George Foreman (90's) vs. These Gents...

there's nothing to get

it's a bunch of made up nonsense told from the viewpoint of a child who resents history and thinks he is tearing down institutions

 

If Wlad was green, Schulz was old

I'm just playing along in the land of make-believe

 

everytime you debate me, you make ridiculous claims

I set you straight

you run out of bullshit to spout back at me and then the discussion ends

 

Except that only plays on an asinine belief that 22 year old Wlad is no different than a 35 year old one.

You aren't playing along anything, you are using straw mans to suit your argument.

 

sure I am, I am playing the "let's ignore the questions that shoot bowling-ball sized holes in my argument" game... it's your favorite

you don't have a fucking case, man

 

X3

 

What still amazes me about some Wlad fans is they are willing to pretend stoppages losses to clearly inferior fighters count about as much as a bad at-bat in a baseball double header.

And that some STILL try to use the Mercer fight as proof of anything more than Wlad can beat the crap of a former contender whose best days were far behind him at the time of the fight.

 

Wow. I didn't know Kid Dynamite had a son.

The ratio of how much you run your mouth to how much you don't know is truly impressive.

 

I do. You're a troll.

 

Dude...

Anyone can play that game and make any oppoent look like a scrub.

I could say, for example...

Tyson!!!! What the same tyson who was beaten from pillar to post by Buster Douglas of all people!!!! Tyson who got plastered by Lennox Lewis!! Tyson who was beaten up by Holyfield..the same Holyfield that was already butchered by Bowe twice???? Tyson!!! The same same that was knocke dout by a British Bum!! Tyson??? End this thread!!!


Stop the foolishness..

Jefferson was huge and very powerful. If Wlad was cautious all the time...he would most certainly have been cautious with Jefferson.
Mercer had a steel chin and tough guy rep. If Wlad had the tendancy to be scared to open up, he would have been cautious with Mercer. Same with peter same with mcCline.

 

Ugh. Stop exaggerating. Mercer HAD a tough guy rep...years earlier. Stop trying to misrepresent things. Mercer's status as washed-up former somebody was well known at the time. It's only years later that certain misguided folks choose to make him sound more formidable than he really was at that time.

 

OK. Wlad never fought anything but weakass bums.

 

I didn't say that. I DID say you were exaggerating the significance of the Wlad-Mercer fight, which you were.

Dude, I'm really not busting your balls here, but you would be a much better poster if you didn't rely so much on exaggeration in the attempt to make a point.

 

Ok.

Old George Foreman was pretty hapless. People seem to forget this. Evander defended against him easily. It was an entertaining fight, but it was still a fairly easy victory. Old Foreman beat a few washed up fighters and bums before his title shot. He gets too much credit for beating Moorer, who never ever had a chin at Heavyweight.

So I'm not mentioning Mercer, Jefferson, McCline in isolation...I'm mentioning them in the context of Wlad fighting Old slower, fatter Foreman.

I see no reason why a Wlad who was willing to batter these fighters would suddenly be pensive against a 43 year old Foreman.

 

I guess it depends which part of Wlad's career we are talking about.

If it's the younger Wlad who was much more offensive minded before he got his head handed to him a couple of times, then yes I can see him opening up offensively against Foreman.

If it is the Wlad who has changed his style to work around the weaknesses that caused his losses and has become more deliberate and cautious in his approach, then no, I don't see him opening up against Foreman until maybe later in the fight if it looks like Foreman might fall.

And IMO...the younger Wlad who is more fearless would be at risk by opening up early against Foreman. A replay of the first Brewster fight could be the result if Foreman gets past the first few rounds. And it could be even worse for Wlad because even old George is a more formidable puncher (and better fighter) than Brewster ever was.

And as for Moorer, I don't think Foreman can get enough credit for beating him and winning the title at his age. I think folks forget (or weren't old enough to have watched it live) what a significant event it was.

 

He gets credit from me for the achievement..in winning the title again 20 years after he first won it..at aged 44. That's incredible.

But he doesn't get credit in the sane that he won it off a formidable champion...because he didn't.

 

And Wlad of today has gotten his confidence back much like Lennox Lewis got his confidence back towards the end of his career in beating up tyson and warring with Vitali. If you remember...in the fights after losing to McCall Lennox was very scared to let his hands go.

