George Foreman vs Wladimir Klitschko

Which would be nonexistent against Wlad.

 

What is Foreman’s prime?

 

That question nor my answer has anything to do with your initial comment that I responded to.. you’re trying cover it up by creating an entirely new argument.

 

I would say Wladimir Klitschkos prime was 2006 to 2014. He was physically prime earlier but that's when his skills were fully developed.

 

The word you're looking for is strawman

Noneck is notorious for manufacturing them because he's such a **** poor debater, and it's the only way he can try to get an advantage.

 

He had two primes, which one are you talking about?

 

Little he says has anything to do with the cost of bacon

 

I already told you when Wlad’s prime was, as evidenced by his performances. Steward didn’t have a magic wand that would turn flawed fighters into monsters overnight. I allot almost a decade to Wlad’s prime.

Now when did George’s prime exist?

 

Offensive prime , chin prime , pre Manny prime , post Manny prime and late career huggy prime... So 5 primes in total

 

You conveniently left out the Lamon Brewster and Sam Peter fights. He lost to Brewster and was dropped three times by Peter. For Both of those fights he was in his late twenties, with over 40 pro bouts, in great shape and had been working with Steward for some time.. the fact that you started the prime meter at 2006 blatantly reveals your agenda..

BTW - you should watch wlad’s fight against Davaryl Williamson in 2006. Doesn’t exactly do Wlad much justice.

Now to answer your irrelevant question about Foreman. His prime was short. Probably ended in 1974. But in a period of only 5 years since turning pro in 1969 he went 40-1-0-37, captured lineage, beat three hall of fame claimants and only lost to what many see as the greatest heavy of all time. Hell Wlad had to fight for about 15 years before anyone even started taking him seriously and I don’t know if any of his victims are in the HOF. Not to mention that handful of bad losses he had. One more thing… If your measure of Wlad’s greatness over Foreman was that he had a “ longer prime “ then I’ll remind you that Wlad wasn’t regaining the heavyweight title at age 45 and nor did he ever take a decade off from the ring to do so.

 

Wlad's chin does not give hope; Foreman's chin gives hope.

 

2006 isn’t a random moment in time. It’s when Wlad finally became a champion, silly. Heavyweight boxing is littered with guys who peak in their 30s but you’ve conveniently forgotten that.

Wlad never fought Davarryl Williamson during his prime.

Wlad and George are similar in that they both started out as flawed offensive machines. The difference is that Wlad actually improved after losing and dominantly won almost twenty straight title fights whereas George only beat two more top ten contenders and never successfully defended a title.

Therefore, Foreman had a “short” prime because he never actually became a complete fighter whereas Wlad was the man for a decade straight.

Norton and Frazier wouldn’t be hall of farmers if they fought at heavyweigh during Wlad’s reign.

 

Dude got dropped by Jimmy Young. Wlad only went down against huge punchers before his prime.

 

Can you add? That's one prime more than you will ever have lmao.

 

I don’t think Alexander Povetkin was much worse off then Foreman. Maybe a little overall better than 70s George tbh.