Printable View
Just want to point out the Axel Schulz vs George Foreman fight was no robbery, it was a very close fight that could of gone either way. George Foreman won a majority of the early rounds with Axel Schulz coming on late. I could see it 7-5 for either guy or a draw, people often claim close fights as robbery.
A clear robbery is Whitaker/Ramirez 1 Lewis vs Holyfield 1 where you can only make a claim that Ramirez, Holyfield, only won 4 rounds at the very most.
It surely was a very exiting era and no one denies that fact - but that is not the same as postulating that The Smoker would stand a chance against Wlad. Carl Lewis is greater than any of today's sprinters or runners since his prime (at least until Bolt maybe wins medals in OL 2016) - but since CL's unbreakable 1991 100m record it has already been surpassed more than 80 times. Many of the runners with far lesser talent than CL but they are still better runners than CL ever was even CL is the greatest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
They don't call it the Golden era of the division for nothing. I think younger generations do the exact opposite when it comes to fighters of eras gone by. They gravitate to what they know and live, its completely natural. Regarding the heavyweight division in a Foreman, Frazier, Ali etc etc era though, thank God they-we recognize the quality and competitiveness of that time and not just blow it off as some blurry photos and dusty fossils when compared to todays guys, well, most do not. It was just deeper and far more fan friendly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Plys 44B/W-syndrome - everything in the past was better than today.... - like talking with ones grandparents: "when I was young the winter was a lot harder than today - and the summer was much more sunny than today" - gnæk gnæk gnæk gnæk :-DQuote:
Originally Posted by El KabongWell what I have a problem with is no matter how good these guys are there seems to be a ceiling as to how great people can perceive them of being. Only Rocky Marciano retired the undefeated undisputed heavyweight champion of the world, only Joe Louis made 25 consecutive successful title defenses and even if the Klitschko's had done that they'd never be considered greater than those fighters. Even if Wlad had rivalries where he had to fight tooth and nail to win he wouldn't be considered as great as Ali. If Wlad talked trash and was very intimidating he'd never be considered as great as Tyson. I just don't agree with that, the guys are the best this era has to offer and they are as you said MILES ahead of their competition. They are great no doubt, but Wlad is still writing his legacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGB
JF was great in his time - but I doubt he would be in top20 today even he is a greater boxer than every single one of them except Wlad and maybe Vitali.
Yeah whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Plys 44It surely was a very exiting era and no one denies that fact - but that is not the same as postulating that The Smoker would stand a chance against Wlad. Carl Lewis is greater than any of today's sprinters or runners since his prime (at least until Bolt maybe wins medals in OL 2016) - but since CL's unbreakable 1991 100m record it has already been surpassed more than 80 times. Many of the runners with far lesser talent than CL but they are still better runners than CL ever was even CL is the greatest.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpicoliThey don't call it the Golden era of the division for nothing. I think younger generations do the exact opposite when it comes to fighters of eras gone by. They gravitate to what they know and live, its completely natural. Regarding the heavyweight division in a Foreman, Frazier, Ali etc etc era though, thank God they-we recognize the quality and competitiveness of that time and not just blow it off as some blurry photos and dusty fossils when compared to todays guys, well, most do not. It was just deeper and far more fan friendly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Plys 44B/W-syndrome - everything in the past was better than today.... - like talking with ones grandparents: "when I was young the winter was a lot harder than today - and the summer was much more sunny than today" - gnæk gnæk gnæk gnæk :-DQuote:
Originally Posted by El KabongWell what I have a problem with is no matter how good these guys are there seems to be a ceiling as to how great people can perceive them of being. Only Rocky Marciano retired the undefeated undisputed heavyweight champion of the world, only Joe Louis made 25 consecutive successful title defenses and even if the Klitschko's had done that they'd never be considered greater than those fighters. Even if Wlad had rivalries where he had to fight tooth and nail to win he wouldn't be considered as great as Ali. If Wlad talked trash and was very intimidating he'd never be considered as great as Tyson. I just don't agree with that, the guys are the best this era has to offer and they are as you said MILES ahead of their competition. They are great no doubt, but Wlad is still writing his legacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGB
JF was great in his time - but I doubt he would be in top20 today even he is a greater boxer than every single one of them except Wlad and maybe Vitali.
