Foreman vs Wladimir Klitschko

Wlads weakness is his punch resistance. Sanders was nothing speicial. He hit Wlad and he went over. End of story.
It had nothing to do with his southpaw style. Wlad fought many southpaw's in his carreer and had no problem with any of them.
Peter had Wlad out on his feet from wild, slow, swinging hooks. George hooked a lot better and a lot faster than Peter. If Peter had better stamina or was any good , he would of knocked Wlad out.
Wlad had to run for his life against Sam Peter but he beats George Foreman? What a joke.

No, Sam Peter was utterly useless. Brewster was just a regular contender. He did nothing better than Foreman but brought it to Wlad like Foreman would of.
He got Wlad out of there in 5 despite being a lesser and slower puncher than Foreman. You want your comparison, there it is.

You said that already, but you brushed off the fact how he had to take an almost career ending beating to win. You are implying because Ali rope a doped him in the jungle ,that some how equates to a Klitschko victory as well. You're talking out your ass now.
Asd i said , Wlad would not of lasted more than 3 rounds in the jungle.

You're wondering off now.
We are not talkin the puropse of the jab. We are talking to uses it to greater effect and that was Norton. Norton beat Ali 2-3 times- depending. Ali was an ATG jabber. What great jabber did Wlad beat?

A stubborn and ******ed argument. That can be said about any HW in history. Who did Holmes, Louis, Ali etc beat that was like Wlad.
Foreman beat greater fighters than Wlad. Wlad lost to lesser guys than Foreman and never beat anybody greater than Foreman. End of.

Wlad couldn't control Peter or Sanders in the clinch. How does he control Foreman. The leverage George puts behind his power shots blows right through that clinch. George was one of the most physically strongest HWs to ever live. Wlad never in his life came close to annybody on Foremans level.

:rofl
One of the best ring cutters in history couldn't close down Wlad. Turn off the highlight reels because you obviously you never watched this guy.
Everybody gets in on Wlad. EVERYBODY. All 60 plus nobodies.. How do you explain all Wlads fights being unwatchable hug fests? Slow as **** bums have walked Wlad down. Pudding fisted Chris Byrd backed Wlad up. Haye made him hold on for his life when he came forward.

How the f.uck is Young comparable to Wlad? Yound did a Lara to beat Foreman. Is Wlad going to turn into Ali and dance backward around the ring?

Haye was in front of Wlad all night. You're just parroting another myth you heard. Go watch the fight. Wlad refused point blank to close him down. He could of , but he was to afraid of something going wrong and it alomst did in the 12th.
When you got a big puncher in front of you , you don't play around and thats what Wlad did.
He'd do the same with Foreman but Foreman wouldn't hang back like Haye did and he would find that opening IN ROUND 1 that Haye found in the 12th.
Also note, Wlad hung on for his life with the help of the ref allowing him find his legs.
K2 rules or not , he doesn't get off the hook in that position against George.

You have nothing but the same question over and over. Look at the poll.

 

Foreman looked almost as exhausted vs Peralta as Wlad was vs Brewster, and Lamon weighed about 30 pounds heavier than Peralta and hit a lot harder.

 

The fighters he beat later who were south paws or partial to the left hook, fought Wlad AFTER he had worked with one of the greatest trainers of all time to remedy this weakness.. Why is that so hard to understand? The three men who beat him finished him with left hooks and one of them in particular was a pure south paw with far greater hand speed than Foreman. Using his early defeats while completely ignoring the obvious changes that were made later, is not only a lazy man's argument, its also a clear display of lack of knowledge of the man's career.

Getting rocked in a fight by a big puncher and coming back to win says something about a fighter. Peter at 243 lbs was strong as a bull, hit hard with both hands, and for all his shortcomings was a tough come forward fighter. He also had the stamina to go into the late rounds even in fights of high output, something that a 70's foreman wasn't too good at.

And a **** comparison at that.. watch Brewster and Peter, and tell me what they had in common with Foreman. Brewster was getting his stool pushed in by Wlad prior to that stoppage and again it was a left hook and once AGAIN, Wlad would improve following this fight. BTW, Wlad won both of those rematches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5Lf_wXLPkg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7K2QtOYObI

Yes, and I also said that Foreman wouldn't likely do that to Wlad, because he isn't just going to sit on the ropes either. try responding to what I'm saying before moving the goal post.

The Wlad prior to 2005? maybe not.. The Wlad from 2005 onward? Different story. Again you're using performances at a different stage of his career that does not reflect his best work and against opponents who's styles are different from Foreman's in just about every way.. Irrelevant argument.

You're the one who's wondering off.. My response was to your comment which was this :

"Whats Wlads jab going to do to Foreman? Wlad never stopped anybody from coming in with his jab."

I then responded with this :

You're not only clueless about this topic, but you systematically change the direction of where your comments and my responses to them come from.

Its a ******ed argument to counter an equally if not more ******ed argument fronted by you, which is that just because Foreman beat Norton and Frazier that he'd beat Wlad, and just because Wlad lost to Sanders, brewster, and Purity that he'd do the same to Foreman.... The problem with taking this lazy man's approach of yours is that all it does is takes lists of names side by side, and does nothing to factor in things like,

- Styles
- Timing of the referred to fights
- Physical differences, circumstances, etc.

Sure I rank Joe Frazier higher than Wlad on an all time list, but for reasons that I've been repeating profusely to you for the past 24 hours, it means absolutely **** all in a head to head debate..

There you go again.. Please see above.

See above AND everything I wrote prior to that over the past day... I won't repeat it again.

