George Foreman: Wladimir will not leave much of a legacy in boxing

Would you mind posting 19 better Heavyweights from history please? I think you'll be surprised how few Heavys are better skilled, better head to head, or have better a better legacy than Wlad has.

 

Put's it brilliantly.

 

I didn't say he was 20th. I said top 20. He is borderline 15 now, I can accept him being in the 15, maybe 12-15th.

Not in the 10 though.

 

Rocky Marciano makes my top 10 list because he retired undefeated and he has highlight reel KO's over Joe Louis (way past it), Archie Moore (very old), Jersey Joe Walcott & Ezzard Charles.

Quality stuff but they were all under sized & old to somewhat old when he beat them.

 

damn so george flew out to germany to collect that appearance fee from Wlad and then trash talks him after he gets his money. That is cold.

I think he liked big punchers and KO artists more than guys with chins. He absolutely loved Tito and Hamed

 

******ed George :-(

He says nothing about Haye fighting to survive pretty much the whole fight or how Haye, who is a very dangerous puncher, was obviously in counter punching mode trying to bait Wlad in. But according to punch drunk George it's all Wladimir's fault.

 

Well then we agree. :good I have Wlad at around 12 right now and he doesn't get into the Top 10 without unification with the WBC belt or roughly 5 more quality defenses. He very well may end up doing both at that could put him as high as just outside the top 5.

Another important factor is what happens to his competition after he retires. If Eddie Chambers were to win the vacant title and defend it successfully 5 or so times he'd raise Wlad's stock since Wlad beat him by highlight reel KO. See my point? That's why it's futile to say where he'd end up on the ATG list before all is said & done.

 

I agree with ^

 

Fighters aren't ranked by how good they are or what skills they had. It's all about how they proved it because if you just look at technical ability, you ignore the thing which sets champions apart from the rest and that's intangibles. There are guys who would rank nowhere near the top 20 who are better skilled than Wlad, such as Jimmy Young. He was technically a better boxer yet Wlad rates higher. Young was better than many heavyweights in terms of pure ability and that shows why ability alone isn't enough. The best fighters in history may not have been the most technically skilled, like Marciano, they may have been predictable, like Frazier, they may have been slow, like Liston, they may have been chinny, like Louis, but all these guys has intangibles which made them the champions they are and definite top 10 fighters.

If you look at just ability, you won't get a very good top 10 list, I don't think. Ability alone isn't enough.

 

He doesn't have to. Wlad's boringly effective, but rudimentary in skills, and tentatively, hesitantly, non-Heavyweight like. 48 Year Old Foreman out-boxed the man in your avatar. Young Foreman would've chased Wlad out the ring. Face the music, George's spot on.

 

I could name 50 Heavyweights with better skills, let alone 20.

 

Do you think it's enough for a heavyweight to be "boringly effective" or does it actually hurt his legacy? People talk about Wlad as being technically skilled, having very heavy hands and so on, yet if that's the case, surely not stopping Haye, Ibragimov or Peter in the first fight, going 12 with Chambers, taking 7 to stop Rahman and 11 with Thompson isn't a great achievement.

That's why it always makes me laugh when people say Wlad would stop guys like Frazier, Dempsey or Louis. Based on what, exactly? Even if Wlad has the power, I don't think he has anything like the attitude to be considered a great head to head heavyweight. Way too tentative.

I like Haye, however, he doesn't last 5 rounds with Foreman, Frazier, Louis and many more elite fighters. That's just a realistic look at it. His chin would not withstand anything they bring and yet Wlad, who is touted by some as a bigger hitter than those three, didn't hurt Haye once.

In my previous post, I mentioned intangibles and why you can't just measure legacy on ability because it overlooks key things which set champions aside from challengers. Wlad doesn't have great intangibles and that hurts his legacy.

 

:-(

Especially saying BASKETBALL atsch Ever see a basketball player fight? They can't :-( Could have at least said Football even Baseball

If only Joe Fraizer went to the NFL, he would have been the greatest defensive tackle of all time :nut

As for Foreman. He was very proud of being an Olympic Gold Medal Winner for the USA during the height of the Cold War. I think he still harbors that Cold War competition which skews his opinion in my opinion :smoke

 

What the sonny liston who collapsed from one ****ing non punch from ali, that sonny liston ???, yeah im sure wlad would have **** himself. And yes i know who he was and yes i have seen many of his fights, also know many felt it was a dive/fixed/mafia etc, but none of that has been proved, so it still goes down as a pathetic loss, wlad would have taking liston apart over 12 rounds

 

It hurts it far more with the people than it does with historical ranking. Then again, one could argue who cares what the people think. All you have to do is go on youtube to find out people think Tyson was the greatest, most ferocious, most invincible fighter that ever lived.

Fighters are generally far more appreciated after their careers are over. Because of Wlad's fighting mentality (Or lack thereof), I think it will take even longer for him to get his dues and appreciation. The HW division during his era will always be seen as weak. Although, I think that would be less harped upon if Wlad didn't the fight the way he did. If he didn't fight so rudimentary because of being scared of being punched in the face, people might think more of him. If he wear deadly, and were a HW that showcased combination punching and his skills more often and destroyed the competition he would have far less critics.

He's technical, although I'd question how great his skills are. Maybe they are there far more than I see, but when you're reluctant to throw punches, counter opponents (Because you jump back from any attack), and casually just control distance with your bludgeoning jab when you could clearly take out over-matched opposition... it's just a lot harder to appreciate. I can't assume you possess ability you would need to possess in order to fight a truly great fighter with a style that could test you. I don't know.

I think these three guys would be doom for Wlad. They have the style, the skills and abilities to make Wlad look far more ordinary. No doubt they have the foil. I'd only question whether Dempsey had the durability to take any necessary punishment against Wlad. But dare I say, he's far far more of a threat due to his style and attributes than any other fighter Wlad has ever beaten. That's for sure. Regardless of size and weight. I guarantee that.

I think the Mormeck and Fragomeni fight showed Haye doesn't like dealing with being crowded. He doesn't like to deal with too much pressure. Mainly due to the fact he can't deal with such a pace. Guys like Ruiz who don't have incredibly out-put or footwork are far more suited for Haye's trap-setting and counter-punching. I agree with your statement.

This is fair. I think another thing that hurts it is he hasn't been able to prove them much, really. I mean... what really hurts it his brother is the next best HW there. A HW beating the second best HW in the world can make or break a significance difference in a fighter's legacy. Not beating the other best man out there hurts Wlad. Less controversial than Dempsey not fighting Willis, but it's the same idea & effect to me.