The Verbal Flatulence Of Earnest Shavers.....

Esentially, that's the truth.

 

You are missing the point. Then again, you would.

Vitali could fight garbage ad nauseum. When it comes to Shavers, Norton, Quarry, they might as well be garbage, because they are tailor made for the man.

He beats the living daylights out of small, chinny Ken Norton, every day of the week.

He beats the living daylights out of small, cut-prone Jerry Quarry.

What the fuck is Ken Norton going to do? Apply pressure and get nailed? We saw how well he held up when he faced big men who hit him flush. Not very.

Vitali lands clean on everyone he fights. From Lennox Lewis to Corrie Sanders to even Chris Byrd, they all get hit.

Norton couldn't stand in with Vitali in a month of Sundays.

It's not about Vitali fighting trash, or Norton fighting great fighters. Norton fought a lot of great fighters. He also lost to a lot of them. He also lost to some really shitty ones. He couldn't handle power, had an impressive physique but was not a big man by any stretch of the imagination, and always seemed to respond the same way when he faced guys who could crack.

Don't take my regard for Norton as some sort of a smear on the 70's division, nor should you take it as an unreasonable appraisal of today's.


The simple essence of my point is that a big, powerful guy with a granite chin, above-average power, underrated movement and footwork, more than respectable handspeed and a repertoire of power-shots thrown from odd angles is always going to be too much for small, chinny Ken Norton.

Don't read what is not written. Guys like Norton, Quarry, Shavers are food for powder when it comes to Vitali.

 

Did I say they would have? Where did I say they would have? My discussion pertained to the dichotomy between historic greatness, fame, so to speak, on one hand.........and who would win a fight on the other.

In terms of fame, Hall of Fame, cover of Sports Illustrated, making movies, talking shit with Howard Cosell, getting mentioned in favourable terms etc, sure, Norton has it down.

In terms of a straight up fist fight with a 6'8" 250lb banger who can fight backing up, coming forward, throw body shots, can't be stopped by a Lewis uppercut, can deal with multiple styles...I say Kenny comes off 2nd best.

Vitali will never be regarded as being as "great" as Ken Norton or Lyle but he beats the shit out of them every day of the week. The size, styles...all in his favour.

For sure, I will say this......not even Wladimir would get blown out vs Foreman like Norton did.

He could at least jab his way through a few rounds. And if Foreman's face started to mush like it did vs Stewart...then...who knows.

Norton just walked out and got his head kicked in. :Wah:

As stated, the notion that Vitali could not do likewise to Norton is preposterous.

What does Foreman have that Vitali doesn't? Reputation? Heavier hands?

 

A lot of that just isn't an accurate picture of Norton. He was chinny, the same way I find Felix Trinidad chinny...it's not as if he's a glass-jawed fighter, awaiting anyone with half a punch to KO him, & Norton himself does not deserve this lasting mantle as being fodder for punchers (which big brother isn't, by the way). Duane Bobick & Jose Luis Garcia (whom an improved Norton bested, in impressive fashion), for instance, were aggressive, capable punchers, with no less power than Klitschko (though they were lesser fighters), & Norton not only KO'd them, but was quite assertive in attacking them.

During Norton's peak, he was knocked out a grand total of once...by a prime George Foreman --- a man who would put a fighter as immobile as Vitali Klitschko flat on the seat of his pants, & how. Apart from the Garcia loss early in his career, he was also taken out at the end-stage of his time in the sport, by two men with more power in their punch than Klitschko ever dreamed of. How this is supposed to be some kind of endorsement for the idea Norton was a KO waiting to happen is beyond my understanding. Klitschko doesn't fight like those men, couldn't hit like those men, & wouldn't be facing the same Norton as those men (Foreman excluded). How many times was Norton down in his career? Surprisingly few times, in point of fact.

I think big brother against Norton (& Lyle) makes for an interesting match, & I wouldn't really be inclined to argue much if anyone backed him to beat these two, but this notion he's a lock, or he's going to walk through them, I find pretty fanciful. The man still lost to the two best opponents he ever faced, & while I do give him a pass for the Byrd fight (the only people attack him over this, I guarantee you, have never suffered that injury), but he lost to a fading Lewis, & has only fought trash through the bulk of the rest of his career --- trash Norton & Lyle would certainly take out, as Klitschko has.