Lost me there with Carl, Bolt and the running thing but in this division where a totally shot carnival float named Rahman is considered a mandatory #1 contender, I dont doubt they would omit a guy of Fraziers caliber.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Plys 44It surely was a very exiting era and no one denies that fact - but that is not the same as postulating that The Smoker would stand a chance against Wlad. Carl Lewis is greater than any of today's sprinters or runners since his prime (at least until Bolt maybe wins medals in OL 2016) - but since CL's unbreakable 1991 100m record it has already been surpassed more than 80 times. Many of the runners with far lesser talent than CL but they are still better runners than CL ever was even CL is the greatest.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpicoliThey don't call it the Golden era of the division for nothing. I think younger generations do the exact opposite when it comes to fighters of eras gone by. They gravitate to what they know and live, its completely natural. Regarding the heavyweight division in a Foreman, Frazier, Ali etc etc era though, thank God they-we recognize the quality and competitiveness of that time and not just blow it off as some blurry photos and dusty fossils when compared to todays guys, well, most do not. It was just deeper and far more fan friendly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Plys 44B/W-syndrome - everything in the past was better than today.... - like talking with ones grandparents: "when I was young the winter was a lot harder than today - and the summer was much more sunny than today" - gnæk gnæk gnæk gnæk :-DQuote:
Originally Posted by El KabongWell what I have a problem with is no matter how good these guys are there seems to be a ceiling as to how great people can perceive them of being. Only Rocky Marciano retired the undefeated undisputed heavyweight champion of the world, only Joe Louis made 25 consecutive successful title defenses and even if the Klitschko's had done that they'd never be considered greater than those fighters. Even if Wlad had rivalries where he had to fight tooth and nail to win he wouldn't be considered as great as Ali. If Wlad talked trash and was very intimidating he'd never be considered as great as Tyson. I just don't agree with that, the guys are the best this era has to offer and they are as you said MILES ahead of their competition. They are great no doubt, but Wlad is still writing his legacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGB
JF was great in his time - but I doubt he would be in top20 today even he is a greater boxer than every single one of them except Wlad and maybe Vitali.
Don't know of anyone saying Frazier owns Wlad but the guy fractured faces of some of the hardest heads at hvy and def wouldn't do what his last number of opponets did...except role...in trying to land a bomb. Wlad isn't a cyborg for shits sake.
Foremans second career:
-Scraped a Majority decision against alex stewart who after a dodgy start began to outbox foreman as the fight progressed, stewart was comprehensivly beaten by klitschko victim phil jackson, ibragimov victim lance whitaker and peter victim maskaev.
-Was stripped of the WBA belt after refusing to fight tony tucker and opted to fight probably the most vulnerable champion of the 90's, southpaw michael moorer, was schooled for 9 rounds until moorer's chin caught up with him again! Imagine what southpw byrd would have done to foreman!
-Fought gerry cooney who was in retirement for 3 years and in the depths of drugs, depression and achohol dependancy!
-Fought 5'5" former CW champ Dwight Muhammad Qawi who weighed 222lbs for the fight, a few months prior he scaled at 190 lbs for holyfield and went back down to CW immediately after losing to foreman!
-Dropped a wide decision to perrenial steroid abuser and notorious china chin tommy 'the actor' morrison! Morrison was kayoed in 1 the same year by herbie hide victim michael bentt!
-Average axel schultz outboxed and outworked foreman, leaving him a busted up mess, George wasw awarded a disgraceful decision, foreman was stripped again (this time by the IBF) for refusing to rematch schultz!
-Fought lou Savarese to a SD.
