1991 George Foreman vs todays David Haye

Well you got the first part right. Wlad definitely went up in my book when he poured water over Briggs :lol1: He certainly didn't. I play no "favourites" when it comes to boxing, I prefer to rely on cold hard facts and any speculation is usually based around observations as well. I extend you the same courtesy too Laced Up, it's just your interpretation of things I believe is laughably incompetent :lol1:

Have we had a Foreman-Haye thread before? Against both Morrison and Haye I actually can see greater opportunity for Foreman as well, even though I usually rate the old Foreman higher. I rate old Foreman higher against guys with stronger chins. I rate young Foreman higher against guys with weaker chins (Haye, Morrison). Still, young Foreman could not box and never fought, let alone beat any opponent nearly as good as Haye or Morrison while prime, so to say "prime George Foreman destroys either of these 2 guys" is purely speculation and not exactly keeping with the facts. All the guys prime Foreman whacked out were absolute garbage. Anybody on the fence reading this shoul review the title defence "Roman vs Foreman" This was a typical opponent for George, a title opponent! One of the saddest things things I've seen, this is not great boxing, this is just a bully batting around a helpless victim because he is bigger than everyone else.

Don't play stupid, you know exactly what's going on here: elroy (Wlad's fan) is riding with Haye to make look Wlad's win over your boy more impressive. You (Wlad's hater - yeah, I know, you actually like him:lol1:) betraying Haye in the name of the greater good which is bellitling one of Wlad's biggest wins. Same scenario, diffrent thread. That's all from me, I'm out http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/3522548/superman-smile-o.gif Well you got the first part right. Wlad definitely went up in my book when he poured water over Briggs :lol1:

Have we had a Foreman-Haye thread before? Don't play stupid, you know exactly what's going on here: elroy (Wlad's fan) is riding with Haye to make look Wlad's win over your boy more impressive. You (Wlad's hater - yeah, I know, you actually like him:lol1:) betraying Haye in the name of the greater good which is bellitling one of Wlad's biggest wins. Same scenario, diffrent thread. That's all from me, I'm out http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/3522548/superman-smile-o.gif

Well that's not really what I said, but I wouldn't be surprised if his jab had more force than Haye's right hand. I am not sure on how much harder on average a given fighters right is than their left usually, I would want an analysis on that before I argued further, but from what I have I can already say that if Foreman's jab had hypothetically more force than Haye's right, Haye's right STILL has the more concussive effect. We can see George's knockouts and Haye's, and George's look nothing CLOSE to as brutal as Haye's! You want to talk weights? When Haye got tagged by those cruiser guys the other guy mentioned, Haye WAS a CRUISER! And those guys were far more athletic and 10x faster than George EVER was. Step them up to HW, Mormeck was only 1lb lighter than PRIME Foreman and more athletic. Could he hit harder than George? Again, I think George is special for being one of the strongest boxers and the strongest punchers, except I do know that Moorer had more grounded and explosive punching technique than George so it's an interesting subject if you actually want to look at it without bias. Going back, you said I was bias for just mentioning WIN. Ok, I think Foreman should have beaten Ali, like the Moorer win, the Foreman loss was mainly due to Foreman's stupidity than anything else. Young beat him convincingly, Morrison and Holyfield beat him comprehensively. George was imo the best boxer of the 70's, there's a reason Ali never rematched him. With a Foreman victory over Ali, it would be clear that Ali, Frazier and Norton were the B level fighters of the era and Foreman was the dominant champion. But fast forward to the 90's, 00's and today, Foreman is nothing special.. The "prime" Foreman is equivalent to a Shannon Briggs. Great chin, huge power, great KO ratio, aggressive. But never really that good a boxer. The fact an old Foreman did so well against the young Briggs is due to WEIGHT and EXPERIENCE, the 2 most fundamental, objective and statistically important indicators in HW boxing. (And Briggs lack of). Ironically Briggs now is in similar position as Foreman was THEN!

