george foreman vs. wladimir klitschko

[Tmann400]

3 times as hard? Is this your favorite fantasy or can you back it up by FACTUAL RECORD? If you cannot back it up with facts then let me counter-fantasize that Wlad hits 8x harder than Foreman.

1. Thompson is a southpaw
2. Thompson is a head taller than Foreman
3. Thompson is 30lbs heavier than Foreman
4. Thompson has a completely different style than Foreman
5. Wlad wasn't even stunned by Thompson
6. Wlad KOed Thompson

Who has one of the most bummed-up records you ever saw.


As if Wlad would rely on landing uppercuts on somebody.


Hahaha, and Wlad would just stand around and shadowbox


Hahaha, 1) get around Wlad's defense 2) start a slugfest 3) make Wlad stand around. Easy task for anybody.


Hmm, strange that Foreman had 35 fights that lasted longer than 3 rounds.

You know what opponents Foreman finished within 3? A median opponent of 18-14 = bums. No wonder that you think Foreman would win: You actually never checked his record.

actually i have checked his record..and he knocked out joe frazier in 2 rounds and ken norton in two rounds..i think YOU my friend, need to check his record

[Tmann400]

3 times as hard? Is this your favorite fantasy or can you back it up by FACTUAL RECORD? If you cannot back it up with facts then let me counter-fantasize that Wlad hits 8x harder than Foreman.

1. Thompson is a southpaw
2. Thompson is a head taller than Foreman
3. Thompson is 30lbs heavier than Foreman
4. Thompson has a completely different style than Foreman
5. Wlad wasn't even stunned by Thompson
6. Wlad KOed Thompson

Who has one of the most bummed-up records you ever saw.


As if Wlad would rely on landing uppercuts on somebody.


Hahaha, and Wlad would just stand around and shadowbox


Hahaha, 1) get around Wlad's defense 2) start a slugfest 3) make Wlad stand around. Easy task for anybody.


Hmm, strange that Foreman had 35 fights that lasted longer than 3 rounds.

You know what opponents Foreman finished within 3? A median opponent of 18-14 = bums. No wonder that you think Foreman would win: You actually never checked his record.

and another thing..how is thompson a head taller than foreman when foreman is 6'3 1/2 and thompson is 6'5..you call an inch and a half a head taller!?

[knn]

actually i have checked his record..and he knocked out joe frazier in 2 rounds and ken norton in two rounds..i think YOU my friend, need to check his record

Did you just compare Frazier (13-4 in real heavyweight fights, 5'11'') with Klitschko? How does KOing of a tiny featherfisty half-blind Frazier (KOratio like Chris Byrd) prove that Foreman could compete against Klitschko?

[knn]

and another thing..how is thompson a head taller than foreman when foreman is 6'3 1/2 and thompson is 6'5..you call an inch and a half a head taller!?

During a fight the smaller fighter will usually bend forward to reach the taller figher and thus make himself even smaller. Thus half-a-head size difference (weigh in) will translate into a larger size difference in ring.

Moreover as you could see from the Klitschko-Thompson fight, he is taller than the official 6'5''.

I tell you what: Haye's record is actually comparable to Foreman's (except that Haye hasn't such a bummed up record):

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5529842&postcount=35

We will see what happens when Wlad fights Haye (6'3''), who is approx as tall as Foreman (6'3.5'').

[Tmann400]

Did you just compare Frazier (13-4 in real heavyweight fights, 5'11'') with Klitschko? How does KOing of a tiny featherfisty half-blind Frazier (KOratio like Chris Byrd) prove that Foreman could compete against Klitschko?

i was correcting you on you saying foreman has not beaten anyone inside 3 rounds that wasnt a bum..i prove it off of the fact that both norton and frazier had wins over muhammed ali previous to fighting george foreman..and they both had good chins..o yea why dont u explain how an inch and a half taller makes someone a hole head taller???...ur head is so far up klitschkos ass you dont know what reality is..can you tell me something..who do you think could actually beat wladimir?...vitali klitschko? hahahaha

[knn]

i was correcting you on you saying foreman has not beaten anyone inside 3 rounds that wasnt a bum..

I have never ever claimed anything like that.

Foreman I beat 4x non-bummy heavies within 3 (Chuvalo, Frazier, Kirkman, Norton)
None of them is comparable to Klitschko. 3 of them are 6'0'' and smaller. 1 of them (Norton, 6'3'') is 212 and 42-7 and has never even won a world title. Klitschko is 20lbs heavier, is taller (6'6'') and has approx. 2x as many KOs against 200+ opponents as Norton.

Under no circumstances can you deduct an easy win for Foreman from his 4 KO wins.

who do you think could actually beat wladimir?...vitali klitschko? hahahaha

Foreman could beat Wladimir Klitschko. COULD. But it's not as clear as some in this thread want it to be.

Foreman is the best of the 70ies heavies. He was a hell of a fighter.

[Tmann400]

Hmm, strange that Foreman had 35 fights that lasted longer than 3 rounds.

You know what opponents Foreman finished within 3? A median opponent of 18-14 = bums. No wonder that you think Foreman would win: You actually never checked his record.

this is where you said he only knocked out bums within 3 rounds. you are a liar

[Allucard]

Everyone is desperate to find a weakness in Wlad. No one alive can beat him, so raise someone from the dead!

probably true, if haye can't beat him no one active can but that doesn't mean he's not BORING AS ***

[knn]

this is where you said he only knocked out bums within 3 rounds. you are a liar

Nowhere did I say Foreman KOed only bums. You need to differentiate between weight and AVERAGE/MEDIAN weight, quality of opponent and MEDIAN quality of opponent.

The "median opponent" is a quick summary of the quality that Foreman faced: He built up his KOratio mainly by beating bums, greens and dwarfs.

I thank you however for engaging in a discussion based on factual record. tymann23, that is much appreciated!

[bodyshot]

Since you classified my FACTUAL RECORD BASED post as "nonsense", and since you suck information without adding anything valuable yourself... Why should I answer any question that you ask?

The person who wrote this exam uses the same avenues of logic to arrive at conclusions that you do:


Basically you argue that today's heavyweight champions are superior to HWs of 30 years ago because heavyweights of 30 years ago never fought against anyone as large HWs today.

That logic is convoluted, as several others have pointed out. Our population as a whole was smaller in the 70s because back then we thought that eggs, bacon, sausage and cheese constituted a healthy breakfast. People smoked cigarettes on airplanes. Athletes smoked in dressing rooms at halftime. Yet you compare height and weight stats that you copied and pasted from boxrec.com as if fights that happened in 1965 are interchangeable with fights that happened in 2005. If a guy like Wlad was born in 1940, who's to say that he'd be a 6'6 240 pound guy? If Foreman was born in 1980, with the benefit of contemporary nutrition and weight training, who's to say he wouldn't be a 6'6 240 pound guy?

That's why for the rest of us, these mythical matchups are intriguing discussions of skillsets and style matchups. For you, these are mostly matchups of tape measures and scale figures. So again I ask you, what do you consider to be the most competitive era of heavyweight boxing based on fighter skillset/p4p talent?

Stop disparaging Frazier by the way. Dude basically fought the primest version of a post-suspension, undefeated Ali and broke his jaw. That's a ****ing warrior.