Pierre Coopman, he did as well vs ali as vitali did vs lewis. He'd be a Coopman.

    The inability to many on this board to understand why height, size, and range matter in the heavyweight division is either agenda ridden here or ignorant to some.

    this clown is trying to suggest vitali might be more durable than ali.

    they have replied, but u choose in kliturd world to ignore them.
     
  6. OBCboxer

    OBCboxer Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    7,949
    Likes Received:
    226
    Athletes don't evolve over time and don't get bigger, faster, nor stronger

    Whoever accomplished more obviously always would beat anybody who accomplished less
     
  7. Mr.DagoWop

    Mr.DagoWop Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,129
    Likes Received:
    1,762
    Nicely said :good
     
  8. Perry

    Perry Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    9,343
    Likes Received:
    1,536
    You can spot the boxing amateur who point to a hwts size. Point to the obvious when they can't comprehend the details that really count.

    Take away Vitalis PEDS and you have a very lanky 6' 6 220 pound hwt. Give those same PEDS to Foreman and you make a very scary hwt a monster.
     
  9. Rock0052

    Rock0052 Loyal Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    34,221
    Likes Received:
    5,875
    It's easy to romanticize the "heavyweight" label, as though size differentials mean nothing simply because the weight class is unlimited.

    Throw up a fight between Ike Williams or Canzoneri vs Golovkin or McClellan, and all the sudden, that 20 pounds becomes the focal point of the whole thing despite the lighter guys having a superior resume.
     
  10. Rock0052

    Rock0052 Loyal Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    34,221
    Likes Received:
    5,875
    Foreman fought in an era where PED's weren't even tested for and were available. We could play that same game for practically every modern heavyweight.
     
  11. Perry

    Perry Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    9,343
    Likes Received:
    1,536
    Wrong. Few boxers took PEDS in the 70's as it was viewed as a back alley approach. Fast forward 15 or so years later and it became a science and the people administering them knew much more of what they were doing. This gave those who would not dare touch it a level of confidence to do so.

    Take away Vitalis PEDS and you get a 220 pound Gerry ****ey type physique. Give them to 70s Foreman and you get a monster.
     
  12. Rock0052

    Rock0052 Loyal Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    34,221
    Likes Received:
    5,875
    Boxing is a back alley business where fighters have historically done anything to win. Always have, and always will. It's impossible to say which "few" were or weren't on them.

    We can debate until the cows come home about how widespread they were, but I can say with 100% confidence that they were available in the era and untested for. Given their widespread use in other athletic endeavors, it seems naive to think they didn't have a place in heavyweight boxing, which was seen as the most prestigious title in sports.

    As such, I don't like throwing around claims on guys from later eras (even though, realistically, the majority of athletes now are on them) while giving a free pass to an era that had both access and even fewer barriers to entry. Sure, fewer guys may have been on them, but that doesn't mean top names would've been the ones to completely avoid them (just as in every other sport in every other era, today included)
     
  13. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2014
    Messages:
    18,440
    Likes Received:
    9,579
    Completely baseless statement.
     
  14. Perry

    Perry Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    9,343
    Likes Received:
    1,536
    You are just.....wrong.

    PEDS in 1975 were not PEDS of today. Most were afraid to touch them as they were viewed as back alley experiments. Today it's a science with degreed individuals administering them

    Huge difference and incomparable. You do not know what you are talking about.
     
  15. Rock0052

    Rock0052 Loyal Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    34,221
    Likes Received:
    5,875
    Literally nothing you just typed disproved what I posted.