Would the Klitschko's beat the ZIare version of Foreman

All three were nobodies and all three koed your man Wlad....he is not escaping the same fate in the ring with Foreman. I base my conclusion regarding Foreman not just because I watched him hit a 300 pound heavy bag like it was nothing...which was the single greatest performance of shear power I've ever witnessed in a gym BTW. I also spoke to his opponents regarding his power as well as his sparring partners. One after another they all say nobody hit like Foreman hit them. You MMA guys are all the same..big and built like Hercules and right away a glass chin, no will to win, no inside game, the straight up Olympic style is all ignored. Purrity knocked him out...Foreman would put him in the hospital.

 

I actually like Wlad's chances more than Vitali

I watch the first round of Lyle/Foreman and I worry about Foreman's chances against guys who can move, potentionally out jab him, and than there's that big right down the middle he was wide open too. Lyle could have won that if he didn't go wild looking for the knockout, he got over excited when he realized he could hurt Foreman and got into a wild brawl he couldn't win.

Wlad was open to the body, but moreso from counters unde rthe jab as Brock did. It's hard to just bull him into the ropes and hammer him because he's got so good at clinching and using his body weight to smother. He also the snap in his jab and right hands to rock Foreman if he comes in straight on. Wlad could very well make the Lyle strategy work and force a stoppage in the middle-late rounds as Foreman tries and becomes more open.

Vitali is going to be landing in bunches on Foreman too, but he lacks the snap to back him up or knock him down, he's more eager to brawl which also puts him more at risk. Vitali also gives up body shots in the clinch more than his brother. Vital's chin is proven elite but he's only human, so interesting how this clash of irrestitable forces would end. Vitali landing more, but Foreman getting in the occassional hammer.

 

Slightly off subject, the older Foreman who fought Briggs was stronger than Foreman from the 70's, but didn't have that aggressiveness, killer instinct, and quickness that he had back then. The problem with this heavier George is many of his punches just grazed his opponents. George mentioned many times his age wasn't a factor in his fighting. George was not war torn like Ali and Frazier and could probably still fight now. Back to the thread, Ali was way quicker than the Klitschko's. George got his weight lower for Ali than he had since the Frazier
fight. He knew Ali would be quick. Anyway, I agree, weight wouldn't matter,
70's Foreman from Zaire beats down both Klitschko's.

 

We're not combining them. Old Foreman's advantages were in patience and superior boxing skills.

We're not talking about his improved boxing skills here; we're talking about physical attributes. We're citing Foreman's strength and punching power against 90s heavies. Those assets are associated with younger men, and Foreman would have had them to a greater extent in the 1970s.

Most of us on Classic are familiar with the fighters' respective sizes.

Morrison was not the only 90s heavy to fight Foreman. Nobody moved him.

Holyfield's testimony is one piece of evidence. Not a particularly strong one, I admit, but still useful if you read it in light of all the other evidence.

Foreman's second career was built on his still-formidable punching power. Power was one of the few advantages he had left, except for improved patience and technique. 90's Foreman was slow, overweight, old, and didn't have good reflexes anymore. If it wasn't his punching power and strength that got him as far as he went, then I don't know what else it could have been.

(And before it's brought up, "careful matchmaking" is not the only factor.)

Houdini, let me say from the outset that I think you're right about Foreman's abilities, and I think that John Galt is wrong.

Let me repeat that: I think you're right about Foreman's abilities, and I think that John Galt is wrong.

With that being said, John Galt has actually provided more substantive stylistic analysis that you have thus far. He's pointed out why Foreman would need to worry about the Klitschkos' height and straight punching down the pipe. He's connected his observations about size with relevant stylistic considerations, like Foreman's nonexistent head movement.

You've mostly provided generalities. Foreman was a force of nature. Foreman was a killer. Foreman hit a heavy bag hard (no different than pointing to the Klitschkos' weight training to prove superior strength, IMO). The Klitschkos' opponents are nobodies. Wlad has a glass chin. Size doesn't matter. Anybody who thinks that size does matter is a closet MMA fan.