How in the hell do you know that Foreman was "stronger" than Wlad or how he'd handle his clinches? Wlad in his prime was 6'6" and his weight ranged anywhere from 240-246 mostly consisting of pure muscle, and systematically handled larger men than most of the men Foreman did.. Foreman for his fight with Joe Frazier was 6'3" 217 and fought smaller men in the 70's. Again what is your reasoning?

Cutting off the ring is useless when you have a guy jabbing your head off and tying you up everytime you even get close. Sounds like you need to watch some fights yourself.

Yet somehow they all get stopped or beaten. You're confusing the terms " unimpressive" with "ineffective"... While I agree that the man is boring as **** to watch that doesn't mean he's ineffective.

Why don't answer my original question to your response,

" Foreman did better against boxers than Wlad did" What boxers did foreman BEAT to validate this claim? We're not talking about the ones he LOST to.

I really don't know what fight you were watching. Haye went on record as putting forth one of the most disgraceful efforts by a challenger in history. Wlad did what he was supposed to do.

Wlad doesn't play around and that statement is verification of your lack of knowledge of the man. He plays it "safe" which is the exact opposite. It isn't exactly a crowd pleasing tactic nor very heroic, but it gets the job done. The last thing in the world a 70's foreman needs in front of him is a " safety first" type of opponent.

.

And Wlad isn't just going to conveniently be right in front of George in perfect position for those hooker cuts that he threw, nor was he a 6'0", 205 lbs guy who George could just bully all over the place.. **** works both ways doesn't it?

Try answering my questions and responses by sticking to the mainstream of the conversation as it actually began, and maybe we can move this along a little faster.

Polls mean nothing to me if the votes come from people like yourself who rehash the same tired rhetoric that I've heard here for nearly 8 years, which is:

" Wlad never fought an ATG and lost to second raters, while fighter X beat better men and never lost to a guy like Purity."

Some of the more reasonable posters who ACTUALLY factor styles into the equation and other crucial elements as well might have a different opinion, even if its in the minority...

Good day sir.....

 

Wlads move to Germany and constant infarction of the rules had more to do with his development than Steward. You can't change a chin. Manny just masked his weakness that are still there and would be exploited again if he fought anybody of any worth.

Wrong. Wlad was already finished before that left hook landed. Brewster done him in with body shots. He even staggered him with a jab early. Foreman is a better body puncher and jabber than Brewster .
Wlad was also floored by straight right hands by Williamson and some unknown called Parnell.

Because i read what is written about Foreman's bute strength. He gently pushed guys and they flew across the ring. He could carry a cow.

If Wlad was so strong he's be able tie up all the bums he fights without climbing onto their backs. He tried that early and people broke through. He doesn't trust his own strenght so you are you to argue otherwise.
Wlads strength is manufactured in the gym. Its not raw , natural, brute strenght like Foreman's.

You are mistaking clinching for this.
http://www.boxnews.com.ua/photos/1185/Wladimir-Klitschko-Brewster95.jpg


Wlad can't can't fight a guy without resorting to that.

He will have to get Foreman out of there in round one because he will be getting hit with the most devastating punches he's ever felt in his life.
Wlad is not a quick starter so styles and logic have only one winner here. GF KO2

 

Even tho his refs have been Yanks and Puerto Ricans?

 

Roger Tilleman came from Belgium

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDYmTTzXIFg

Maghoo,

I actually think Wlad looks much more improved here in 2010 then in 2005. I think Wlad began to really hit his prime around 2007, and peaked around 2009-2011. Wlad definitely was much better by 2010 compared to 2005

 

Refs for the last 10 Waldo fights...

Eddie Cotton (US), Luis Pabon (PR), Ernie Sharif (US), Cotton (US), Sam Williams (US), Pabon (PR), Genaro Rodriquez (US), Robert Byrd (US), Rodriguez (US), Cotton (US)... and before that it was more Cotton and Neumann and those types. You need big ****ing dudes to ref a guy like that.

So, again, your point is shitlessly beguiling... perhaps a Vast International Conspiracy is afoot?

 

I'm not the one you have to convince of anything. Tell that to Dino. I'm done wasting time on him.

 

The high light reels again. Go watch the full fight sometime. Steward was begging Wlad to stop fouling Peters. All he was doing was holding him and sapping his already half empty gas tank.

Peter is so bad he makes a good fighter look great, but in Wlads case he made Wlad look even worse.

Look how easy Vitali and Helenius beat Peter. They moved around him and took him apart without barely breaking a sweat and without the need for constant fouling.

 

Makes no deference where they came from. His fighting style is against the rules.

Why do you dispute that. You've been watching boxing longer than me. Can't you see whats right and whats not?
Wlad would never get away with that in America. You know it, I know it.

 

I am not a huge fan of his style (or of heavies in general) but realize he is very effective and that he is an all-time great. For all his clinching and wrestling (and please go watch Jack Johnson or latter day Ali for lessons in the same), he still finishes the great majority of his opponents. He still knocks down elite guys who have never tasted the canvas. He's put together a great run and it hasn't been by accident. Even if he gets knocked out by Pulev, he has cemented his legacy.

 

Good debate, guys.

 

Johnson and Ali fought out of the clinch. There's a difference. Ali also fought other great fighters and really only clinched against Frazier II. He had other dimensions to his game. Wlad is just all bear hugs.

Wlad climbs over the backs of nothing men such as Mormeck. Nobody he beat is elite. There hasn't been an elite HW in this era expect for Vitali.

A legacy is more than raking up defenses against weaker opposition.

Will Huck become greater than Holyfield when he breaks the defense record next fight?
Does this mean Huck beats guys like Spinks, Moore, Foster, Quarry??

 

You mean the 260lb overweight, past his prime Sam Peter who fought Helenius?

Wlad took on the 240lb, lean, confident, in shape prime version of Sam Peter.