1991 Old Foreman VS 2003 Vitali

Yeah but vitali is certainly capable of fighting the fight that Morrison and Moorer and so many others did against George. Foreman was simply too slow. Vitali would box circles around him and use his reach to keep Foreman missing all night. His jab would be a nonfactor.
Foreman was productive when opponents stood in front of him. Vitali is too smart to make those mistakes. He would win an easy decision.

 

I think a better match would be the the Foreman of '89 who KO'd Cooney. George showed good movement and massacred a guy who was as tall as Vitali and also the same age as when Vitali fought Lewis. Of course Vitali is the better fighter compared to Cooney but I have little doubt this version of Big George would take Vitali out.

 

:good

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

Foreman would lose badly! No contest!

 

I agree with you. I'd also love to hear more stories about your training sessions and time spent with Foreman. What were some of the names of sparring partners (besides yourself) that Foreman routinely worked with? Any
guys give Foreman a lot of trouble in sparring? I read once that supposedly Samson Po'uha sparred Foreman and gave George all he could handle. Not sure how true that story is though. Also, was George always Mr. Nice Guy like he is in public? Thanks...and nice to have a guy like you on here offering your experiences and tidbits....

 

Your last sentence is gold kalasinn :good

 

Foreman would not win a round. Foreman won maybe 2-3 round vs Holyfield, and was being shut out by Moorer until Moorer took a stupid risk, and got his suspect chin checked.

The only question here is does Vitali KO Foreman. I lean toward yes.

 

I think a 1991 Foreman is every bit as good as a 2003 Lennox Lewis.

I believe that version of Foreman has become underrated, and the Lewis of the early 2000s is overrated.

Vitali v. Lennox was a contest of slow lumbering giants just teeing off power punches on one another. 1991 Foreman would fit in perfectly, and I believe his stamina would hold up better too, the man was so relaxed in his mature incarnation.

A 1991 Foreman beats a 2000 Tua and a 2001 Rahman and a 2002 Tyson too, I reckon. I don't mean to **** on LL's glorious reign but that's my judgment.
Those guys were cannon fodder for Foreman's mode of fighting.

2003 Vitali v 1991 Foreman ? I don't know. I really fail to see why Vitali Klitschko is rated so highly for getting his face torn open in his prime in a scrappy slugfest against an ageing fighter.
I can at least see why some might give Foreman his props for going 12 against a prime 28 year-old Holyfield at the age of 42.

I suspect a lot of it comes down to the way these events were presented and marketed by HBO.

 

Amazing. Foreman was out boxed by Tommy Morrison. Before that his face looked like lumps of silly puddy vs Stewart who really was not that good. When he stepped up to meet Holy, who forced exchanges which is the only time Foreman shined it was a one sided fight. Foreman did beat Morrer, but Morrer was easily out boxing him and had a suspect chin. Vitali would not go down from the blows Foreman landed on Morrer, in fact he would be less likely to even land them. I can't see how anyone here thinks Formean is going to win. It would be a massacre. Vitali wins easy.

 

How can you accuse him of picking one of Foreman's best performances against one of Vitali's worst ?

Vitali was in his prime in 2003.
Foreman was old in 1991, and his fight with Holyfield certainly wasn't one of his best performances.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you ?

 

Firstly, Alex Stewart fight was 1992. Morrison was 1993. Moorer was 1994.
We're talking about Foreman in 1991.

Secondly, if Vitali was such a good and smart boxer how would you explain his performance against Lewis ?
Did someone put concrete in his boots ?
He just stood there slugging and hugging and taking a shot to land one.