Aren't you guys tired of arguing about the same fvckin thing every single day? Against 1991 Foreman Haye would stand a chance. Prime George kills and burries Haye's naked body in the jungle. Tomasz Bonin was shit. Get a life people FFS Have we had a Foreman-Haye thread before?

Aren't you guys tired of arguing about the same fvckin thing every single day? Against 1991 Foreman Haye would stand a chance. Prime George kills and burries Haye's naked body in the jungle. Tomasz Bonin was shit. Get a life people FFS

That is pure BS! George's right hand would have been stronger than Haye's. Haye's had more pop than George's. Haye's right hand smacks big, strong, athletic dudes down HARD, not like George's punches that mainly mess with their equilibrium. And Foreman's jab being harder than Haye's or even most modern HW's rights is basically science fiction. It has no basis in truth. And I would expect Georges right hand to have similar effect on Haye as it did Moorer as I believe their chins to be fairly comparable. Problem is that Moorer, who was really much better than George based on their fight anyway, was nowhere near as good as Haye is. I GAVE George his large punchers chance. It's also obvious that a Haye UD is where the money should go. Well that's not really what I said, but I wouldn't be surprised if his jab had more force than Haye's right hand.

They are bums. Ok so they were better than the general mill of lambs to the slaughter that Foreman beat up on.. They were as good as or better than say Shultz in their day. But the overriding principle is that they were featherfists with extremely weak chins. Ken Norton had some good skills and high athleticism to be sure, but he never once beat any sort of really good opponent (besides Ali) and got smashed up by bums. Frazier was diminutive, over-light, fat and out of shape, featherfisted, chinny, half blind, and had no skills to back it up. It's laughable to credit this as some sort of GREAT win for George. The main, the ONLY reason Ken and Joe are famous/respected at all, is because they beat and gave tough fights to Ali! That's why OTNB HAVE to promote them because otherwise their hero is exposed ;) everybody knows it too, it's nothing new! Compared to Holyfield, Morrison and Haye, these 3 in particular, Norton and Frazier are nothing! That is pure fact mate. Dude, you're embarrassing yourself.

Foreman's jab was much more powerful than probably any right hand Haye has taken outside of Wlad's. That is pure BS! George's right hand would have been stronger than Haye's. Haye's had more pop than George's. Haye's right hand smacks big, strong, athletic dudes down HARD, not like George's punches that mainly mess with their equilibrium. And Foreman's jab being harder than Haye's or even most modern HW's rights is basically science fiction. It has no basis in truth. And I would expect Georges right hand to have similar effect on Haye as it did Moorer as I believe their chins to be fairly comparable. Problem is that Moorer, who was really much better than George based on their fight anyway, was nowhere near as good as Haye is. I GAVE George his large punchers chance. It's also obvious that a Haye UD is where the money should go.

Funny you discredit him in wins, but just put LOST when he loses. Clear sign of a biased poster. I'm not getting drawn into this bs with you. You know he beat Frazier and Norton too. They are bums. Ok so they were better than the general mill of lambs to the slaughter that Foreman beat up on.. They were as good as or better than say Shultz in their day. But the overriding principle is that they were featherfists with extremely weak chins. Ken Norton had some good skills and high athleticism to be sure, but he never once beat any sort of really good opponent (besides Ali) and got smashed up by bums. Frazier was diminutive, over-light, fat and out of shape, featherfisted, chinny, half blind, and had no skills to back it up. It's laughable to credit this as some sort of GREAT win for George. The main, the ONLY reason Ken and Joe are famous/respected at all, is because they beat and gave tough fights to Ali! That's why OTNB HAVE to promote them because otherwise their hero is exposed ;) everybody knows it too, it's nothing new! Compared to Holyfield, Morrison and Haye, these 3 in particular, Norton and Frazier are nothing! That is pure fact mate.

Foreman's jab was much more powerful than probably any right hand Haye has taken outside of Wlad's. I wouldn't be surprised if it was on par with Wlads right hand it was that heavy :lol1: I think I'd rather get him in the face with a bag of bricks than that jab.

