Comments Thread For: George Foreman: Klischko Was Afraid To Engage Haye

[etlux]

Damn, why is Big George so bitter? I guess he misses the lime light. Either that or he's becoming increasingly worried and nervous about his spot in the top 10 heavyweight ATG list because he KNOWS that Vitali and Wlad have knocked him out of the list

[jimmy1569]

Damn, why is Big George so bitter? I guess he misses the lime light. Either that or he's becoming increasingly worried and nervous about his spot in the top 10 heavyweight ATG list because he KNOWS that Vitali and Wlad have knocked him out of the list

By the time both brothers are done.. they will both be in the top 10 alltime.. there numbers & stats as they ARE right now warrant them in the top 2 heavyweights of alltime..... but no one here is going to keep it real.. They have ALL THE PHYSICAL advantages over past & current heavies & the domination of practically every opponent except for 2 rds against Sanders proves this. You have 2 of the STRONGEST boxers of alltime residing in the same household. Could you imagine if there was a tag team like thy have in Wrestling... you'd be looking at 103-0 record for the Klitschko's instead of the actual 98-5 (88 Ko's) 95.1% winning percentage they do have. That's 88 knockouts in 98 w's... The Klitschko's HAVE THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF THERE VICTORIES CAUSED BY STOPPAGE IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE HEAVYWEIGHT DIVISION BUT ARE ACCUSED HAVE LACKING KILLER INSTINCT.. NOT GOING FOR THE KNOCKOUTS & THE MOST BORINGEST STYLE THIS SIDE OF JOHN RUIZ..... MY MOTHER TAUGHT ME THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY THE RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES... & SHE'D BE THE FIRST TO TELL ME JEALOUSY BRINGS CONTEMPT.. THE HATERS ARE JEALOUS OF THE KLITSCHKO DOMINANCE.... IF WE WENT TO TRIAL EVERY JURY IN THE WORLD WILL COME TO THIS CONCLUSIION.. THEY ARE DOMINANT... THEY ARE NOT AMERICAN OR BRITISH OR CANADIAN... THEY'RE FROM THE LAND OF COMMUNISM.. PORTRAYED AS ROBOTS BY OLD ROCKY MOVIES..... THEY ARE THE 2 MOST DOMINANT FIGHTERS EVER & THE PUBLIC.. FANS.. FORMER FIGHTERS.. CURRENT FIGHTERS & HBO alike can't deal with it.... ACCEPT reality.. the brothers have a realistic chance to beat ANY fighter that has ever lived & that is what scares all of the haters>>> deal!

[edgarg]

Who was the best HW in the world when Foreman-Moorer was happening? It wasnt Holyfield, becuase Moorer had just beaten him. It wasnt Bowe, because Holyfield had just beaten him. It wasnt Lewis, because Lewis had just gotten knocked out by McCall earlier that year. It wasnt Vitali, because he hadnt turned pro yet.

Well? How was Foreman not the HW champ?

AGAIN, Look at my post, I didn't even mention the word "Moorer". I was talking about Foreman NOT being champion when he fought Briggs so therefore Briggs could not have become champion when he beat Foreman.

Yes, Foreman WAS a TITLIST, (IBF I think) because of ONE lucky punch, and he was Champion for not moore than a couple of months before he was stripped, having refused to rematch Axel Schultz to make up for the scandalous decision in Foreman's favour in their previous fight.

SO, AGAIN, Foreman was NOT champion, and had not been for about 3 years, when he fought Briggs. What's so hard to understand about this. I don't quite get what you are meaning, and I don't think I'm that ******.

[Steak]

AGAIN, Look at my post, I didn't even mention the word "Moorer". I was talking about Foreman NOT being champion when he fought Briggs so therefore Briggs could not have become champion when he beat Foreman.

Yes, Foreman WAS a TITLIST, (IBF I think) because of ONE lucky punch, and he was Champion for not moore than a couple of months before he was stripped, having refused to rematch Axel Schultz to make up for the scandalous decision in Foreman's favour in their previous fight.

SO, AGAIN, Foreman was NOT champion, and had not been for about 3 years, when he fought Briggs. What's so hard to understand about this. I don't quite get what you are meaning, and I don't think I'm that ******.

Technically Foreman was still 'lineal' champ when he fought Briggs, since you cant really 'strip' someone of their lineal title. Its the one major failing with the whole lineal thing.

either way its irrelevant to me. I dont give a damn about Foreman's championship status at that point, and never made a deal about it. espeically considering he really should have lost to Schultz.

All I care about is the fact that Foreman beat Moorer and Briggs. those are huge accomplishments at his age, and shows that his era, the 70s, were at the very least as good as the 90s. I never had an issue or cared about his championship standing in the Briggs fight, just that he very clearly deserved to get the decision.

Stop double quoting my posts. it makes the conversation clunky.

