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

atsch The people picking GEORGE are completely ******ed and it's are not worth arguing with :deal How f--king ridiculous is this piece of nostalgia worshiping nonsense !

 

atsch Lyle the late strting con ? Ken I get koed by every big puncher I face NORTON ( including a fat middleweight just before the ALI fight ) and JERRY I'm going to quit my 10 year cake binge to fight GEORGE Cooney . You ****ing ******

 

Its so weak its champs aren't even heavyweights ? Oh weight a minute that's the era's your claiming were better then this one :yep And of cource lets not forget the golden 70s when LEON SPINKS beat the greatest :deal Again morons making ******ed statements

 

Foreman

 

I think Dino often seems to post on subjects he knows little of. I try not to be insulting to posters like him and Herol, because as you will find out, they genuinely do not know and just go along with what they think others will want them to post. Its a shame sometimes because it is good to read honest opinions, even if you do not agree with them.
There are several who post without any knowledge and would say Foreman but not be able to give a reason why.

 

Explain how YOU think Foreman has a stronger resume.
Is it due to one particular win or several and which ones?

 

Why are you always siding with the trolls, morons andidiots? That fool was not worthy of my attenition.

Wlads best wins can be picked apart far worse than Foremans.

 

Wins over Norton and Frazier are better than anything on Wlad's record

 

Dino please. I am not here to get into an arguement with you. But you have seemed to not know many facts when in debate and still try and argue about things you know little about.
Im not siding with anyone. Re-read the post, as said I dont insult as it would be unfair to.
Im sure many wins can be picked apart either way, but you have to look at overall resumes, and not just one win.
Wasnt Frazier (who I think was Foremans best win) blind in one eye?

As noted before -
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


Just think it all through Dino

 

I think Frazier was a good win, but you have to look at overall resumes

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.

 

Wlads best win is Sam Peter who dropped him on is ass and won by robbery against James Toney.
Peter was a woeful fighter. Complete **** and he is Wlads best win.

Norton who was not even Foremans best win has wins over Ali, is one of the greats who fought in one of the best era's of HW history and has awards for fighting the greatest fights of all time.

Foreman himself won fight of the year twice and fighter of the year twice.
His opponents were atg's and also multiple fighters of the year winners.

Wlad never won an award in his life much less his god-awful opponents.

 

Well I do know, and I am saying Foreman. Rose tinted glasses have nothing to do with it.

 

Using Peter and Norton to prove your point probably isn't the wisest choice: Norton matches up terribly with Sam H2H and would likely get knocked out had they ever fought. Ken was certainly more skilled, but he has a terrible track record against sluggers.

 

Examples?

 

Norton would box Peters head off, Peter wouldn't lay a glove on him so his power (which is overrated anyway) wouldn't matter. Sam Peter was total garbage, easily one of the least skilled fighters to ever hold a major title at heavyweight.