-Backed out of a fight with rahmam and opted to fight the in experienced shannon briggs who had already been stopped by Darroll Wilson, briggs fought to cautiously and george may have just deserved this one! However, briggs was struggling with men like botha and sedrick fields at this point too so acquitting himself well against briggs was no indication of anything other than foreman again was struggling with B level fighters...
Foremans second career was a bit of a side show and a well managed charade, i repect foreman of course, he made a fight of it with holy in the latter part of there fight and won a title at that amazing age but in truth he was an easy fighter to outbox who picked his opponents very well, who can blame him though!
Scape away all the hyperbole of his first career too and u will see he was far from the unbeatable monster some portay him as:
Foreman made a name off of fighting frazier, frazier as stated would be the klitschkos smallest ever opponent, he would be a small CW by todays standards in fact! That foreman destroyed frazier is not proof of anything.
-Fought like some crude amateur with the ring intelligence of a drunk vs ali...
-Outboxed by young and put down in round twelve ( Young wasn't even a puncher and scored 3 KO's throughout his entire career!)
-Brutal fight with ron lyle in hich he was floored twice.
See? Sorry but id favour many fighters over the last decade to beat any version of foreman. And as i said even foreman himself admits the klitschkos are better than him.
Schultz was a terrible decision, why do u think foreman declined an immediate rematch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSKZeP-DF6c
Look how dejected and beat up foreman is afterwards, he knew he lost. It was bad that Schultz was given a title shot, but it was worse that he was denied the win after outscoring and outpunching George. Some ppl think Savarese got jobbed, too.
P.s No version of foreman beats vitali (only way vitali loses is on cuts or a feak injury!) Vitali hardly ever loses a round or get's dropped, foreman was dropped by featherfist jimmy young and journeyman ron lyle twice and was also outboxed on numerous occasions by lesser men than klitschko! Does formen have a shot at knocking out vitali? 240/250lb men like Lennox, sanders and peter couldn't do so, So no!
He has a shot at younger wlad who had stamina and defense issues, but the older version beats him. Ppl like to bring up wlads 3 losses to inferior fighters, wlad has beaten far better men than the 3 men he lost to! Thing is both brewster and purrity were being totally outboxed by wlad before the stoppage, and in truth 2nd forman was struggling with lesser fighters than brewster and purrity, Foreman wins if and only if wlad gasses or makes a rookie mistake but other than that he loses! He's not outboxing WK. And the sanders that wlad, VK and rahman fought has a big chance over foreman.
I have not read all thepost on this thread apart from the Original post.
Frazier vs Wlad.....205lbs or Frazier vs 240lbs of Wlad??
size would come into it..YES you would be crazy not to mention it although smokin Joe did KO bigger guys eg Buster Mathis who was 243lbs
The only guy that was able to keep Frazier away from him was Foreman...Ali couldnt do it and im very sure Wlad wouldnt be able to do it...why??
Foreman was a walk forward bomber who stood his ground, that is simply not Wlads style. Wlad tends to take his time and tries to wear down his oppoenent for a later stoppage.(box off back foot)
Frazier would make Wlad work like never before, if that left hook land clean enough then it all over. Wlad is too wooden and safety first to beat a prime frazier. Wlad would need to land a massive massive punch to win as Frazier would outwork and outfight him. It might be close for 7-8 rounds DUE to Wlads size but he hast fought anything like the machine Frazier was in his prime.
Smokin Joe would win probably by a Ko anywhere between 10-15 rounds
You remember how vs Ali many comments were made about Joe taking 3 punches to land one, granted that night he made it work but vs Wladimir you're simply not going to want to get hit at a 3 to 1 ratio. Wladimir controls pace and distance with his jab which is powerful and accurate. Frazier's defense was mostly about bobbing up and down and subtley slipping punches at a distance in order to leap in with the big left hook....you don't want to leap in when there's a right cross barrelling down on you from a fighter like Wlad. I respect Joe Frazier, he was a great fighter but styles make fights and Frazier is a 1 armed fighter unless he can get in on the inside with the short right hand and vs Wladimir he simply wouldn't be able to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by fightscorecollector
Philosopher you are a imbecile with your so called facts. Look at reality, just because Foreman was more experienced does not necessary mean he was better than the original prime version. Young George would have battered old Foreman, in fact old George would never have fought him in the first place. Old George publicly stated he would never fight Lennox because he would be beat, old George was very selective with his opponents. Do not compare old George to the prime George, old George had a better jab and personality but that would not have kept him from losing to prime Foreman. Stop quoting his comeback fights as a weakness, if anything they add to his legacy because he should not have won any of them coming back from boxing with that much gap, it is a testimont to his punch power and commitment.
