Oleg Maskaev vs George Foreman

Maskaev went on an unbeaten run from 2003-2006 so I don't agree that Maskaev wasn't in his prime after the loss to Johnson.

Whitaker was nothing special but he was a decent Heavyweight who was big with a long reach and had decent dig Maskaev's chin just let him down vs Whitaker it's as simple as that.

As for bench pressing yes Rahman has better feats in lifting weights but theres different types of strength and Foreman was still a very naturally physically strong guy. For example I think Foreman showed better feats inside the ring in regards to pushing and man handling opponents.

As I said Rahman's feats in bench pressing didn't help him when an old Holyfield and Ruiz were more physical than him on the inside.

 

Maskaev would hit the canvas the hard way if he fought many of the men that Foreman did in the 70's.
Also, coddled? How was he coddled?
O'Halloran, Peralta, Chuvalo, Kirkman, Peralta again, Frazier, Roman and Norton were all before his match with Ali, and past that he fought Lyle, Frazier again, and LeDoux ahead of the Young incident- Where he was completely unfocused against one of the best fighters of the seventies, which of course led to him losing.

 

Maskaev had all time high confidence for the Kirk Johnson fight and looked really good until he got caught. He didn’t have the same punch resistance or confidence for Whitaker. He almost pulled himself back to his peak level a few years later, to his credit.

 

It took Forman 38 fights to get in the ring with someone as good as the guy Maskaev beat in his debut.

 

They're not even comparable amateur wise. Frazier won Gold in the Olympics before going pro and becoming one of the greatest heavyweight boxers ever- Whereas Miroshnichenko won Bronze and went 21-0 against pretty bad opposition to get sparked out in three in Oleg's debut and retire.
Keep in mind that this is the same Maskaev who got ripped in one by Oliver McCall multiple fights later, so I think it's pretty safe to say that there are levels to this, and vastly different ones at that.

 

And Miroshnichenko was better than all 37 of the guys who Foreman fought before Frazier.

 

Definitely not Peralta or Chuvalo, and probably not Kirkman, maybe not even O'Halloran.
You tell me how Miroshnichenko really was that impressive when his best looking wins came against men like:
Mike Cohen - Who lost to Marvis Frazier by 2nd round TKO nearly 10 years before he fought him. (But Marvis was obviously known for his knockouts, and Cohen peaked later into his career, of course.)
Ricky Parkey - Who was on a 7 fight losing streak.
And Michael Simuwelu - Who got knocked out in one by at the time tomato can David Jaco.

 

This thread actually becomes funny. I'm not sure if NoNeck is serious or he is just trolling now

Maskaev was slow glass-jawed HW who was never able to regroup when he got hurt. He was knocked out cold few times, suffered plenty early KO losses and obviously is not the man with some ATG abilities

 

A grade rubbish.

 

NoNeck is just my white whale at this point, my quest is to make him realize that he's insane- But that's likely impossible.

 

I’ll give you Chuvalo as even with Miroshnichenko, not because he was better, but because he was pretty good and built a solid pro resume. The others were just worse and it’s obvious to anyone who knows who we’re talking about.

 

Why don't you tell me what makes the man who got sparked out in 3 to someone in their debut so good. You're so delusional that you think everyone agrees with you unless they don't know **** about boxing.

 

If you think
Alexander Miroshnichenko was better than Gregorio Peralta who was top ten ranked when Foreman beat him,there are only two possible explanations.
1.You are trolling.
2.You don't know WTF you are talking about!

 

No, he was better. Peralta wasn’t a modern heavyweight. The thought of Peralta beating Bowe and Lewis is hilarious.