40 years old Foreman Vs 40 years old Vitali

Foreman and Norton were the same height, ten pounds apart, & had almost identical reach.

You are an amateur TLC, & a conceited one at that.

 

I'll put it this way - the most uncoordinated kid in gym class can walk into a boxing gym and learn to throw a 'correct' right hand in 3 weeks tops. 2 time world champion, hall of famer George Foreman doesn't know how to, or how to put his hands up? Think it through.

If you read my post again, I never said he was a great defensive fighter, I said his mode of defence, which conceded some shots as a matter of course was a conscious stylistic choice and served an offensive purpose. Like any style it had it's strengths and weaknesses.

 

What happened with that 'I'm not actually 16, I'm a mature, educated 35 year old professional' spiel he came out with last month, btw? Did he rescind that or was the alter-ego just way closer to the real guy than he wanted to admit?

Either way it was pretty fun.

 

Hut, you are a very wise man. This is it exactly

The same with Vitali. You think nobody of his coach team has spotted the fact that he keeps his gloves low?:notallthere:

 

You are giving them credit based on things that are totally imaginary.

First you suggest that Foreman had an ugly defensive style but was amazingly effective, which it wasn't...considering he got hit in the face SO many times in fights with non-punchers he hit the canvas in both....and the actual 40 year old Foreman this MM is about, was basically a walking heavy bag.

Second you imply that Foreman swung like a caveman for tactical reason at any point could've turned into Mike Tyson with fluid, crisp hooks....obviously ridiculous.

Third you glorify Foreman's extremely basic ring IQ. Unless I missed something extremely obvious , in what fight has Foreman shown even the remotest of adaptability?


Lastly, Foreman is one of the most overrated fighters in boxing, his resume is nothing special outside of KOing smoking Joe who was a stylistic dream for him....and I suppose....Norton. The fact is, Foreman was pretty protected, it's just there wasn't an internet forum around where everyone could call every fighter shite and dismiss every single win ever by a fighter.

 

"Foreman was pretty protected," ::

Well the truth is I couldve picked any of a dozen sentences in that post for this response. Fish in a barrel.

 

Again, you miss my point, mate. I'm not commenting on George Foreman's standing as a fighter. I think he's a bit overrated, too. I'm addressing your point that he had 'zero ring craft, swung like a caveman, didn't know what he was doing, was totally crude' point. The fact that was limited isn't the same as him not knowing what he was doing or aspects of his style not being conscious, refined choices. Foreman's limitation was that he was slow! And he built an effective style around his strengths and weaknesses as well as any text-book fighter that slow ever did.

You basically insult the sport to think that a guy who was as clueless as you think Foreman was (and all his trainers) could have had the success he did - well into obesity and old age to boot.

You're basically being deliberately blind and dismissive and kinda annoying.

 

Old Foreman was disgustingly protected.

Prime Foreman has some pretty notable names missing off his resume. Mainly Shavers(who'd be one of the few punchers Foreman ever fought), and Quarry who many feel Foreman dodged.

 

Old Foreman was Old. Young Foreman wasn't protected.

 

What do you mean I think he's clueless? I said, literally over and over again that Foreman was good at what he was extensively trained to do. He was probably one of the least adaptable fighters at world level I've ever seen, and his fight against Ali is probably one of the worst displays of ring IQ ever....especially considering, on paper there's no way he should've lost that fight.

 

Ok sorry, I'll shut up then. :mj:

 

Explain to us when specifically Foreman dodged Shavers (now we're talking over-rated) & when the fight should have taken place but didnt, TLC.

This I await keenly.

 

I didn't say he dodged Shavers, I said many, including Quarry himself said he felt he dodged Quarry.

I said he never fought Shavers for whatever reason, and that fight could've been made any time. It's not like Foreman was fighting consistently top tier competition, would've been better than Jose Roman or LeDoux for sure....

 

And let's not pretend that Foreman's pre-Frazier competition level wasn't a complete joke. It made Vitali's look like Sam Langford's in comparison.

 

Youre a waste of air.

 

::

Can you feeeeeeeeeel the love.

(if safari auto spell renders ONE FUCKING MORE of my posts unintelligible I'm gonna delete the program)

 

exactly

Vitali's technique is odd, but it works for him, he is good at it

 

No

MTF

 

Never a truer word spoken.

MTF

 

the truth of Vitali is between "he sucks, Jess Willard is better" (ridiculous) and "he kills everybody ever" (also dumb)

Neither is true... He most certainly does NOT SUCK... his opposition is hideous but he easily disposes of them... methodical, wear them down and batter them style... He is a good fighter... That being said, his opposition is EVERY BIT AS AWFUL as many suspect it to be... it is NOT HIS FAULT, BUT it is true... I don't object to people thinking Vitali is a good, dominant champ-- because he ABSOLUTELY IS... what makes my head explode is when people attempt to turn his opponents into good fighters, which is ridiculous

My take on Vitali is that he's difficult for ANYBODY EVER... Because he is very big, strong, very tough, has a quiet mean streak about him and has an odd, unorthodox style that makes the very best use of his unique attributes... But to simply dismiss anyone pre-2000 having a chance against him because they are 220 and Vitali beat some 260 pound slobs with minimal skills or desire is just obscene

 

Agreed. Vitali is good, and his showing against Lewis showed me that he can be competitive even against the very best (which to me means more than the routine handling of the garbage he has disposed of before and since) but some of the rubbish spouted about him is beyond ridiculous.

MTF

 

precisely

 

reason #12491024901 why ugotabe kidding's opinions on boxing can never be taken seriously

 

I take them more seriously than almost anyone's around here. Ugo generally watches boxing without the common grasping mind, G.

 

The exception being the holy life and works of Roberto Duran, where he sucks.

 

His Duran hatred and Vitali hugging are inexcusable.