Vitali vs Foreman: Who had the better technique?

Yes. I can see from here that I am a better fighter than you, Vitali.

 

You said it. It means the same thing. And you don't seem to understand why it's such a stupid statement to make. But I'm sure you're thinking, 70s Foreman, 90s Foreman... what's the difference?

 

It's always put Klitschko into perspective for me. He just is nowhere near as good a fighter as his record indicates.

As for the original question, on their worse nights, both had pretty horrible technique, & it's difficult to separate them at first-glance.

 

A young Foreman did beat Gregorio Peralta twice though, & this was a smart & cagey vet of a fighter for sure.

 

I've never seen that Peralta guy for sure so maybe I might be talking outta my ass, but I can almost blindly assure you that Peralta didn't possessed the same height/power/athleticism that V Klitschko has.

 

No, he didn't --- I was just stating that he did beat an intelligent, smart fighter. It had nothing to do with Klitschko, to clarify.

 

Go watch mma and get back to us.

Go watch Valero fights and get back to us.

Go watch Maidana fights and get back to us.

Some Ko's are due to power/technique--Bute's uppercut to the body, for example.

Some Ko's are due to brute power--Butler, Letterlough, Valero

 

He would lose more rounds if he was lucky or not that good. Vitali is a superb fighter.

 

We have been over this before, so I won't waste either of our times, save to say again that Frazier is miles and miles and MILES better than anyone Vitali have ever beaten. Frankly, Ken Norton is a considerable step up from anyone Vitali has ever beaten and IMHO a step up from a guy he lost to (Byrd).

Due to size, I concede that Vitali could well win, but the fact remains that he has done nothing, and I do mean NOTHING, to support such a supposition besides being very big. I personally don't think Vitali has the one-punch power required to keep Frazier off him all night long. Oh, and this uppercut you speak of hasn't been in evidence for years. We've done that one to death recently as well...

For all of that, your continuing insistence that Frazier is nowhere near Lennox Lewis is terms of level/class is absurd beyond belief. Your bias is the major flaw in your argument here. And this is coming from one of Lewis' most fervent fans.

MTF

 

Prime Foreman would have been a bit of young George and a bit of old George.

Interestingly, Vitali is regarded as such a useless sort as to not have a prime of his own.

:NotThink::NotThink:

 

No but he has an exotic name and he fought in the 70's , so you can take it from me that he could be 5'3" and 165 and he would be the fucking man, now get out of here before I pound your ribs into dust, keyboard hero.

 

::

 

Sure....I don't want to revisit old ground.

Look at it this way: todays F1 cars have a bit more about the than those of the far more illustrious 70's, where racing was dangerous and sex was safe and studs like James Hunt had 1,000,000 times the charisma of Lewis Hamilton.

It would matter not one whit once Hamilton got out on the track today in his car. He would destroy Hunt. He is fitter, has better reflexes, has a better car, has better training etc.

I would never dare to argue that there is a great deal more to the resume of the fighters of the 70's. However, we must separate, as Yeats would say, the dancer from the dance.

Were they great fighters because they were in great fights? Were the fights great because of a mesh of limited styles and limited fighters?

Would any of it really matter once a guy like Klitschko, who is mean and big and cute and tough and has a great amateur pedigree and lots of power and brains, showed up at the race?

The key element in estimating Klitschko's chances against Foreman or Frazier or Norton is......Klitschko himself. Not how Foreman looked against Norton. Nor how Frazier looked against Foreman.

They never met or saw a fighter like Vitali in their lives. The closest they came were desperate, ahem, pale imitations, like Cooney or Ernie Tirell.

 

I ain't nothin' but serious brother, so you can show up in Texas and I will show you a Peralta fight on Beta-Max and then you can high-tail it back to shitsville, nebraska, you copy-and-paste baboon of the information-super-highway...

 

Foreman lost to Jimmy Young. Does Vitali?

 

Good post.

 

Look at it this way:

imagine Gatti, Corrales, Hatton, Ward, Zab, Baldomir, Sharmba Mitchell, Clottey, Cotto, Miguel Angel Gonzalez and Shane Mosley were all 140lbrs in the 1970's and they all fought each other and were involved in brutal slug-fests.

People would be walking around today saying that Floyd was lucky never to have crossed their path.:scared:

 

He's a good fighter --- but there isn't a single thing he does which I would genuinely call, "a superb trait."

 

I don't think so, but then, it's hardly out of the realm of possibility, & had you asked me, I'd have banked on Foreman to beat Young if they'd never fought. I think Foreman (pre-Zaire especially) would definitely beat Young more often than not, as I expect Klitschko would beat Byrd more often than not.

Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on how good you perceive Klitschko to be, & on that, we are worlds apart in opinion) hypotheticals are as good as it gets for Klitschko, who has never defeated a single great rival. Foreman has real results. Klitschko does not.

 

Dancer. Dance. Separate them.

 

There's over a hundred years worth of boxers that looked unbeatable until they fought someone good. We can only speculate when it comes to Klitschko. Or, we can look at his brutal cuts loss to the only historically elite fighter he's fought. Albeit an old, inactive, and over-confident historically elite fighter.

Either way, there's far too much history that indicates it's stupid to assume an unproven fighter in the elite ranks like Klitschko would beat all these 70s guys, who actually had to fight and beat fellow greats.

 

Would Lewis beat Foreman?

 

That's a tough one. Lewis, at his absolute peak, was probably a better fighter. But if Foreman gets there early it could get messy. LL was tagged a little more often than people remember in the 90s.

What's your point?

 

MMA don't use gloves.

Valero had good placement and timing.

Maidana has good speed and throws in combination and can counter well

Letterlough and Butler never knocked out anyone half-way decent.

Sorry.

 

So you can have good power with bad technique, so long as you don't have gloves?

Valero didn't have good shit. Go watch some of his fights. He had extremely good power and nothing else, at least nothing else that showed in the vast majority of his fights.

Letterlough and Butler didn't have big power?? Come on, LL.

 

George Foreman is meat and drink for Lewis.

 

I think Foreman crumples Lewis, personally. There are some solid advantages Lewis has over Foreman, but his lack of speed is critical to the outcome. His recuperative ability & chin, additionally, just aren't anywhere close to being upto the mark. Lewis is the better fighter all-round, but so was Frazier.

IMO, Foreman (who used under-rated swiftness to reach his victims) is going to tag him at some point, &...

 

I've always thought Lewis would beat Foreman.

 

Wouldn't it be equally as stupid to assume they beat him?

 

I guess that depends on how impressed with him you are.