Vitali Klitschko vs George Foreman FULL FIGHT WRITE UP

Sir, how dare you say 'Foreman hit just as hard if not harder than Vitali, was proven against stronger competition and more skilled than him'?? Who can say, this or that fighter was better than the boxers Vitaly faced? It is all pure guesswork, as we just don't know! What we do know is, that todays fighters are bigger and stronger than those of yesterday, and, in general, it is a fact, that in all sports today's elite competitors clearly surpass by miles those 50 years ago when Foreman was in his prime. So: Please, don't present all this nonsens that Foreman faced better fighters, it is fairytales and ol' man rubbish, cause' we just can't tell. But, we can use our common sense.

 

Imagine Briggs walking face first in Foremans hands like he did with Vitali.

He gets flatlined before the 3rd round.

Vitali couldn't even put Kevin Johnson on the deck. His punching power was mediocre.

Foreman is one of the greatest hitter's in the sports history. He was impossible to beat on the front foot

 

“Bigger & stronger” is tantamount to better when you have mistaken the sport of Boxing for a strongman contest.

 

This. Among the vast ocean that is Vitali Klitschko’s deficiencies we find an extraordinarily ordinary punch. The talent pool in that family is not terribly deep, but Vitali clearly swam in the shallow end. It’s astounding how highly regarded he is in some circles. His greatest ability was getting punched in the face well.

 

"Beat" is a strong word.

 

I would be more than happy to engage with the people who think Vitali wins this fight, if they weren't cowards.

 

Vitali simply hasn't beaten anyone who could be compared to a prime Foreman. Quite oppositely, VK's ledger is poor and the one elite fighter Vitali did compete with - and lost against - was significantly past his prime.

Backing Vitali here is a real roll of the dice when he's likely to ship considerably more punishment from Foreman than he did from the below-par Lewis.

Suffices to say that this does not bode well for Klitschko the Elder.

 

I'm a Foreman fan and I've publicly admitted that if this fight were to go past 9 rounds, Vitali may be able to pull off the upset with his superior stamina and high workrate. Vitali is no scrub and is a tall, strong, durable fighter with decent skills.


Vitali's resume:


Reading these replies, you would've thought Vitali was the Jos Louis of the 2000's and has a long impressive resume with wins over several elite opponents. Where are they...?

He doesn't have them. Vitali mostly bear D and C level opponents. Several posters have already dissected his resume and despite a fairly long career, Vitali just doesn't have many convincing wins against truly world class opponents. People in this thread have already asked who his best wins were, and the fact people changed the subject says a lot. We have a prime Samuel Peter, an old Sanders, the tiny Herbie Hide, Chris Arreola, a relatively inexperienced Chisora, an ancient Briggs...? Who else? Could we logically conclude that based on these names, Vitali should be favored over Foreman's Frazier (2x), Norton, Peralta (2x), Lyle, Chuvalo, Ledoux? I wouldn't say so. I think Frazier himself could potentially beat all of Vitali's best wins, and it goes without saying Foreman would massacre them.

Conclusion: Vitali is not beating Foreman on the basis of resume.


Vitali's Power:


They keep bringing up raw numbers and stats such as Vitali's KO% and the sheer size/weight of the men he beat as if none of us have watched hit fights and are ignorant of the context.

Vitali is heavy handed but is not an elite puncher. He rarely knocks out his best opponents and usually gets stoppages due to an accumulation of punches. Furthermore, the quality of said opponents he stopped are rather low. I think WBC champ Samuel Peter was his best stoppage win? Whose next, a prime Chris Arreola? An ancient flabby Sanders? The much smaller and weak chinned Herbie Hide? Is this some sort murderer's row we're supposed to be in awe of? I should also point out that out of all his best opponents, Vitali failed to drop Peter, Sanders, Arreola, Chisora, Briggs, Puritty, Johnson, Byrd, or Lewis. Since when does an "elite power puncher" fail to floor (let alone KO) 9 of their best opponents? It has never happened in the history of HW boxing. And it's not even like a lot of these best opponents were ranked or elite A level guys outside of a fat old Lewis.

Foreman hits harder than Vitali and has been hit by people with demonstrably better power than Vitali (Frazier, Lyle) winning those fights. I'm not sure there is much room to argue this point.

Conclusion: Vitali is not an elite puncher. He is probably not beating Foreman on the basis of raw power unless he manages to drag Foreman into deep waters and stop him/outwork him late. That's a big question mark if Vitali himself would survive the early onslaught (more on that later).


Vitali's Skill:


So if it isn't because of his punching power, why else do people think Vitali wins? Is it based on skill? Honestly, that's not an argument you want to have either. Putting aside the fact Vitali is sorely lacking in beating elite, skills fighters to prove he has elite skill, we can simply look at the footage. Vitali has good balance, can usually throw straight punches from long range without exposing himself to too much danger, knows how to impose his size and maintain his preferred distance, can lean back to avoid punches, and has decent accuracy and timing. However, he is a bit stiff, robotic, and repetitive. He is not some sort of brilliant tactician or able to execute complex game plans or strategies in the middle of the fight. He can sometimes have leaky defense. He does not know how to really parry, counter, deflect, etc. Vitali doesn't know how to use rhythm or momentum and is basically a programmed golem and not an instinctual fighter with natural talent.