 

I took the liberty of presuming if you think both Klitschkos would beat Joe Louis, they would probably be favoured to beat those men mentioned here. It seems like a logical leap.

The primary reason Vitali Klitschko will never be regarded as, "great," as you put it, is because the man simply isn't. He's just not that good a fighter. However, I don't agree if anyone says Vitali Klitschko wasn't on the same level of those guys. He was & is. There is no great divide in class or ability to win head-to-head fights between either Klitschko & the likes of Lyle & Norton. They are pretty close to even-money, both against one another, & against others, IMO. All genuinely good fighters, none ever to be great.

Wlad Klitschko wouldn't survive the staredown with George Foreman. You have got to be kidding me. That is obscene.

 

According to Dan Rafael at ESPN.com, Vitali is in talks to fight the nearly 50-year-old Evander Holyfield. The WBC has approved it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/news/story?id=5455628

"What we are going to do is have this fight and then either in January or February, we hope to be able to fight Vitali Klitschko for the WBC belt," Sanders said. "I have spoken already to the WBC and [president] Jose Sulaiman has already blessed it for me. I am speaking to the Klitschko people and I think they will do it."

Klitschko first defends his title Oct. 16 against an opponent to be determined, although former champ Shannon Briggs is the leading candidate, according to the Klitschko camp.

 

And you believe this because the 6'8" 250-pound banger beat the shit out of who ... exactly?

He certainly didn't "beat the shit" out of the likes of Kevin Johnson and Albert Sosnowski

I'm sorry, but Vitali is not the monster you make him out to be. He's more in the mold of Henry Akinwande, in that he uses a jab and height and grabbing techniques when guys get in close.

He's not bowling people over in a round or two like Foreman and Lyle and Shavers did.

I see a Vitali-Norton fight starting as a jabbing contest more than anything. Norton had a great jab that he used to disrupt the attacks of Ali and Holmes.

I can see Norton and Vitali jabbing simultaneously, and Vitali having to jump back and reset each time, because we've all seen how he leaps out of the way when punches come at him. Norton also had a great overhand right.

Norton and Lyle were also both fairly large men at 6'3" and Norton's 80" reach was just as long as Vitali's.

I don't see fights like that as blowouts at all. In fact, I see Vitali having a lot of trouble with relatively fast heavyweights who actually threw a lot of punches, not the guys he's used to fighting who just stand there with their gloves over their faces looking to land one punch.

 

great post, really shows how much of a joke vitaly resume is

 

:atu:

Have you recovered from that clowning I gave you?:Wah::Wah::atu:

 

Wow. Where to start with this monstrosity of misunderstanding, literary leap-amateurism and big-book-of-boxing pillow-fistedness.

Lyle and Norton.....were both a lot lighter and smaller than Vitali. It's a 25lb weight disadvantage, 5" height disadvantage with the resultant reach loss, in anyones book.

Once again, you seem to be making the Soliloquize* mistake of refusing to consider pertinent minutiae, preferring to drink heavily at some well of nostalgia instead. Fine, so be it.

Norton's jab....indeed...had......fuck all effect against Foreman, and would have even less against Vitali. He landed it against Foreman.

Foreman, a guy who was in later years confounded by the jabs of that other pillar of brilliance, Michael Moorer, just walked through them.

Foreman actually showed the better jab in that fight as Norton was reduced to looking for the left hook, and missing with it. In fact it seems Norton landed one decent right in that fight, and a few jabs. And all this against a guy with a largely open defence, that he could reach, and who was right in front of him. This notion of Norton as a composed buzzsaw bears no resemblance to reality.

Against Vitali, that jab is now even less effective. For one, he can't land with it. Reaching with the jab....never a good idea. Clinches? Not Vitali's thing, as you seem to suggest {that's the other fella } but it seems Norton cannot come off better in the clinches. He's too small, and is at a weight and strength disadvantage.

Kirk Johnson and Corrie Sanders both had handspeed that would have more than satisfied the standard of the 1970's. Didn't do them any good. Of course, there were other reason's why they lost to Vitali, but the essence of the point is that Johnson's mobile, sniping approach cut zero ice. Same with Herbie Hide.

