Is Wladimir Klitschko a favorite over prime George Foreman and Sonny Liston H2H

There is a bit a false idea that people think it's some kind of widely agreed Wlad "dominates" every past great.

It's a minority position as like the opposite opinion that Wlad loses to every 70s heavyweight under the sun. And either way we won't know since fantasy matchups are speculation and we don't have a time machine.

 

Everything I said is true. If you don't like that I didn't write a term paper, that's on you.

You can get a therapeutic exemption for testosterone and all sorts of PEDs. The possibility of a TUE doesn't mean something isn't a PED.

I never claimed that cortisol was a stimulant. It's a delayed response hormone in the fight or flight response. This may shock you, but a cortisol spike facilitates the same things as a stimulant like increased blood pressure, breathing, and heart rate.

You definitely aren't sounding like the doctor that you wish you were.

 

Toney rematched Peter and lost a ud.

 

Chagaev was a decent boxer, but beating someone like him isn't a clear indication a boxer has improved so much in all these areas. He would need to beat someone even better than the guys he struggled with/lost to in order to show improvement. Can you name a boxer who that applies to?

Ah, here comes the inevitable rabbit punches+"he lost every other round" card.

See, you guys aren't fans of modern fighters at all, you're fans of agendas.

A second ago, you were praising Peter saying he was skilled in his own way, was tough, strong, hit hard, picked his punches well and applied pressure, etc. The instant I pointed out that it's hard to excuse Wladmir struggling with such a crude boxer, you immediately threw Peter under the bus stating he was only marginally successful against Wladmir due to illegal blows+the fact Wladmir was still figuring things out at 29 years old with a legendary coach.

Do you not see the problem here?

On what planet is a truly elite, world class athlete still trying to figure things out at 29 with an excellent coach? If you struggle with a crude opponent given those metrics, maybe the problem is you! It's not that Peter didn't belong in the same ring as Wladmir, it's that Peter was absolutely on a similar playing field as Wladmir and now you want to do damage control because it upsets your bizarre narrative that anything modern automatically=better, more sophisticated, etc. Peter is the proverbial wrench that gets thrown into the spokes causing problems for your narrative.

You can't admit Peter was a crude brawler lacking in skill, because then you will admit Wladmir struggled with a crude boxer despite supposedly being so technically skilled. And you can't lie and pretend Peter was this guy with "underrated skills" who showed subtle ability and technique because people have functioning eyeballs.

 

You do know the Lewis and Holmes peaked in their thirties, right?

 

Possibly Uysk as well. 35-38 may be a bit stretchy but certainly at 30-34.

 

Yeah, the problem was them. Lewis in particular had a lot of bad habits that needed to be corrected, habits that led to his KO loss to McCall.

Holmes hadn't really faced a lot of world class competition prior to the first Shavers bout and was basically a career sparring partner with limited amateur experience.

 

Usyk looked pretty crappy against Chisora and Witherspoon. I didn't think he was going to pan out.

 

I think the Chisora fight is a little overblown and the judges were a little generous giving Chisora that many rounds. Probably getting used to heavyweight as well but yeah no way did I see Uysk doing this it was a complete surprise for me.

 

You have, for years now, claimed to be a doctor, and you cannot refute a single point raised against several of your questionable statements across multiple posts, or explain the errors in what you no doubt consider to be expert medical opinion.

One very simple request was made of you: Come back with the actual "fight-or-flight" hormone. And you cannot even manage this.

It's one word, not a term paper.


I am not a doctor. I have never professed to be a doctor - and yet, I have mugged you with ease in a subject you pretend to be an expert in - because YOU DO CLAIM TO BE A DOCTOR...

But, clearly, you have no real idea of the domain in which you're attempting to appear as a professional.

I'd say that, at best, this makes you unreliable, veering toward highly suspect and I wouldn't want to speculate on the potential ethical implications, at this stage.