Lol @ discrediting Georges wins and not adding Frazier, Cooney, Norton, Qawi when Hayes HW wins consist of a 40yr old Valuev, 40yr old Audrey, 40yr old Barrett, some Polish brickie called Bonin and C level Chisora. Wait for him to bring up the subject of their weights.

If Haye uses good movement, he actually has a chance but boyyyy if he gets caught.

Lol @ discrediting Georges wins and not adding Frazier, Cooney, Norton, Qawi when Hayes HW wins consist of a 40yr old Valuev, 40yr old Audrey, 40yr old Barrett, some Polish brickie called Bonin and C level Chisora.

Haye couldn't handle Thompsons relentlessness or Mormecks and he was exhausted and blowing out of his ass bigtime against Chisora in only the 4th & 5th round and was taking shots. Imagine Big Georges pressure and the fact his jab was more powerful than their right hands. George would beat Haye down. Foreman's jab was much more powerful than probably any right hand Haye has taken outside of Wlad's.

Haye couldn't handle Thompsons relentlessness or Mormecks and he was exhausted and blowing out of his ass bigtime against Chisora in only the 4th & 5th round and was taking shots. Imagine Big Georges pressure and the fact his jab was more powerful than their right hands. George would beat Haye down.

Muhammad Ali - LOST Ron Lyle - WON, but could have gone the other way very easily, basically an uncoordinated slugfest. Jimmy Young (only somewhat decent) - LOST Evander Holyfield - LOST Tommy Morrison - LOST Michael Moorer - WON, But got the living **** punched out of him and half won through nothing more than Moorers own stupidity. Axel Schultz - WON, but really, he LOST! lol Shannon Briggs - LOST, except I acknowledge Foreman could have received this decision just as easily, but then again, Briggs was never really that good anyway. What other decent, relevant opponents were there? Funny you discredit him in wins, but just put LOST when he loses. Clear sign of a biased poster. I'm not getting drawn into this bs with you. You know he beat Frazier and Norton too.

why is everyone comparing the foreman morrsion fought to the holyfield fight? george was much quicker and more energetic against holyfield which happened 2.5 years earlier. foreman wasnt the same after that fight and slowed considerably after that. plus morrison hit like a mule so foreman had to be more careful and cautious than he would be against the lighter hitting haye. dont get me wrong,,,haye has big power and can crack but he doesnt have the same one punch pop and heavy hands as morrison had I don't think Haye quite had the same power as Morrison either, but Haye did have even better speed and movement than Morrison did, I think Haye and Morrison are actually fairly comparable to be honest. I honestly see no version of Foreman being able to ever beat either of those 2 fighters. Foreman never fought any opponents with the combination of speed, power, athleticism, movement etc as these 2 and won. Holyfield was a better boxer than Morrison but he did not have Morrison's power or even Haye's so these opponents are even more dangerous for Foreman because they are still good enough to easily outbox Foreman, but can hurt him more as well. The problem with Foreman is this... The younger version was faster and more energetic and aggressive of course. But this version had bad stamina and didn't even know how to box. He was possibly the technically worst boxer of all time. He DID learn how to box in his 40's and this assisted him greatly. And his sheer size helped as well! But that middle aged version was too slow to really catch the great young fighters like Morrison, Haye and Holyfield.

No he didn't at all. Muhammad Ali - LOST Ron Lyle - WON, but could have gone the other way very easily, basically an uncoordinated slugfest. Jimmy Young (only somewhat decent) - LOST Evander Holyfield - LOST Tommy Morrison - LOST Michael Moorer - WON, But got the living **** punched out of him and half won through nothing more than Moorers own stupidity. Axel Schultz - WON, but really, he LOST! lol Shannon Briggs - LOST, except I acknowledge Foreman could have received this decision just as easily, but then again, Briggs was never really that good anyway. What other decent, relevant opponents were there?