(The last is baffling, since it implies that studying multiple combat sports makes somebody less capable of understanding combat sports).

If you want to convince the guy instead of just throwing contempt at him, then try explaining -- with evidence, point by point -- why Foreman was as good as we are all claiming he was. Your approach doesn't get us anywhere.

You mentioned the obvious stuff. (Chin, will to win). I'm sure there's more to it than that, or boxing would be a very simple -- and boring -- sport to analyze.

Look -- you've obviously been around boxing for a while, are knowledgeable about it, and had the opportunity to see Foreman live. So give some more specific facts to back up what you're saying. I'm sure you can muster them easily enough, since you have the knowledge to do so.

 

Foreman was stronger later on. George could hit a stationary bag or pull a truck at near 50 with more force than in his 20's. George was sharper, quicker, more aggressive, and leaner and meaner in the 70's.

 

I've seen this argument before. I will concede that Foreman was doing more consistent weight training in the 1990s, but most guys are stronger in their 20s/30s than as old men by a good margin. That's even more true of things like punching power, which partly rely on speed.

Plus, Foreman was no slouch in the 70s: http://i29.tinypic.com/rrv28l.jpg

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, though. What leads you to believe that old Foreman was stronger and harder punching?

 

Jimmy Young easily handled Foreman's power and thoroughly outboxed him. Foreman has puncher's chance against Wlad and no chance against Vitali.

 

Young did not face prime Foreman. Secondly Young was a far better boxer and faster that the walking statue brothers.

Both men are wide open for Foremans right hand. Neither would be able to take one full power right hand from George.

 

Can we at least get this straight......Vitali lost fair and square to the worst version of Lennox Lewis and Vitali lost to Ross Purrity, Lamon Brewster and Corrie Sanders

Yet somehow we're supposed to believe they'd both come within a million miles of beating George Foreman? Some of you guys are completely bonkers :!:

 

With Wlad ,George's biggest problem would be keeping his feet with all the **** that would be on the canvas.

 

John...you don't have a clue. First the assumption that either brother is quicker than Foreman is some delusion of yours. Ali was surprised how quick George was so to say flat out that the walking statues are quicker is right from the start a bad assumption.

The delusion that either man is more skilled is again something your mind has made up. I see two low skilled hwts in the walking statues. Hands low...suicidal unless your Ali or Tunney and both wide open for right hands since they constantly drop their jab.

Secondly George would be attacking either man and no one cut the ring like Foreman. If he could constantly corner Ali (look at round one of their bout) he is going to get the walking statues cornered also. See those wicked body blows he landed on Ali at the close of the first round? Neither walking statue could take that for long without quitting.

Third both men are wide open for uppercuts. Look at when Lewis did to Vitali in their bout. No one...no one had an uppercut like prime Foreman. One uppercut on either man and the bout is over.

Jabs? Foremans jab was rated as the best since Joe Louis. It was a hard punishing blow that he could throw in bunches if he wanted to. He nearly KD Frazier with in in round one in 73. It was a terrific weapon and I perceive he would using it big time as he was cutting the ring setting up the brothers for that one blow that he would need to end the bout.

Bottom line though is prime Foreman would enter the ring knowing the brothers could not take what he brought to the table. Any one punch could end the bout at any time. Conversely Foreman proved he had a terrific will to win and chin...he could take anything that would be thrown his way.

The way the bout would unfold is Foreman pressing quickly forward and the brothers retreating. Foremans jab is working well as the brothers Are on their heels trying to avoid the freight train coming their way. They try to hold but George lands Wicked body blows that all can see hurt. The body blows set up big shots to the head in round three. George steps foreword and lands a huge right hand on the always exposed brothers left side. Falling to the ropes George lands several body blows and a terrible uppercut that ends the fight.