So this begs the question: what does he do better than Foreman? Well not much in my estimation. As I said, Vits has good balance and knows how to fight like a big man keeping his preferred range and unleashing hell with a high volume. I think Foreman actually has better range control. Foreman's subtle guard manipulations, framing, pulling and nudging, and slight feet adjustments are marvelous to look at when he's focused. He can cut off the ring better. In some ways he even has better defenses with his swatting/pawing away if incoming jabs and hooks. Foreman is the far superior body puncher and has better accuracy and timing. Now I'm not claiming he's some defensive wizard or master of the sweet science. Both guys lack head movement and can get pretty wild and aggressive. But Foreman has some edges in overall skill. It also goes without saying Foreman is far superior in terms of punching skill and finishing ability which will be to two make important factors in a matchup between two aggressive guys who don't back down.

I think Vitali is better when it comes to practical boxing due to his Eastern European amateur background in the sense that he knows how to win rounds and has better fundamentals, I'll give him that.

Conclusion: I'm really not seeing how Vitali wins on the basis of skill/technique. I don't see Foreman becoming passive and just standing there clueless getting nailed at long range round after round the way Briggs, Arreola, Peter were. Foreman could make adjustments, make Vitali miss, punish mistakes, find ways to get closer, etc.


Vitali's endurance:


This is obviously an important category given this will no doubt become a war at ring center. We can break up endurance into 4 categories: chin (ability to take a solid punch), stamina (your energy levels/how you can fight), skin resilience (susceptibility to cuts, swelling, bruises) and heart (ability to shake off the cobwebs when buzzed, hurt, dropped, to recover, and the burning desire to win).

Chin: I would give Vitali a slight edge with a 9.5/10 chin, Foreman a 9/10 or so. Both had iron chins but Vitali I believe was only down once or twice, Foreman 4x with a KO loss (primarily due to exhaustion). I will say this though: Vitali didn't face as many big punchers and wasn't hit flush as often as Foreman (especially if you've factor in the 90's and I don't think Foreman's chin suddenly got better, only his defense and stamina).

Stamina: Again, Vitali. He has a higher work rate throwing dozens of shots all 12 rounds. There is a small asterisks* in that Foreman did go the distance without gassing against Peralta and beat 2 fighters who had superior stamina (Chuvalo and Norton) due to a superb game plan. The 2 times Foreman gassed did have some context to them. Unlike Vitali, Foreman was obsessed with scoring KOs in the 70's and threw with bad intentions from round 1. He fought Ali and Young in muggy outdoor arenas fighting aggressively with no regard for conserving his energy or respecting his opponents. I would still give the edge to Vitali, but it's not that Foreman had "bad" stamina, he had bad game plans.

Skin resilience: Vitali swelled up and bruised a lot when he was hit. There's also the infamous TKO 6. **** skin wasn't that resilient. Foreman sometimes had puffy eyes, but never ran the risk of being stopped on cuts/swelling. Advantage Foramen.

Heart: Vitali did in fact quit on his stool against Byrd, but later redeemed himself a bit continuing to fight while badly hurt and cut against Lewis. He has demonstrated the ability to get nailed by a big punch and continues to fight without cowering away (such as against Sanders). Foreman never lacked heart and was vicious shark sniffing out for blood. He got off the floor to win a crazy brawl with Lyle and even the fights he lost, he continued throwing heavy bombs all night trying to get the win. I would say they're roughly even in mental toughness and heart. Neither guy ever deliberately tried to look for a way out, spit their mouthpiece, take a knee to stall, etc. they were gladiators.


Conclusion: Vitali may manage to win based on endurance, but it wouldn't be a sure thing and Foreman was no slouch.




Overall Conclusion:

Based on the 4 categories I've listed (resume, power, skill, endurance), Vital went 1-3, narrowly winning only 1 category. I do not think it's very likely that Vitali wins this fight unless he manages to survive the early storm and drag Foreman into deep waters. Foreman hits harder, has some edges in skill/technique, and a more proven resume against better opponents, I would have to favor him to win 65-70% of the time by TKO within 5 rounds.

 

Ali vs Lewis? That's a very tough one to think about. Is this 60's or 70's Ali? And when do you consider Lewis to be in his prime?

I can do another breakdown like this and message it privately so that it doesn't spoil one of your threads.

 

This is a fair analysis.

In almost every fantasy match-up involving Vitali, his supporters rely heavily on the guy's size and extrapolate from his lamentable ledger, beyond reason.

Sure, Vitali is no walkover. This goes without saying. But he spent almost all of his career in his comfort-zone against, as you rightly put it, D and C level opponents. Couple this with him having lost to his best two opponents and it is difficult to back him against all-time elite level comp - Especially, against a fighter as strong, as powerful and as aggressive as Foreman.

 

Given the decisive nature of the losses and the point in his career we have to reasonably assume they would have beaten him prime for prime. He should have been far more competitive despite being slightly past prime. Being slightly past prime doesn't mean you suddenly lose all punch resistance. And Shavers was probably past his best as well so I don't see that argument having any merit there. Fighters often face off when one or both are not at their peak but the results are extrapolated to prime vs prime matchups.

Part of Vitali's problem is he fought in an era in which ducking was rampant so many contenders have very little in the way of resume due to not fighting their contemporaries. But that doesn't mean they didn't have ability. Ortiz and Wilder for example have really poor resumes but that doesn't mean they weren't capable.