 

It's interesting that you're pivoting. First, you asked how Wladimir's skills improved, and when I answered, you changed the subject to who he beat. As to who he beat Chagaev was a very good southpaw coming off a great win over Ruiz and Valuev so that's a solid win right there. He beat Byrd who was the number 1 fighter at that point and the best at the time. He avenged his defeat to Brewster completely dominated him showing how much he improved. He beat a solid and tricky fighter in Eddie Chambers. He beat a big solid tricky southpaw with a good punch in Tony Thompson. He beat Haye who was an explosive powerful puncher and was the best fighter in the world at the time outside of himself and his brother. He beat Povetkin and Pulev who were both ranked the second best in the world when he beat them etc. All of these guys are much better then the people he lost to and he proved how much he improved throughout his title reign hence why he was do dominant. I hope I answered your question let me know if you have anymore

You can say I have an agenda but I could say the same for yourself to discredit Wlad and evaluating past boxers which you're doing right now by discrediting Peters to make him seem like some awful fighter and then overemphasis his success over Wlad to discredit Wlad and suggesting that because Wlad struggled with a bad boxer like Peters that means past greats would have their way with him. Lets ignore any agendas we might have and try to have a good faith and accurate discussions about the boxers we enjoy okay?

The problem here is that you're wrong on both counts its not inconsistent to say that Peters was better then you say he was, while he was definitely crude and lacking in certain areas he was also tough, strong, and had a knack for landing awkward, powerful shots from odd angles, even if it meant walking through punishment. That is a skill in itself, and it's a style that can trouble even technically superior boxers which you conveniently ignored how he gave one of the most technical and skilled defensive fighter ever in James Toney problems. Its also true that outside of the knockdowns Wlad pretty much dominated the fight winning every round hence why it was so wide despite being knocked down several times. I don't think those two things are inconsistent Peters was a crude tough brawler who had success landing his shots on Wlad but Wlad got up and dominated the fight regardless. If anything it shows how much he improved since his other losses since he didn't shut down or gas out like he did previously. He got his composure back and continued dominating. And in the rematch he showed how much he improved by totally dominating. In the end I don't think the fight does much to discredit Wlad as you claim nor does it show how boxers who are nothing like Peters would be able to replicate his success especially against prime Wlad who improved since this fight.

 

Probably a good idea.

 

Because anyone can say x boxer improved in x way, but you can't really say someone improved if they never beat anyone decent. That's common sense. It isn't me changing the topic, it's a natural progression of the conversation.

I wouldn't be using the Povektin foul-fest as proof Wladmir "improved" if I were you.

Yes, Chambers was a good win, but did that really prove Wladmir elevated himself way above Peter? Let's not forget, Chambers went life and death with Peter and only barely won just a year before he fought Wladmir.

I am not discrediting Peter. It's a fact he was a chunky, clumsy, wild slugger. It's a fact he gave Wladmir all he could handle.

It's also a fact you're back pedaling multiple times every time you reply. First, you praised Peter, then you threw him under the bus and said Wlad only struggled because Peter used rabbit punches and Wladmir was a naive young inexperienced 29 year with a genius coach, and now you're back to defending Peter again and accusing me of discrediting him...!

You can't have it both ways.

At no point did I say that because Wladmir struggled with Peter this automatically means any past great would have their way with him. My only point in bringing up Peter is that the idea Wladmir would easily outbox and not get caught by sluggers of the past is nonsense because he got caught plenty by Peter whose not that remarkable and relies on his power and toughness. I am not saying Wladmir can't win, but to dismiss Liston and Foreman because Wladmir's era is supposedly much more sophisticated and technically sound doesn't compute because Peter had so much success in that era, even winning a major belt post Wladmir.

I really can't fathom how you are acknowledging Peter was "good at landing shots from odd angles, using his awkwardness to his advantage, and applying pressure while being willing to take a shot", but then in the same breath you will dismiss Foreman as too crude to give Wladmir trouble...despite the fact Foreman was objectively better than Peter in literally every department and had some of those same qualities as Peter, just even better. He could also land powerful punches at odd angles and could be awkward, tough, etc.

You want to have an honest good faith discussion, let's start there. How are you completely dismissing Foreman's chances while simultaneously praising Peter?

 

Peter didn't have much success. I wouldn't even rate him in the eras top 20. He won a belt off a shot Maskaev who was no longer a top 10 heavyweight so how is that to his credit?