Old Foreman vs Wlad Klitschko

Old George for me

 

Lewis was on a different level to Wlad, though. But then, even so, he’d have to tackle Foreman with great care.

 

This is pretty much the bottom line.

No one in this thread is saying wladmir has no chance or that foreman would "easily" win (even the foreman supporters). But certain members are blatantly ****ing ignoring the FACT comeback george was a better boxer than several of the men who gave klitschko hell or beat him and are pretending that wladmir wins every round with no effort and never gets hurt. That is so far from reality youd have an easier time convincing me mayweather could ko George Chuvalo.

Win or lose wladmir will get tagged at some point and the fact ross purrity, sam Peter, and Lamont freaking Brewster closed the distance and demolished him means the idea of comeback George getting past his jab isnt "ridiculous".

 

I don’t think they were different level. They both had major accomplishments I think both beat old Foreman as you know. All the best.

 

Peter beat Toney twice, Maskaev, McCline, Williams and Sykes. Narrowly lost to the useful Chambers.

I triple-dare you to pick out a single name on Stewart's KO list that you could mention proudly as a "good" win on a thread without being laughed out of town.

Go for it.

ONE.

Find me ONE name he beat that's worth even mentioning. He lost every single time he stepped up.

Do you even know what Peter victim Maskaev did to Stewart?

You ought to look this up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard

 

What other heavyweight had a busy 11 years where he not only didn't taste defeat but rarely lost a round? Was this by accident?

In contrast to that 11 year domination of the division, you posit a Foreman who had a supremely padded record then recorded a victory over a Frazier who could only win 3 of his remaining 7 fights and a Norton who was KO'd 4 times in 50 fights.

I know that men of certain age hold the 1970's in some misty eyed esteem but the division just wasn't that great nor was Foreman's record against it that deep. Shake yourself.

 

Actually, here's the highlights package of the Stewart / Foreman fight:

This content is protected

Stewart makes his head swell up like a football. Stewart is nothing special at all, basically a game, good journeyman. But yeah, HE is gonna do better than Wlad

 

I know and this is not the first time I have seen somewhat extreme interpretations of Wlad and his alleged capabilities. I'm fine with people giving a balanced reasoning for why they think Wlad would win - it is a tough head-to-head match-up - but it does always seem that certain of his fans go on the defensive and, in doing so, accidentally or otherwise, paint Wlad as being virtually super human.

The whole 'text book' execution and nothing would have happened to Wlad, if Foreman connected, is off-the-charts fantasy. It cannot be taken seriously.

 

Wlad has had a longevity, afforded to him by the rather sudden thinning of the heavyweight division's talent pool, in the early-to-mid '00s. His resume is stacked with mediocrity, with no career-defining victory.

Lewis has a much better ledger, which includes the scalp of Wlad's older and tougher brother; taken at a time when Lewis was at his worst - old, overweight and disinterested - and yet he still managed to give the division's heir apparent a beating.

Head-to-Head, a Prime Lewis delivers a devastating defeat to Wlad. The capability gap between the two is very wide, with Wlad trailing in the distance.

 

Funny enough Foreman was rocked by Stewart, by Schulz, by Holyfield, by Lakusta, by old man Cooney, by Briggs ... but yeah, Wlad is the guy who is going to disintegrate if old man Foreman lands a single good one Foreman failed to KO a whole string of journeymen and bums but he's gonna flap away and get rid of a guy like Wlad without problems?

Foreman couldn't KO Crawford Grimsley.

http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/7003

Let me emphasise this: Grimsley is a guy that only beat ONE MAN who had a winning record. Every time he stepped it up he lost by KO. And by "stepped it up" I don't mean Holyfield. Good god, no. I mean Jimmy Thunder, Brian Nielsen and co.

They all stopped Grimsley, but Foreman could not.

Let that sink in.

 

LOL - You're still not getting that fact that I'm not talking about the 1996, 47 year-old version of Foreman, are you?

Try again...

 

So you're talking about the version that Shulz beat up, or the version that Stewart beat up?

Or are you talking about the version that got outboxed by Tommy Morrison?

 

I've made it clear the period I am talking about - more than once - so I'm not going over it again. You know the case that's been made and you should know by now why I entertain it - so, just leave it at that.

If you (and others) want to revere Wlad and believe him untouchable then that's fine by me. On a head-to-head basis, I disagree and for good reason.

 

I think the point has come now where I get the feeling we're just going over the same sort of ground.

I'm going to take my leave, and thank you for the discussion.

 

No misty eyed esteem required. The '70s was a great era for boxing, in general - not just the Heavyweights. I wish I could say Wlad's run, as a unified heavyweight titlist for so long, was as inspiring. Alas, it hasn't come close to being so.

And, while you can use Wlad's longevity to apple-polish his ledger all day long, it's not going to change the fact that head-to-head, he is going to look to some as the shaky option, against champs of the past. Especially, offensively-minded fighters, such as Foreman.

You disagree and that's fine, but the whole implication that my viewpoint might be based on some nostalgic illusion, really does not apply. I am just one of probably quite a number, who do not rate Wlad Klitschko all that highly.