[edgarg]

so basically youre saying that a halfhearted non-motivated Foreman still was able to beat the best heavyweight in the world in the 90s, and even at 48 beat a future top ten fighter in the 2000s?
interesting.

he must have been something in his prime.

who cares if he beat up a lot of bums while he was trying to get back in fighting shape. It doesnt change what he accomplished later on.

I KNOW what he was in his prime...I was there...remember?? he was a tough chinned, clumsy, larger than average, very strong, unskilled face first fighter, who beat a little, poorly matched one eyed brave Joe Frazier.

This "All-Time GREAT" was Champion for about a year and a half with 2 very uneventful defences against nonen******, then lost one ot 2 more then retired into obscurity.

[Steak]

I KNOW what he was in his prime...I was there...remember?? he was a tough chinned, clumsy, larger than average, very strong, unskilled face first fighter, who beat a little, poorly matched one eyed brave Joe Frazier.

This "All-Time GREAT" was Champion for about a year and a half with 2 very uneventful defences against nonen******, then lost one ot 2 more then retired into obscurity.

and then came back and became the best HW in the world at 45, and also deserved to beat a future 2000s top ten fighter when he was 48.

He wasnt on the top long at all, but his quality of wins and unparalled HW age accomplishments make up for that.

[edgarg]

All the past "greats" are just jealous of what the Klitschkos have accomplished and are STILL accomplishing, while they are sitting there drooling on themselves (Ali) or selling ****ty @ss tupperware on late night TV begging for appearance spots and chump change from the Klitschkos (Foreman), the Klitschko brothers are beating every record in boxing history:

-highest KO% of any HW champ in history

-longest time between retiring and coming and winning a title

-first two brothers to ever hold titles in the HW division at the same time

-Wlad is #3 in total defenses of his title, and he is still fighting

-Vitaly, at his current rate, will be the oldest HW champ in history, beating Foreman's sorry @ss


Wlad, right now, if he were retired would be top 5 ATG HW in terms of accomplishment. Vitaly top 10 ATG. H2H, Vitaly is #1 in history against any boxer, Wlad #2. Live with that haters.

As far as Vitaly Klitschko is concerned, about your comment of him being the oldest Heavyweight Champion in the world. I think he may already be, as far as continuity is concerned. He has been Champion from 1999 to the present day, 12 years, with 2 injury caused breaks totalling about 7 years, and has had about 12-14 title fights. And he will shortly be 40 years old, in a few weeks or a month or two, not sure.

Nobody else of his age has done that. Foreman's Moorer win was a one punch wonder, and he avoided fighting anyone after, besides being stripped in a few months. So, although he was the OLDEST fighter to win the Heavyweight title, he only held in it his TWO stints for a total of about 2 years or less.

[edgarg]

Do you even watch these fights? Briggs-Foreman was one of the worst HW robberies of the 90s. Its clear as day.

and I dont care if Foreman was stripped later. He beat Moorer. Moorer was the best heavyweight in the world. THAT was the significant part. not any paper titles.

Stop "ducking and weaving"...... leave that to fist fighters, not keyboard warriors.

[edgarg]

George Foreman = 83.9% Ko Ratio
Wladimir Klitschko = 83.1% Ko Ratio

Big George can yap all he wants about Wlad being defensive... the numbers prove he's just as "offensive" as George while winning many more percentage of the rounds he's fought. That means he's the better & more skillful boxer. They are third & fourth respectively on the alltime Ko percentage list behind Rocky Marciano & the great Vitali Klitschko who owns the highest percentage of alltime AT 88.6%.. iF i was Big George.. i'd STFU... MORE likely he gets schooled in a scoreboard shutout vs Wlad than him landing a lucky punch.... ThE eND!

And don't forget jimmy, that Klitschko is fighting other champions and top contenders, the best available, whereas Foreman's KO numbers are fraudulent, being about 85=90% palookas.

[The Hammer]

As far as Vitaly Klitschko is concerned, about your comment of him being the oldest Heavyweight Champion in the world. I think he may already be, as far as continuity is concerned. He has been Champion from 1999 to the present day, 12 years, with 2 injury caused breaks totalling about 7 years, and has had about 12-14 title fights. And he will shortly be 40 years old, in a few weeks or a month or two, not sure.

Nobody else of his age has done that. Foreman's Moorer win was a one punch wonder, and he avoided fighting anyone after, besides being stripped in a few months. So, although he was the OLDEST fighter to win the Heavyweight title, he only held in it his TWO stints for a total of about 2 years or less.

Yes. Foreman was even defeated by Tommy Morrison, who was a rather mediocre heavyweight. And he was losing to Moorer, who was a smaller heavyweight, when he landed the lucky punch.

George avoided fighting Lennox Lennox during those years for a good reason: he would have been brutally KOed just like Morrison and Briggs were.