Who has the best record, Wlad Klitschko or George Foreman?

i can't take this thread seriously... i tried, but didn't work. atsch :rofl

 

If you meant underrated, then I agree. :twisted:

 

You don't half put some stupid threads on here

Foreman by a country mile has a better record

 

This thread maker is a gimp. He's always putting stupid threads up. His last one was "who would win - Audley or Bruno"

 

:good

 

I'm a Klitschkos supporter but it's Foreman, no contest. We can discuss haed to haed but not the actual achievements, at least not at this point.

 

Foreman competed in a more highly regarded era,and I won't argue against the claim that his greatest wins are better than Wlad's greatest wins,but his actual resume is poor and lacking when it comes to the number of credible contenders he actually fought.Foreman spent his entire career cherry picking,padding his record and avoiding the majority of the contenders in his division.



Look,all a world champion can do is fight the best opposition available.Say what you want about Wladimir,but the fact of the matter is,the guy has been clearing the heavyweight division of all contenders for a decade now.Foreman could never make such a claim himself.Neither can Foreman claim to have had a lengthy,dominant title reign like Wladimir,either.

Great post,mate.I completely agree.

 

[yt]?v=2SoASoreGeM[/yt]


[yt]?v=AcPUhQnPH-0[/yt]

 

Off yourself.

 

I imagine many will say Foreman when they dont know, just because they think its the thing to say and dont really know. Foremans win over Frazier was impressive and a good win, but you need to look at the overall fights. If you do that it can be seen as a very debateable subject when you consider Wlads wins over Byrd, Haye, Povetkin, Peter, Brewster, Mercer, Botha, Schulz, Ibragimov, Rahman, Thompson.
Forman has wins over Schulz (Debateable), Frazier, Moorer, Cooney, Norton.
Nostalgia and rose tinted glasses comes into play in alot of this.

This talk of the era is a bad thing as if you have for example 10 fighters in say 1980 that would all be B rate if they fought in say 2000 where there are 3 A rate fighters, people, would say 2000 was a weaker era due to less competitive match ups, but the 10 from the 80s they were the best that 1980 had, they would be considered the top fighters of that era and seen with rose tinted glasses. This is an example where I purposefully picked different decades

I will leave my answer open at present and let people weigh it all up for a bit

 

Record against opponents who featured in the top 10:

George Foreman 14-5-0 (12)

Chuvalo, Peralta (x2), Frazier (x2), Norton, Ali, Lyle, LeDoux, Young, Cooper, Cooney, Rodrigues, Holyfield, Ellis, Morrison, Moorer, Schulz, Briggs (17 different fighters)

Wlad Klitschko 21-2 (16)

Schulz, Jackson, Barret, Byrd (x2), Jefferson, Botha, Mercer, McCline, Sanders, Brewster (x2), Peter (x2), Brock, Ibragimov, Thompson (x2), Rahman, Chagaev, Chambers, Haye, Povetkin (19 different fighters)

22-2 if Mormeck is counted.

It all comes down to quality vs quantity. George's resume is extremely top heavy with a big dropoff, so it's cool if someone wants to give him enough extra credit to undo Wlad's extra wins and fewer losses against more rated fighters. I vote for Wlad, but I'm not going to begrudge someone who sees it differently.

 

It sucks for Wlad and Vitali when trying to compare them with other HW ATG's, they're almost always going to fall short in comparison. Unfortunately they fought in the weakest and most diluted era in HW history.

So while they both have excellent pro records, it's impossible to give them the nod against any of the good HW's in the 70's. That period in HW boxing was considered the "Golden Age of HW's," and Foreman's record during that period was quite impressive and he holds some impressive wins against some top notch HW HOF'ers.

His destruction of Frazier alone is better than anything on either of the Klit's resumes.

 

Don't forget to put Schmeling over Liston, too. :good

 

oh come on stupid question, resume is not the K2s strength, they are always going to lose on that.