Wlad V George??????

for the sake of boxing if this ever happened lets hope george would do it! both klitchkos fight to the same utterly effective but utterly boring format of timing an oponent on the way in and keeping them at arms length. Because they have alarming physical advantages over most opponents and unbreakable dicipline to stay with a sound gameplan they keep winning. BUT ITS NOT FIGHTING!
Most fighters with a gameplan can be drawn into a fight. big old george could always land. he would have to walk through some heavy jabs but hed get there in the end. thank god!

 

1. I agree that a younger (at his best younger) George would destroy Wladimir, and it would be a brutal stoppage...somewhere between 1 and 6 rounds...in my opinion.

2. We disagree on the older version of George against Wladimir. An older (but at his best older) George used a more measured approach, true. I submit that Wladimir getting comfortable, even with an old George, would be a very dangerous proposition for Wladimir. I still see a Foreman stoppage...between 7 and 12 rounds.

This is just my opinion. We all have them.

 

Mum's the word. :hey

 

good post


Its like the story of the old bull young Bull....

the young Bull sees a pasture of cows and he says to the old bull "lets run down there and maybe we can f--k one of them" the Old Bull says" Lets walk and we can F--k em all"

Experience is underrated on this forum. Many fighter learned how to relax with age. This is not a benefit of a swarming fighter (who has a short prime career) ( but any fighter that knows the importance of a jab and counter and how to relax in the ring.

Foreman is one example,Moore, Walcott another,B-Hop, Holyfield, Toney...Charles had too rough of a career, too many fights and his last 2 fights vs Marciano ruined him

Foreman had the benefit of Moore in his corner and retired without any real wars...he had the long rest and lived a good clean life in exile and was a very smart man. The thing with Foreman is there are 2 versions to chose from.

Vlad on the other hand had 2 careers as well, one was the guy who went in trying to KO his opponent and thought he was unbeatable and the after Sam Peter fight and after fighter who knew his limitation, fought carefully behind the jab and who never fully opened up or exposes his full skill set.

 

Being durable and taking punches from a 250 pound Wlad are two different animals. One thing for sure Foreman took a lot of punches in his comeback and sustained some pretty bad beatings, but Wlad brings a whole different level of punching power than anything George ever withstood in his comeback.
I wouldnt say his defense was better either. When did Foreman ever come out of a fight in his prime looking like he did in most of his comeback fights? He got hit way more, came out of fights with Moorer, Holyfield, Stewart and Shultz looking all beat up. I wouldnt say his pace improved either, he was just flat out slow and predictable part of the reason he took such beatings.

Could be, but I know Wlad would never be capable of sustaining the punishment that Ali took against Foreman.

Thats why I only think Wlad has a punchers chance in this one.

Foreman didnt take too many big shots from Briggs or Morrison. I do think some of his maturity allowed him to handle shots better, in the way of not taking the offensive chances he would have taken when he was younger.

 

Agreed.. I've never quite understood this new found theory around here that a fighters's ability to take a pounding has gotten better with age... Some have even said the same thing about Evander Holyfield ( probably to try and justify that Lewis would have KO'd him in 1990, whereas he couldn't in 1998. ) The notion is ridiculous, despite all of this talk of weight gain, and added muscle mass.. A punch on the chin, is a punch on the chin, and your resistance to it, doesn't get better as time goes on...

 

I agree that he's not unstoppable. But i think many of the "imposing" qualities that George had during his prime, were still there when he was in his 40's. In fact, he became even more massive. So while he wasn't a great technician, i think a lot of boxers took their foot off the gas, fearing a counter.

He wouldn't be able to. But then i don't think he'd have to. I don't see Foreman wearing Wlad down; if he stops him, then it will be from a volley of head punches, i.e. short term damage. Still, i mean, even against Young, Foreman tired badly (or what was the reason he went down against such a light hitter?). So there's no reason to assume that he wouldn't tire against a bigger, harder hitting opponent.

You don't think Wlad can use his skill and speed to go for a safety-first decision win ?

I agree completely. Especially at heavyweight, any man can be knocked down or out. Still, that doesn't mean we should ignore a puncher's knockout record. Or lack thereof, in Young's case.

 

Mcvey, let's say you know two fighters.

Fighter A: gets knocked out by Ali in 8 rounds, knocked down twice and nearly stopped by Lyle, and knocked down by Jimmy Young.

Fighter B: Takes a lot of punches from hard hitters like Morrison, Briggs & Stewart, but never even hits the canvas.


Who is more durable, fighter A or fighter B?

 

I myself would still say A, on the basis that he was dropped by two of them due to exhaustion, while being decked by the third as a result of getting hit directly, when being in a meaningful exchange.. Fighter B, did not take Morrison's best shots, because Morrison was not planting his feet down, and dancing all night.... Stewart hit him with some hard shots, but was not as hard of a puncher as his record may show, yet still had B staggered and cut badly.. Briggs was mainly hitting the defense of fighter B, something that fighter A did not have much of..