 

Oh, get out of here

you can not be fucking serious right now

you are actually trying to pump up DERRICK JEFFERSON right now and a badly over the hill Ray Mercer

If Wlad had beaten Mike Tyson in 2006 and someone was in here trying to make that sound impressive, you would have a fucking fit

Seriously, acting like beating Derrick Jefferson is a big accomplishment is like saying Joe Frazier was great because he beat up Ron Stander... it's preposterous

And acting like opening up against Ray Mercer at the time Wlad did so is impressive is like giving Tommy Morrison props for opening up against Pinklon Thomas

get out of here with this nonsense

 

FUCK!!!! :bangh:

Stick to the fucking context of this discussion and stop arguing strawmen.

I never said Jefferson was a "big accomplishment" you fucking fuck fuck. ::

I said that if Wlad was scared to open up and be agressive against big punchers, then Jefferson fight would have shown that. I mention jefferson, and some other big strong guys that Wlad fought in the context of whether he had the balls to throw leather. In that context I'm saying that an old fat Foreman wouldnt have worried him. Foreman would have been pummelled to death with jabs and later more accurate combos.

Now fuck off!!! :flip:

 

Its not hard to open up against a puncher when the puncher is FUCKING HORRIBLE IN EVERY OTHER CONCEIVABLE WAY!!!!

WHAT THE FUCK?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:bomb:ld::shadow:

Old, fat Foreman would have knocked that bum Jefferson out in 3 rounds!!!!!!!

 

C-Dogg himself is made entirely of straw.

 

Like he did Alex Stewart? Another bum that fucked Foreman up?

 

Let me know when you get around to addressing any one of the 50 points I made dismantling your "position"

Straw?

Apparently, you are having trouble understanding what a strawman argument actually is

 

LOL, Stewart "fucked him up"? A guy doesn't have to do a whole lot in a fight to fuck someone up if that particular bout qualifies

 

And "prime Foreman" this supposed infallible monster, who in reality was nothing but a club fighter with a big punch and an inordinate amount of size relative to his time period, loses to a decrepit Ali who had none of the talents that made him a legendary fighter and a journeyman in Jimmy Young.


I'll take the fighter who actually showed some improvement in his career instead of the one who retired to sell barbecue grills.

 

::

Literally follows a post about not making straw man arguments...with another strawman.

:clapagain:

 

And yes, he fucked him up. Foreman's face was a swollen mess. Lederman even gave Stewart a 10-8 in the last round with no knockdown.

 

you: "Stewart fucked him up"

me: "a close decision loss constitutes fucking someone up?"

Not a strawman argument at all... You are misrepresenting what actually occured in the bout and using hyperbole ... I'm questioning not only your ability to accurately judge what is going on in a boxing match, but also your odd choice of words for what was essentially a very close, evenly contested match

let's review what has gone on here

You: Foreman beat mostly sub 200-pounders
Me: no he did not, here's an example of actual weights of his notable opponents

Not a strawman argument

You: He beat Frazier, Norton and Lyle... big deal, he's overrated
Me: You can't just toss aside those names and victories or the manner in which they were achieved

Not a strawman argument

You: Foreman deserved to lose the decision against Schulz therefore he sucks
Me: No disagreement there, but what does that have to do with a totally different fighter with one very huge vulnerability (Wlad) ?

Not a strawman argument

Here's what you have avoided -- You have yet to answer when Wladimir was no longer "green" ... You first emphatically stated that Corrie Sanders was better than Axel Schulz but when pressed further, you merely reiterated my position that they were of the same class of fighter, C+ Journeymen...

The general idea of a strawman argument is to avoid a person's point because of not being able to directly debate it... thus the person engaging in the tactic exaggerates and distorts the position of the original person and then attacks that new, distorted picture

I haven't distorted a thing you have said... I have called you on your statements, debated the veracity of your sweeping claims and you have avoided addressing any of it

 

all of this is, of course, completely incorrect

 

Congrats! The sheer stupidity of this post has made Jaws1216 and DoubleL appear to be boxing geniuses in comparison, so you have now replaced them in my Signature Hall of Shame.

You've actually made the legendary Kid D post about Foreman being "a smaller, less powerful and less durable version of Bonecrusher Smith" only the SECOND most half-assed Foreman post ever.

Once again, Congrats! I'm sure it's hard work being so wrong so often.