Joe frazier (rip) would be the smallest opponent wlad....

[El Kabong]

Its pretty obvious he wants to ignore that fact that this is the weakest heavyweight era of all time thats why he never brings it up.

Hindsight is a great thing.
Jack johnson is another oldie that gets destroyed by todays heavyweights as he only fought 20-30 rds back then.

Nathan cleverly is another fighter in the best lhw divison of all time and he schools a pre clinton woods roy jones.

Anyway, i cant talk long im fighting in germany next week as im over 200lbs and 6foot im a legitimate contender to the klitskos.

Have they moved on to fighting retards then I guess that's what happens when you dominate a division so thoroughly.

[imp]

Its pretty obvious he wants to ignore that fact that this is the weakest heavyweight era of all time thats why he never brings it up.

Hindsight is a great thing.
Jack johnson is another oldie that gets destroyed by todays heavyweights as he only fought 20-30 rds back then.

Nathan cleverly is another fighter in the best lhw divison of all time and he schools a pre clinton woods roy jones.

Anyway, i cant talk long im fighting in germany next week as im over 200lbs and 6foot im a legitimate contender to the klitskos.

Have they moved on to fighting retards then I guess that's what happens when you dominate a division so thoroughly.

Lol. Muppet. Stick to the script.

Vlad dominates this divison. The same divison audley is in. If audley beats price then vlad will fight him.

[El Kabong]

Lol. Muppet. Stick to the script.

Vlad dominates this divison. The same divison audley is in. If audley beats price then vlad will fight him.

Wlad can't help it if Audley wants to get his ass kicked repeatedly. It's not like Lennox Lewis' or Mike Tyson's divisions were devoid of bums. Mike Tyson fought Bruce Seldon....FOR A TITLE!!! That's how sorry the division was back then

[piye]

It's always size used as the reason that the brothers would be competitive.

[AdamGB]

I don't know why Philosopher can't seem to get over the fact that sports and exercise science has evolved over the last 40 years...

Of course athletes are bigger and better conditioned nowdays compared to guts several decades ago.

When judging these guys in a purely physical sense you can only do so relevant to their contemporeries.

Imagine a 70s george foreman's genetics and natural talent coupled with the training regimes and the nutrition and pharmacuticals available to the klitschkos? He'd massacre Wlad and likely vitali too...

[El Kabong]

I don't know why Philosopher can't seem to get over the fact that sports and exercise science has evolved over the last 40 years...

Of course athletes are bigger and better conditioned nowdays compared to guts several decades ago.

When judging these guys in a purely physical sense you can only do so relevant to their contemporeries.

Imagine a 70s george foreman's genetics and natural talent coupled with the training regimes and the nutrition and pharmacuticals available to the klitschkos? He'd massacre Wlad and likely vitali too...

And you're leaving out Healthcare which is also important for growing big and strong and healthy.

As for your other point "imagine"....well that's the deal isn't it you have to imagine something like that happening and if EVRYONE grew up to be a giant sure the Klitschko's wouldn't win much but given the division they have they'd be hard pressed to do any better than they are doing. They win, they don't lose rounds, and they win by stoppage.

[AdamGB]

Yeah, they fight who's out there... Can't fault them on that.

What I do fault is anybody who thinks the division today is better just because fighters are bigger.

Other sports and opportunities have sucked a lot of the talent away from modern heavyweight boxing, the 70s had more talent in my opinion... Talent doesn't evolve, physical knowledge and technology does and in my opinion if you applied it to 70s heavies then you'd have a division as physically fit as today, but vibrant with talent and hunger.

It's a shame for the klits, they'd get more creditfor being a nose a head of thr competition than they do for being a mile a head of it... Philosopher dumbing everything down to 'they're big' is a gross over simplication.

[El Kabong]

Yeah, they fight who's out there... Can't fault them on that.

What I do fault is anybody who thinks the division today is better just because fighters are bigger.

Other sports and opportunities have sucked a lot of the talent away from modern heavyweight boxing, the 70s had more talent in my opinion... Talent doesn't evolve, physical knowledge and technology does and in my opinion if you applied it to 70s heavies then you'd have a division as physically fit as today, but vibrant with talent and hunger.

It's a shame for the klits, they'd get more creditfor being a nose a head of thr competition than they do for being a mile a head of it... Philosopher dumbing everything down to 'they're big' is a gross over simplication.

Well 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.

[Peter Plys 44]

Yeah, they fight who's out there... Can't fault them on that.

What I do fault is anybody who thinks the division today is better just because fighters are bigger.

Other sports and opportunities have sucked a lot of the talent away from modern heavyweight boxing, the 70s had more talent in my opinion... Talent doesn't evolve, physical knowledge and technology does and in my opinion if you applied it to 70s heavies then you'd have a division as physically fit as today, but vibrant with talent and hunger.

It's a shame for the klits, they'd get more creditfor being a nose a head of thr competition than they do for being a mile a head of it... Philosopher dumbing everything down to 'they're big' is a gross over simplication.

Well 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.

B/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 :-D

[TitoFan]

Yeah, they fight who's out there... Can't fault them on that.

What I do fault is anybody who thinks the division today is better just because fighters are bigger.

Other sports and opportunities have sucked a lot of the talent away from modern heavyweight boxing, the 70s had more talent in my opinion... Talent doesn't evolve, physical knowledge and technology does and in my opinion if you applied it to 70s heavies then you'd have a division as physically fit as today, but vibrant with talent and hunger.

It's a shame for the klits, they'd get more creditfor being a nose a head of thr competition than they do for being a mile a head of it... Philosopher dumbing everything down to 'they're big' is a gross over simplication.

Well 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.

That would've helped him more than you're assuming it would have.
A LOT more.

[ICB]

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.

[THE PHILOSOPHER]

Schultz was a terrible decision, why do u think foreman declined an immediate rematch?



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.

[ICB]

Schultz was a terrible decision, why do u think foreman declined an immediate rematch?



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.

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.

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.

[Spicoli]

Schultz was a terrible decision, why do u think foreman declined an immediate rematch?



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.

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.

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.

He wasn't rematching Shultz because he was convinced he was in the Tyson sweepstakes when Tyson came out of prison and as you said he was near the end, and knew it. Shultz had no business fighting for a title and this was the fight that brought the ibf corruption into full view and saw it's head Bob lee indicted for a bribe to have him ranked. Foreman was getting stripped of a belt either way and sure as hell going to do business with Don King and defend against Tony Tucker. The ibf shortly after stripped Delahoya for not it's unknown, unheralded Miguel Julio. Briggs was a terrible call.

[THE PHILOSOPHER]

he was in the Tyson sweepstakes

He wanted tyson? Really? He was stripped for refusing to fight tucker and backed out of a rahman fight!

I think george talked a good game but was never really up for pursuing a tyson fight.