Granted, these guys are not stellar comp. But that is not the issue. The issue here pertains to styles, not competition. Norton would be good competition. In order to determine how Vitali might or might not do, we need to look at how Vitali handled certain styles. Johnson, Sanders, Hide all had very good, bordering on excellent, speed and reflexes.

This notion you have of guys covering up and waiting to be stopped by Vitali is pure garbage. Hide darted in and out like a trout on speed. Sanders mixed it up, trying to lure Klitschko one minute, and then gambling when he ran out of steam. Vitali enjoyed success either ways. Johnson, as mentioned, threw fast shots, and was mobile. Was Norton any faster than any of these guys? Unlikely. If Riddick Bowe had caught Norton flush it seems likely Norton would not have done as well as Hide did, in returning from the canvas 5 times to fight on each time.

One of Norton's biggest wins? Jerry Quarry, who was a fat 207lbs {note this..he was FAT at 207, which means he was tiny to begin with} and took the fight on 18 days notice, with his best fights behind him by 1975.

How anyone could square Vitali's comp as really being all that worse than a borderline shot, fat, small, untrained and seemingly disinterested 6' 207lbs Jerry Quarry is beyond me.

 

Boy, where to start.

First, Vitali Klitschko fights NOTHING like a young George Foreman. Vitali Klitschko doesn't have one-punch power like a young George Foreman. He exhibits none of the pure agression or all out attack. Vitali SLOWLY chops away at people with lefts and rights from a distance until they quit.

Second, you're comparing a Hall of Famer like Ken Norton with Herbie Hide, for God's sake.

Ken Norton beat Ali. Ken Norton fought on even terms with Ali in three fights. Know how he did it? According to his trainer, he did it by jabbing when Ali jabbed (thus taking away Ali's jab), and then pounding Ali with hooks and overhand rights when he backed off.

Do you know who also bases his whole attack on a jab? Vitali does. Do you know who also backs off when he gets a jab in the face? Vitali does. Do you know who DOES NOT blow out his competition like Foreman did? Vitali.

You keep saying Vitali would blow out Norton, and again I ask, based on what? His win 11 years ago over Herbie Hide? Jesus Christ. Do you also think Devon Alexander would knock out Aaron Pryor because he knocked out Juan Urango? The style comparison makes about as much sense.

Ken Norton fought the top heavyweights of all time,and did pretty good. Against the very best fighters in one of the worst eras ever, Vitali is 0-2 with ZERO crushing knockouts. (Unless you've got Herbie Hide really high on your best heavyweights of the decade list.)

Vitali is no monster. You're confusing him with his brother.

Of the 20 fighters I listed yesterday (who could be ranked among the best from 1999 to 2010), Vitali is a whopping 2-2. His brother Wlad, by comparison, is 8-2 against the same grouping. (Hell, even Nicolay Valuev is 5-2 against that group.) Vitali has proven little this decade, other than seemingly absorbing a lot of the glow from his brother's successes.

But I don't recall Rudy Clay also getting credit for beating Liston and Frazier and Foreman, just because his brother did. You have to beat the top fighters of your era in the ring, and Vitali has not done it. Forget beating them, he never even got in the ring with the majority of them.

Finally, I never met anyone who rates wins over journeymen (like Ed Mahone) on equal terms with wins over the best ever (like Muhammad Ali). Because, compared to Norton, Vitali hasn't beaten crap.

Do you also rate Buck Smith as one of the greatest fighters of all time?

 

Yes....and no. Vitali's shared characteristics with Foreman should not be limited to the physical, but should also include their mental outlooks. Note how Foreman and Vitali love to push smaller opponents around, pushing them off to generate space for their clubbing blows. Note also the similarity in their mental outlook- if they figure, at all, that the other guy is there to be taken, they go to work immediately. Klitschko, in his first installment as champion, used to always race to the center of the ring, drop his left, and begin this stalking game. He has eased off it recently but that has to do with age and injuries. Foreman was the more natural, pure-puncher, both in terms of mentality and physicality, but Vitali is no less the banger.

No I'm not.

That's my point. That's just my point. Now translate your version of WHY Norton enjoyed such success versus Ali {he lost 2 out of 3, by the way}...
Norton matched up beautifully with Ali stylistically.

