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

I mean do you feel the same way about the ref failing to stop Holyfield's head butting rampage against Rahman? Do you just shrug your shoulders and say "sure things might've been different, but we have to accept the result"...?

 

I didn't say Foreman would simply walk through Wladmir's shots. I laid out some very specific game plans he might do based on how he actually boxed, and you didn't really address it.

He did parry many of Norton's jabs. The foreman who fought Young changed his style and tried to prove he could go the distance.

Again, not sure how you can watch the Peter, Brewster, etc fights and conclude Wladmir is just going to easily maintain his preferred distance at long range like a matador. Even Ali couldn't do that to Foreman.

Yes, Wladmir could clinch Foreman to offset his offense. Which is why I specifically addressed that in numerous posts and said if the ref allows Wladmir to just do us usual thing, Foreman might lose. If he's penalized for too much clinching, Foreman is going to land some body shots. You're citing Ali clinching Foreman while conveniently forgetting Ali had to endure brutal punches to the mid section throughout the whole bout even when he secured a hold on Foreman's neck.

Foreman doesn't need to re-invent anything. Wladmir is going to have his hands full if Foreman manages to cut the ring off, parry the jab, and starts landing body shots. If that happens, I would bet any amount of money Wladmir would be sucking in air hard by round 4 and eventually KOd unless he managed to land something big on Foreman to turn things around or the ref allowed Wladmir to clinch and lean excessively. Wladmir doesn't have particularly good defense outside of clinching and using his legs to retreat with a basic guard, and he relied heavily on establishing his jab for his offense.

 

The point is that Wlad went on to demonstrate stamina in 12 round fights against strong guys whereas Holmes never fought any southpaws after Wells.

 

There isn't any way to explain his subsequent dominance unless he dramatically improved. People develop at different rates. The early losses were due to not pacing himself and once that was fixed he was far harder to beat. They have no bearing on his peak abilities.

Sugar ray Leonard got thrashed at age 34 by Norris an age at which many fighters are at their peak. Nobody assumes he was in his prime based on age and number of bouts

 

Oh right yeah, Larry Holmes who got up from that Earnie Shavers punch LOL ! By the way Mr Holmes
went on to win that actual round.
Do you seriously think Wlad was capable of anything like that ? Seriously ?

 

Prime Wlad would've totally neutralized Shavers.

Sanders would've been a live underdog against Holmes if Holmes would've agreed to the fight.

 

This is just garbage, zero analysis, name calling.

The quantity of Wlad's resume has a quality all its own. Foreman's legacy lies on the fragile mandible of Norton, the tiny partied-out Frazier and going life and death with a guy who didn't start boxing till he was almost 30.

Wlad KO10

 

It also matters that Wladmir had gold when NoNeck has the gall to bring up Holmes' amateur career losses in an attempt to slight him while propping up Wladmir.

Oops.

 

The part where posters fixate on parts of Wlad’s career when he was a work in progress and I play the same game with Larry seems to have gone straight over your head.

 

I know you're a staunch supporter of Wlad - in an 'at any cost' kind of way - but the self-defeating irony in your post above really did catch my eye.

First, you claim "zero analysis" and "name-calling", only to continue with the belittling of Frazier, Norton, and Lyle, while providing no analysis of your own. You really do sell Foreman's career somewhat short.
(Perhaps this should come as no surprise, given what I suppose you thought you were rallying against.)

Secondly, your turn of phrase, "The quantity of Wlad's resume has a quality all its own," is an unmistakable play on the maxim attributed to Stalin ("quantity has a quality all its own"). It refers to the Soviet emphasis on the production of sheer numbers to compensate for their lower quality of military sophistication. The problem, of course, is that you have misapplied a clipped military-industrial philosophy to an evaluation of historical sporting record.

This second sentiment is something I can get on board with to some extent because it pretty much sums up Wlad's career, in my opinion. That is, it's defined by quantity; not quality --- two very distinct categories of value.

Perhaps you meant this as an admission, and if so, fair enough. After all, Wlad's record really does bear this out.

 

No, pointing out that Norton had a fragile mandible is demonstrable. It is not as simple, and simply inaccurate, as calling the version of Peter that Wlad faced, a guy who was the bogeyman of the division at the time, a "fat oaf". Frazier was at the end of his run and was partying hard. This is not up for debate. And Lyle started his pro career at 30. Again, fact not conjecture.

I always thought it was a Napo quote. And yes, quantity does matter. Dominating the division for a decade and barely losing a round does matter. And taking the zeros from Peter, Brock, Povetkin, Ibragimov, Chagaev, Pulev and Jennings does matter. There was quality and quantity.

 

You were belittling them. That is demonstrable in the very post I responded to. I wasn't questioning factuality.

Whether attributed to Napoleon or Stalin, the principle is the same, i.e., volume compensates for quality. This doesn't work for evaluating boxing ledgers. Now you want to throw in some names you think represent quality. Fair enough. I'll accept this as your tacit walkback toward a more reasoned opinion, but I disagree with your ideas on Wlad's quality. It was lacking.

 

Peter already lost his zero to a fat middle weight pushing 40.

Povetkin. His best opponent drew out a performance that was deserving of a DQ loss. Exposed his limitations against a fighter of Povektin's calibre.
Joshua beat Pov who was on a multi-fight win streak with zero fouling. Takam swept whole rounds off Povetkin with clean boxing. Wlad couldn't sweep 10mins clean.

Iggy wanted to retire due to religion. Didn't turn up to win.

Wlad should've fought Valeuv , not the guy who ruled medically unfit to fight Valeuv. HBO declined to broadcast.

6'2 accountant. Best win Jameel McCline. Caused Wlad issues. Was heavily leaned on.

Looked like a Sumo wrestling contest. Illegal spongy canvas used to limit Pulevs mobility.

Had problems with his movement. Got point deducted for holding. Uppercutted himself.
One fight later old timer Ortiz came in and walked right through Jennings. Properly applied the uppercut to score a stoppage victory.

 

Comparing an amateur to a pro whose had more than 40 fights and a world title is a false equivalence.

Someone whose supposedly a doctor should be smart enough to understand that.