Old Foreman vs Wlad Klitschko

That works both ways.

p4pforkliftdriver - 8 posts.. Clearly an ALT.

 

I saw broom all the alts. Agreed. This is why I prefer a debate over a poll. Its too easily for people using Alt's

 

I mean they'd be c level in other eras. For instance, the 90's. Especially peter and purrity. Youre going to sit there with a straight face and tell me ross purrity would beat a prime david tua or Ray Mercer?

Heres the problem. Youre picking and choosing the worst moments of foremans career in a 10 year stretch but you wont do the same for Wladmir. Anytime theres a h2h discussion about wlad people want to ONLY focus on when he looked good in germany under stewart against mediocre opponents. Tyson fans do the same thing and its annoying. Either level the playing field or admit youre biased!

Im shifting the goal posts because the WBA had him rated? You clearly dont even know what that expression means because youre using it wrong. What, do you think I sucked off the board members to help my argument? Boxrec said he was rated at the time, deal with it.

What did ross purrity go on to do in his career after he kod Wladmir? What about Calvin brock or tony Thompson, what amazing feats did they do with their careers after wladmir beat them?

So you agree not tp use boxer testimonies? Thats fine with me, because if you insist on doing so youre going to look very stupid and backed into a corner with your foot in your mouth.

 

Unfortunately there are tons of ways to spoof IPs. Lots of them free too. With the best of intent the mods couldn't manage.

 

I can see Purity beating Foreman if he gassed in a 12-15 round fight. No they would not be C level fighters in other era. Brewster was a durable guy with speed and punch. Sanders a big southpaw with blazing speed and power. Put them in with smaller men, and they would roll them even if you think the smaller guys have better skills.

Wrong, I'm picking his best opponents fought in the 1990's and many of them were not very good! Saveresse and Shultz would not rate among W;ad's best 10 wins, yet each did well vs this older Forman you " think " would beat Wlad ". Foreman could not hurt or stop a chinny Morrison who gased for pete's sake. Did you even see these fights?

Alphabet ratings mean nothing. No one would agree with you here. Ring Magazine ratings at least indicate a certain level of quality. Did [url]Adilson Rodrigues[/url] ever beat a sing top ten guy? Nope. He was a short / slow guy with a short reach...made to order and bogusly ranked by the WBA to move Foreman forward. Do you understand the business side of boxing?

I think Wlad who was ill, at his lowest weight, fighting for the first time in his home town, and fought foolishly having never gone past 8 rounds cost himself. But he learned. Brock and Thompson were ring ranked guys. The type Foreman in not fight unless there was a title shot on the line. Thompson might out point old Foreman. At any rate Wlad as champion knocked them out. Old Foreman takes fringe type the distance.

You can use them if you're fair. Briggs beat Foreman. Big Georges punches did nada. Where is this power on old Foreman aside from getting a little lucky late vs a chinny blown up light heavyweight vs. say top 50 types? Its lacking and there is nothing you can say or do about it because we can watch the results and see the fights. I can show you others who stopped them...and they really did not hit as hard.

This shows two things.

1 ) Foreman was slow, lacking top accuracy, and could not match up with foot speed our punch output.
2 ) He had solid clubbing power, but really not enough power to stop the likes of slower USA white guys, who he hand picked.

 

Oh, please. Preach to me about the excellence of Terry Sorrell, Miguel Paez, Clarence Boone, Joe Gordwin, Pires, Ollie Wilson and the other assorted career loser greats from the 70's with which Foreman padded his record. They may have had crappy records but they were from the 1970's, with its mystical glow of heavyweight greatness,

Please.

 

On paper Wlad has the ability to decision George,, but fights don't happen on paper, I agree George will keep coming thumping Wlad, until he lands some unorthodox power punch and wounds him, George by KO round 8

 

Everyone, even writers in the 70's were aware of the low quality of foremans opposition. It was primarily due to his lack of experience as an amateur despite winning gold. The fact he continued to ko the best opponents when he stepped up (Frazier, Norton, Chuvalo, Lyle, etc) and even kept his ko power in his 40's is a testament to his raw power.

Good job not responding to anything I wrote and changing the subject. Is this a contagious disease amongst wladmir fans? You're seriously placing the euro bums Wladmir fought in his "undefeated run" in germany above the 70's...? Please elaborate and defend your position. Id love to hear it.

 

So would I. It can be the most entertaining part of these discussions.

 

Just because the US couldn't produce a decent heavyweight better than Byrd or Brock during that decade, don't place the blame on Wlad. He was busy taking on the elite heavies of the era, who just happened to have been produced elsewhere. Chagaev, Ibramigov and Povetkin were hardly C-level Euro bums.

And because I've been around long enough, I will remind you that the worst heavyweight era is always the most recent. Simply put, a heavyweight doesn't stay at the top for a decade by being lucky or benefiting from a weak era. That's always a load.

 

So let's recap for anyone curious:

-apparently the opponents wladmir beat in germany were better than the 70's era

-samuel peter was apparently a better boxer than foreman and people have described hom as being "fast and explosive" and that you're obviously blind and biased for disagreeing.

-ross purrity could have beaten foreman and he would have been a champion in another era. No im not making this up, mendoza wrote this.

-foreman would be helpless and have no way of getting past wladmir's jab and would either lose evert round kept at linf range or get stopped late. Ignore the fact that peter, sanders, Brewster, purrity, haye, Thompson, calvin brock, fury and joshua ALL got past wladmir's "invincible" jab.

-ignore the fact the above mentioned men kod, defeated, or gave wladmir all kinds of problems and that these embarrasing momenrs occured both in his prime and when he was a seasoned veteran. Wladmir didnt actually have multiple ko losses and get dropped numerous times, they were all slips/robberies/etc. Also ignore wladmirs tendency to cut or gas out under pressure, those wont be factors anyway so ignore them.

-ignore the fact foreman himself had a great jab and that it gets rated on top 10 and even top 5 lists for best jabs in the division. Foreman will have no answer and will jist stand there like tex xobb vs Holmes.

-ignore foremans punching power, it wont be a factor because apparently wladmir had a granite chin and will just absorb it.

-even tho foreman took massive shots from Cooney, Cooper, holyfield, Morrison, Briggs, etc and never went down let alone out, lets focus on the alex stewart fight and ken lakusta rocking him because he was clearly a glass jawed fraud (even tho foreman didnt go down in those fights either!).

-foremans 20 years of experience, improved ring iq, stamina, and defense are all non factors. After all, wladmir beat SAMUEL PETER who is leagues ahead of Foreman so its obvious he has no chance and wont land a single punch. It would look like mayweather vs canelo or better yet, mayweather on the heavybag.

Did that about cover everything...?

 

Well if were being HONEST ???Yea right..lol

One wouldn't waste much time on you who you yourself CLAIM to be able to spot fakes on here who know boxing ( interesting)....

when you Yourself has responded with GARBAGE like this..

"You want to try and paint the 70's as lacking in talent pool but you want to glorify Wladmir's 11 year run in Germany over fat plodders, sloppy zero defense brawler, and C level euro bums? "

I already gave you more time then your worth at least for me....


Maybe the others like your great knowledge but i'll pass on this subject, its pretty clear Wlad would win unless an off night and posters even in this section aren't totally oblivious as the poll shows.

 

this post reeks of hypocrisy because you tear apart rocky marcianos era as being weak.

 

This

 

Rocky was on top of the division for 3 years. THREE YEARS.

Wlad was on top for more than 10.

Do you need a sliderule to figure the difference?