-
-
If Fury's movement confused Wlad, think about what Ali's movement would do to him.Comment
-
-
They’re have the ability to beat any champion in history imo
Definition of ‘super heavyweights’
Last edited by Dakuwaqa; 09-20-2022, 05:51 AM.Comment
-
George Foreman would beat the cowboy **** out of Wlad. Stop it bruh.Comment
-
-
I agree with this. One need only look at the overall difference in physiques over the last 30 years as opposed to the 80's on back. You will always have the odd heavyweight Adonis such as Norton or Weaver, but tall heavyweights of the 80's on back were built for the duration in a contest. Their training saw to it. Holmes or Louis at their respective zenith, 210lbs@6'3" and 199@6'1". Both were 15-round fighters. Both fought 3 to 4 times per year as champion...in Louis case, more.
I tend to think very highly of the Klitschko's. People slagged Wlad's chin. I never really saw Wlad stretched. I think if anything he could be hurt but that he became unraveled when in a situation of duress he could not control. His recovery wasn't ideal but more so because he wasn't forged in the same furnace as many of his predecessors. But when Wlad could control the distance and tempo of a match, he looked very dominant.
I liked the fire and combination punching of Vitali Klitschko. He was a tough long hombre with good boxing skills and fine fitness. When he got clocked he'd switch gears yet stay composed. He wasn't technically as smooth as Wlad, and punch per punch I don't think he quite carried the same level of power, but he was still a competent heavy-hitting, dominant killer.
These two giants WOULD have beaten a few all-time-great former heavyweight champions, head to head, but they would also fall prey to a few of them as well.
But even if it could happen, which it can't, how do we set the table? Do we make the Klitschko's train like old-time fighters and give them a 15-round distance, or do we make the old boys eat better, use a conditioning coach (and the hidden sorcery), set them free for two hours 4 days a week in a bodybuilding gym and ask them to run only 3 miles or 4 miles on their "on days"....then throw em' a 2 to 3 day weigh-in?
Its kinda like comparing a dual-motor Tesla against a 1970 LS7 Chevy Chevelle in a drag race. Or something.Last edited by Hooded Terror; 12-21-2022, 09:54 AM.Comment
-
The very first response in this thread is pretty quality. I'm surprised no one elaborated or challenged in any way.
K Bros. were kind of basic in terms of technical array. What they did they did well, but they didn't exactly have a deep bag of tricks. Fury beat Wlad by not standing right in front of him. Lewis beat Vitali by out punching him. Those are not exactly high caliber solutions. If not for size I'd say Walcott would murder the K Bros. Size and all the 70s is a tough era for them. It's crazy to just assume they'd do well. Could go either way. Especially the era when Wlad was struggling to get passed guys like Sanders. Corrie is no Joe.Comment
-
I agree that the Klitschkos would be among the very best of the 1970s. Their longevity may have ensured they were on top the entire time.
Keep in mind, a lot of fighters we think of in the 1970s weren't "great" the whole time.
Foreman may have been a great/very dangerous fighter the longest in that decade. But he called it quits in 1977. He didn't last the whole decade. But from 1970 to 1977, he would've given the Klitschkos problems (Wlad moreso than Vitali.)
Holmes didn't come into his own until 1977. He wasn't anything special during the first half of the decade. His big run began in 1977 and continued in 1978 but even he struggled in 1979.
Frazier was on top in 1970 and was all but finished by 1975.
Norton was only good depending on who he was fighting. He was better against boxers. Struggled with punchers. He peaked from 1973 to 1978 (another five-year run). But by 1979 he was struggling to even go the distance with Scott Ledoux. I don't think Ken could make it to the end against either Klitschko's power.
Ali fought just as hard as he needed to in order to win from 1970 to 1975. By 1976, he was very beatable. He didn't stop anyone after that year, no matter how bad they were.
But when you consider the Klitschkos, even at an older age, they were dominating.
IF the Wlad Klitscho in 2006 (who knocked off Byrd for the IBF belt) had been fighting like that in 1970 ... who was beating Wlad over the next decade? Wlad went on an undefeated run as champion from 2006 to 2015 against Fury and made 19 successful title defenses.
That's the equivalent of dominating from 1970 to the end of 1979.
Who beats the Wlad on that amazing run with Emanuel Steward in his corner? Maybe George catches him. Other than Joe Frazier or Ali at the very start ... I don't see older versions as the decade rolled on overcoming Wlad's jab and grabbing and that big right hand. The versions of them at the start of the 1970s had the best chance.
But Wlad dominates both as the decade progresses.
And other than an injury sidelining Vitali, I don't know if any of them really have much of a shot other than Foreman and his power. If George could get Vitali in a shootout like Lennox Lewis did, maybe George could bust him up.
But Vitali Klitschko was never really behind in a fight in his whole career. Everyone in the 1970s would've had problems with his size and chin and jab.
The Klitschkos would've been dominant fighters in any decade because they were so good for so long, the 1970s included.
Unlike them, most heavyweights in history are only REALLY good for a handful of years.
Last edited by Dubblechin; 12-21-2022, 12:37 PM.Comment
Tweet
Comment