Old Foreman vs Wlad Klitschko

Who else would you have Vitali fighting?

It was a unique situation but unfortunately i can't automatically gift one over the other. The situation costs both of them a signature win and the chance to go well up on the list from where they actually reside. Neither had the opportunity to beat the outstanding other fighter of their era. Well Vitali did early on against Lewis but Lewis put paid to that.

 

How is giving Wlad the number 1 slot a “gift” that’s really being detrimental to Wlad. Vitali tore his ACL - announced his retirement - and left for 4 Years. In that time Wlad Earned the top slot. That is no gift.
Vitali could of sought some better names in his return imo. Too many sonowski, and Briggs types on his ledger but I would have to look into who else was available. I know Wlad fought quality top guys like Ibrigamov, Povetkin, Chagaev, etc.
You are not alone how you feel it’s a debatable point regarding their historical standing because they both crushed an entire decade but didn’t (rightfully) fight each other. Cheers.

 

I'd be interested to see your calculations as to how many years Old Man Foreman was the undisputed best HW on the planet for.

 

I am talking the entire era when i talk about gifting. The circumstances incredibly unfortunate but also very real.

In Vitali's very first fight back he beat Samuel Peter who was Ring ranked #2 behind Wlad and had just beaten the #3 in Maskaev. So he's cruised straight past the second best in the world who had also just put paid to #3. Normally after that there would be only one match up worthwhile, obviously. When you can come straight back and whup the number two it's time for numero uno. I can't blame Vitali for fighting a mix of contenders and non contenders after that as he had no-where to go and nothing to gain.

 

Who needs calculations? It's pretty simple.

 

Ok I didn’t understand the context you applied the word gifting for, although I think it’s not the best word to use when two guys lay waste to an entire generation of heavyweights. I will say Vitali May have been “gifted” with the Hw emeritus status the wbc granted him, and Wlad was gracious enough to sacrifice becoming undisputed champion for his brother to challenge immediately for the wbc title after a 4 year retirement.
It was an amazing performance by Vitali to come back and dominate the second best hw in the world with no tune ups like Ali and Fury had upon their returns, however I still believe he could of faced better challengers than some of his other title defenses that he had later on his career. I guess once he defeated Peter he was kind of pigeon holed since they could never fight each other. Still Wlad was lineal after Chagaev at the latest, and defeated number one Povetkin and Pulev and number 2 Haye (behind Vitali) so wasnt like Wlad was coasting with his belts.

 

Old Foreman was never the best heavyweight in the world. And young Foreman held the title for less than two years.

 

There is little relevance to that in a head to head match up. By the way, I doubt Wlad would have been the best heavyweight in those eras.

Wlad was knocked out a few times in his prime.Old Foreman might just be the right man to get the job done.

 

Wlad would of had great chance to be the best in any era with his size and skill set.
As far as H2h goes with old Foreman as I posted on here numerous times - Foreman was too slow and wide open for prime Wlad imo. He also didn’t fight enough top competition in his comeback to accurately judge how he would fare against a prime Wlad who was proven at world class. Just because Foreman’s power and jab looked good against Bert cooper, ken lakusta and Dwight Quawi it’s a whole different ball of wax fighting 6’6 245 Wlad who went 11 years without losing at top level against the best.

 

For 11 years?

 

Lol Vitali had the belt for the majority of Wlad’s career not Stiverne.

 

I can understand you not grasping the sheer unlikelihood of a titlist not managing to unify the three major belts over an 11-year period.

Vitali wasn't around for the whole 11 years; Stiverne was WBC Champion for less than a year.

Whatever the reasons, it remains quite an extraordinary situation; to have somehow not been able to possess all three belts, during an 11-year period. I suppose, to be fair, we should look at Wlad's 'uninterrupted' run, as roughly a 9 and a half year stretch.

It also didn't help that Vitali returned and then held on to the WBC strap for a year after his last fight.

Complete unification might have happened, had he beaten Fury, and promises were kept by the WBC to support a unification bout. But, Wlad looking past Fury turned out to be a tad optimistic.

 

You're very good at missing the point. Never mind.

Thanks for letting me know something I already knew, though.


Wlad's 'dominance' has holes in it and, in any event, this sub-topic should be of no concern of, let alone dominate, a discussion over a speculative head-to-head match-up.

Either way, I think this discussion has more than run its course - and so, I'll take my leave.


It's been a real blast...

 

I was hoping i was far more convincing

 

Who are these fighters you're counting as ranked? You might be missing some.

Take the Wlad loss out, don't they all have winning records vs ranked opposition?

But I like your concept. So tell me, Machine Man, What is old Foreman's record vs ranked opposition in the 1990s? A bad losing record! 1-3, possibly 1-4. I'd have to check. You tell me.

Wlad's record vs top ten ring magazine opponents is gargantuan in comparison to Old Foreman's in the 1990's Its not even close. Do you want to compare and contrast? I'm guessing no, and doesn't that say it all?

Bottom line, there is no type of logic you can use to say Foreman was better, and I flat out question his skills and power as had lots of trouble vs Shcuhlz, Saveresee, Briggs, and Stewart, who were't even in Chagaev's, Ibragimov's or Povetkin's class!