Vitali Klitschko is the best 40+ year old HW ever.

That depends on what you mean by the best in the family.? If you are going by better skills and ring craft, yes its Wlad. More defenses, better victories and overall career, yes it Wlad again. However if the question of who was the best depended on who would win had they actually met in the ring against each other, then my money would be on Vitali to come out on top.

 

Young lions? FOH

 

Foreman became THE champ at 45, no Heavyweight in the 40s came close to doing that.

Vitali has in front of him one of the toughest job going though. Being a leading player in the story of modern Ukraine.

 

Well than you would lose your money, and i hope you don't rely on Gambling on boxing, as a solid source of income:-(, because judging by their accomplishments, level of opposition, skills, and durability VK took off 4 years due to injuries, too boot, it's obvious Wlad is the better of the 2 - and im as unbiased as they come because i don't care for either one of them...

How the hell do you propose Vk could beat Wlad:huh
I've come to accept the fact that i won't see another American heavyweight till Wlad retires, but he turns 39 next year so hopefully not too much longer...

 

No.
Foreman was 43 when he faced Stewart, he was 46 when he faced Schultz and 47 when he faced Savarese.

Let's compare the 40-41 year old Vitali against the 40-42 year old Foreman.
The Foreman who destroyed Rodrigues and went the distance with Holyfield.

I don't know why people lump Foreman from 1987 to 1997 as one consistently the same fighter. That makes no sense. In his 'second career', he obviously had peaks and declines.
If Vitali had fought until age 47 , and fought about thirty times past the age of 38, you wouldn't expect him to be the same in every one of those fights over a ten year period.

 

40-42 Foreman either beat garbage men or lost.

Vitali's 3-0 includes two top ten fighters and a top 15/20.

The lone top ten fighter beaten by Foreman during his entire comeback was you know who and you know how, no rematch given.

 

Is vitali the best No

 

hes not even going to be the best one in his immediate family, never mind making stupid claims about the world.

 

Chisora and Charr are the kind of 'bums' that Foreman would have knocked out.
Adamek was a little better but I doubt he'd beat the Foreman who fought Holyfield.

 

Astute ****ysis. Chisora had just beaten Helenius who was a big, lumbering guy with power, just like Foreman.

 

@ Helenius's power being compared with Foreman's.

 

Helenius stopped Brewster and shattered Peter's chin. That's more than comeback Foreman can say for himself.

 

LOL! I do like a bit of gambling though I'm not silly enough to think I could make a living out of it. It mostly for fun though the money that you win is always welcomed. Still I stand by my claim that Vitali would win in a fight between the two and I would have put money on it.

 

from vitalis resume i think gomez would have posed foreman problems.

Edit
as this thread is about 40 yrs plus the gomez fight probably wouldn't count, Vitali's only had a few fights above that age, chisora being the best of those opponents, imo.

Resume wise speaking foreman has to have the edge, so it mus be h2h then, in which case i go with vitali as Foreman struggled with briggs and actually lost to schulz.

 

Vitlai in fact is harder to out box than Wlad. Unless one thinks Wlad can take Vitlai's shots over the course of many rounds, he's going to lose.