The point you miss is to beat prime Foreman you need to be able to take a punch because quite simply...your going to be hit. Neither brother can take adversity, punishment so in the end they simply don't have what it takes to triumph. The outcome really is what most who know Foreman would expect....he would be an ATG with ATG attributes fighting men who do not rate on that same scale.

 

Your under the delusion that the walking statues can beat an ATG ko artist in prime form. I am not since I saw Ross Purrity, a complete bum, ko Wlad. Also saw a nothing in Brewster do so, also saw another nothing drop him in sections. Wlad can't take a punch. One punch from George at any time ends it....and he will land that one punch. End of story. Great boxers beat prime Foreman....not walking statues with china chins.

 

Against the bigger Jack O'Halloran, Foreman did bob, weave and duck. He didn't necessarily go after taller men than himself from an upright posture. [The Foreman-O'Halloran footage is readily available.] He's said Jack was the first guy to wobble him, and he responded with appropriate defensive upper body movement.

Big George didn't go underneath often in his earlier days, as few opponents had the stature to make it viable, but based on the O'Halloran footage, he might have broken Ernie Terrell in half with his body shots, when not jabbing the head of the Octopus half way across the ring. [Foreman-Terrell would have been an excellent match for George in 1971 after Peralta II, or in early 1972 after both had beaten Luis Pires. Roberto Davila was another common opponent, one who reached the final bell with both.] If Foreman had opted to defend the NABF Title after Peralta II, Terrell might have been a reasonable first challenger.

Overlooking the chin question, both Klitschko's also had bodies, very large and substantial targets for George. All the hardest punches Foreman landed in Kinshasa were right hands to Ali's body. Muhammad had an inhuman ability to absorb body blows with impunity, but he was still pissing blood for three days after. Can the Klitschko's take that kind of body attack? George isn't thought of as the committed body puncher Liston and Frazier were, but Sonny had more occasion to get under guys as well. Foreman did put lesser guys down for the count with body shots.

While Ali played head games and ATG defensive HW Young was the beneficiary of a failure by George to acclimatize to the Puerto Rican heat and humidity for the requisite three weeks [which also cost Dokes dearly against Ocasio three years later], nobody else actually prevailed in either an exchange of power, or by sticking and moving on a youthful Foreman. [In fact, George was surprisingly elusive himself against Kirkman.] Ali and Young matured into obscenely tough punch resistant customers, who could take it either downstairs or up.

If the Klitschko's did manage to hurt him early with their power, instead of extending him into fatigue, we saw Foreman's temperament in that situation with Lyle and Cooney. Frazier hit George with the hardest punch he delivered in their two bouts to close round four of the rematch. Foreman, roused, marched out in the next round to end it.

Dino Denis wasn't in the least intimidated, and paid for it. He started out moving, but George's body shots quickly slowed him enough to force exchanges. Peralta took him into the tenth round twice, but was a tough and smaller target with mobility and tons of experience.

Not liking the K boys chances here, especially if they're going to bank on size as a difference maker.

 

Wlad is defeated at the staredown. Foreman KO2 by hookercuts, and an uppercut
lands when Wlad is on the way down. Foreman TKO 4 Vitali. Vitali gets outjabbed
and battered against the ropes with body shots and eats flush shots until his face
is a bloody pulp.

 

It depends on what a person does with his life. There is no reason a 50 year old can't be stronger than in his 20's. You must break this fallacy.
George used to say "40 is not a death sentence". Foreman, obviously through his training got himself stronger in his later career. I'm guessing George figured that being so much heavier in his second career would mean that he would be slower. He probably figured it was his power that he would need to rely on. The 70's Foreman was much leaner and quicker which meant for sharper punching. He was also meaner and more aggressive in the 70's. The problem with the later Foreman was that because he was slower, many of his punches didn't land with fool impact.
He had a hell of a time landing anything significant on say Holyfield, but just his grazing shots could be felt by Evander.