i understand what you are saying although you have to think of Ali's speed of punch compared to Wlad's. Total night and day. I think Frazier wouldnt have been hit with as many as Ali hit with. Vs Wlad i just think he is too wooden to keep Joe off him effectivley for 15 rounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongYou remember how vs Ali many comments were made about Joe taking 3 punches to land one, granted that night he made it work but vs Wladimir you're simply not going to want to get hit at a 3 to 1 ratio. Wladimir controls pace and distance with his jab which is powerful and accurate. Frazier's defense was mostly about bobbing up and down and subtley slipping punches at a distance in order to leap in with the big left hook....you don't want to leap in when there's a right cross barrelling down on you from a fighter like Wlad. I respect Joe Frazier, he was a great fighter but styles make fights and Frazier is a 1 armed fighter unless he can get in on the inside with the short right hand and vs Wladimir he simply wouldn't be able to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by fightscorecollector
You should toss out more of your funny remarks, that's all they're good for.Quote:
Philosopher you are a imbecile with your so called facts.
IMO he was, he paced hmself better and was a much more well rounded version. Although young george probably beats him, But the more the fight went on....Quote:
Look at reality, just because Foreman was more experienced does not necessary mean he was better than the original prime version.
Did u not read my posts? I already think he would beat the older version, try not jumping in all defensive like and beginning your debate with an insult! What exactly are u a master of? Tiddlywinks? U are talking nonsense now aren't u? U r letting the facts escape u again! When did u see old george get battered by a 210lb featherfist like jimmy young? Older foreman took holyfield best shots! Also when did u see older foreman put down twice in 1 round like he was vs lyle? Oh wait u r going to tell us lyle hit harder than morrison and moorer (who was the only man ever to stop jirov!) LOL. Stick to facts and not your fantasy pasts...Quote:
Young George would have battered old Foreman, in fact old George would never have fought him in the first place.
Wel duhhh.....Quote:
Old George publicly stated he would never fight Lennox because he would be beat, old George was very selective with his opponents.
Who are u to tell me what to do? It is a boxing debating forum.Quote:
Do not compare old George to the prime George,
I quoted his earlier fights too. A fighters entire career must be taken into consideration...Quote:
Stop quoting his comeback fights as a weakness,
Now pour yourself a drink, put on some lipstick and pull yourself together!
Wlad wouldn't flurry the way Ali did but he could double and triple the jab if need be and nobody is just going to walk right through that jab of his. Wlad can also hook off the jab to keep Frazier's angles managable and the right cross when landed would rock Frazier. I don't think it would take 15 rounds the way both these guys fight. Also Joe Frazier starts fights slowly, giving Wlad a foothold and allowing him to win rounds is not a great idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by fightscorecollector
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER
Funny choice of words.
LOL. I wasn't making reference to this:Quote:
Funny choice of words
http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images...jpg?1299599724
He probably didn't take the rematch because he was old, and didn't have long left in boxing. And felt no need to have a rematch, remember he didn't rematch Alex Stewart either and i had that fight a draw. And George Foreman's face was even worse of a mess in that fight. But again they wern't robberies they were close fights, i think i had both fights a draw actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER
As for the Lou Savarese fight that was a close but clear win for George Foreman, didn't think anything was controversial about that fight although i remember it being an underrated fight action wise.
Now the Shannon Briggs fight that is what i call a robbery i had that 8-4 for George Foreman.