KLITSCHKO'S IN THE 70 S, DO THEY GET PAST THE Big 3?

Vitali and Wlad possibly could have beaten all of the 70s fighters. Norton gave Ali trouble with his jab, Vitali and Wlad could do the same in addition to being significantly larger and harder punching. I think both could decision a 70s Ali.

Fraizer to me is like a honey badger or wolverine. A honey badger and wolverine are like 30 or 40 pounds, but have been known to take on 500 pound lions and 1500 pound polar bears. Badgers and wolverines are very aggressive fighters.

No matter what physical advantages you had over Fraizer, you had to be willing to destroy or Fraizer would run you over. If a polar bear isnt willing to kill or be killed, it usually will avoid a wolverine. Now, a polar bear could kill the wolverine if it really had a mind to, but it may risk injury in doing so.

Both Vitali and Wlad have the tools to demolish Fraizer, but would they get put to good use? Vitali was more aggresive snd more of a natural fighter, Wlad was the more skilled fighter, kind of how Leon Spinks was a more natural fighter than his brother, Michael was a better trained fighter.

Wlad, it depends. If he's tentative and unconfident like he appeared vs Sam Peter in the first fight, Fraizer runs him over, puts the gears in reverse and runs over Wlad again. On the other hand, if Wlad is aggressive and willing to fight fire with fire, Wlad may smash Fraizer.

Foreman causes Vitali trouble early, but i think Vitali's chin holds up. Vitali outboxes and stops a weary Foreman mid to late rounds.

Wlad could possibly meet disaster vs Foreman. If he had his brothers chin, I'd pick him. But if Foreman rushes him and lands bombs on Wlad, it could be like a tree collapsing. On the other hand, should Wlad survive 5 or 6 rounds, Foreman could meet disaster.

Joe Fraizer takes on the K2 brothers

This content is protected

 

Its a bit like comparing brazil of the 70,s with say england in 1966. Both won the world cup. One done it using skill and something you wanted to watch. The other got it done as efficiently as possible that you maybe wouldnt mind missing.

Incase you we,re wondering yeah i m scottish.

 

Red cobra, YES! Also Foreman would have ko them early. Lyle would have beat them bad. Ali and Frazier I think could take them too. Shavers if he doesn't get hit ko them, and at his best he had some good movement, I think he takes them. I probably think this because this was my decade I really got into boxing as a fan, but it is what I really think

 

I think Foreman would have been one of their easier opponents. At that point in his career his atrack was unbalanced and he didn't possess great ring IQ. He certainly wouldn't have the physical advantages or the advantages in skill.

 

Given their success, it might be advisable for more people to emulate their "basic style"

 

I know what toe to toe is.

I've not been in my mum's crack today.

Yes Foreman lost due to go fatigue, I agree there.

Wlad proved in his career he could fight 12 rounds.

But Sanders wasn't aggressive, he countered Wlad and hurt him.

But Peter was aggressive to Wlad and Wlad didn't fold.

Up until Brewster Wlad had woeful conditioning. But since then he clearly improved his cardio.

So you stopped watching boxing but you are here to talk about boxing? Bit strange that.

Foreman hurt young, before being outboxed and dropped himself.

How did you score the second Shavers Vs Young fight?

Biased? So then why did I pick Foreman to beat Vitali?

 

Not really. He just relocated to Germany where his energy conserving illegal holding was permitted.

The 70's fight game was too fast paced and the boxers moved around to much for Wlad. The Povektin fight proved he wouldn't even get past Ernie Shavers.

 

Cowering , illegally holding and grabbing excessively like his life was on the line , literally turning his back and running away from Peters - i'd call that folding.

 

The holding is always going to raise question I agree there.

For me though, there was no holding in the Joshua fight and he almost knocked him out at age 40.

Now I know you disagree, that's fine, but for me that answered those questions I used to have about Wlad.

 

But coming back and almost stopping him in the final round, that's not folding.

 

The only reason he almost won was because Joshua was way too heavy and gassed himself out momentarily trying to take Wlad out in the 5th.

And lets be real , he still wasn't that close to beating a novice Joshua who was taking rounds off to regain his energy.

Anybody can be knocked down , doesn't always mean they nearly lost. Joshua got up from that KD as fast as he went down and then easily ducked , swerved and dodged all of Wlads oncoming punches.
It was Wlad who was totally unable to do the same when Joshua mustered up the energy to fire back with his own assault.

Every time Joshua mounted an attack on Wlad he looked like vulnerable and defenceless -so i really don't understand what these answered questions you speak of are all about.

 

A genuine great would never go life n death with Sam Peters.

 

I think Wlad was maybe one or two punches away from stopping it. Ironic if he'd have gone balls to the wall and not paced himself he might have done the job.

Genuine greats go life and death with people they shouldn't do all the time. They just tend to go a bit more life than death.