Ali, not being a massive puncher, and being no bigger or stronger than Norton, couldn't keep Norton off him. In effect, Norton was the perfect foil for Ali.- Active, reasonably powerful, relatively strong, with a semblance of defence, a jab he could land and a decent left hook.

Ali took Norton lightly and suffered a serious injury early in the fight, but that should not detract from the fundamental point, namely the styles making the fight. You can throw in too that it was a split-decision and was in Norton's home town, but that would probably be trite and unfair.

All I am asking you to do is now take the same set of basic precepts and reverse the roles. Vitali now fits in nicely into the category of fighter whom Norton could NOT handle- the guy who was bigger, the guy who was stronger, the guy who was meaner, who hit harder. Norton repeatedly lost to this manner of opponent: Shavers, Cooney, Foreman. He was blasted out also by the much smaller Jose Luis Garcia and drew with Scott Le Douche. This is not the faculty of Mount Rushmore we are dealing with here. Norton is not some indomitable specimen.

Simply not true. It just isn't. Again I fear you are confusing the two brothers. Quote Manny Steward: "Vitali is the master at landing all these weird awkward kind of shots". Reference his KO win over game but over-matched Danny Williams, where a double-uppercut, one to the chest the next to the head, set up the fight ending one-two. Reflect on his win over Sam Peter, where short left hooks caught Peter coming in. Vitali finishes on the jab more often than he leads with it. Sure, he throws jabs, good jabs, but he is not the quintessential jabber. Not at all.

Why are you obfuscating the issue. Stay on track. Devon Alexander indeed. Vitali would blow out Norton because that's what happens to Ken Norton when he fights bigger guys that he can't hurt or discourage. He retreats to the ropes and ritual decapitation ensues. It's like Na+Cl=NACL SALT. It's like a formula. A statement of scientific fact. An Axiom. Self Evident Truth #324: Ken Norton Loses To Bigger Guys Who Can Box, Everytime.

Once again, guys like Hide are referenced to illustrate, that on the narrow point of styles, and coping with them, the fleet, mobile, nifty approach is no guarantee of safety.

Ken Norton beat Ali by split decision, this is a serious accomplishment, achieved even as it in Norton's "hometown" and with Ali having suffered a serious injury {thanks to Norton, it should be said} and even with the decision being razor-thin. However, Norton also lost to Shavers, Foreman, Garcia {:: who?}, Holmes, Ali {twice} and drew with Le Douche. That basically leaves the guy with the aforementioned win over Ali, narrow as it was, and the beating of a really downtrodden version of Quarry. His only other noteworthy wins were over real trialhorse dudes like Ron Stander, Boone Kirkman, and a split-decision win over Jimmy Young.

:: Vitali is bigger, stronger, punches harder, has a tonne of tricks and an iron jaw. This spells trouble for Norton. That's my point. How anyone could not see this is beyond me.

Once again, you are deliberately obfuscating the matter, and are making the same mistakes you seem to think that I am making.

It's not Vitali's fault he doesn't have more names on his resume. He only got awarded the Lewis fight by an accident, and even at that, it was short notice. He won 4 out of 6 rounds versus Lewis, which makes me think he can win 4 out 6 against Norton. If just 2 of them were the first two rounds, well.....Kenny cops some Zzzzzz's.

I stated already, repeatedly, that it is Klitschko's ability to deal with many styles, and Nortons patent inability to deal with one style, namely that of Klitschko, that makes this such an easy fight for Vitali. If you match them up by resume, even with Kenny having won 2, maybe 3 big fights in his entire career { 2 split decisions and a KO of a small fat-man} , then Kenny comes out better, but only because he has fought better guys. Here is the rub: as pointed out with Ramonza's " best competition" thread, having great competition, as Everett Martin does, is not enough. You do have to beat some of them. Vitali showed me a lot more in his loss to Byrd and Lewis than Norton did in his losses to Shavers, Cooney etc etc. Losing on cut's to Lennox Lewis should be of absolutely no consolation to fans of Norton. He isn't going to reach Vitali. He isn't going to hurt Vitali. He is going to lose rounds to Vitali and that means he is going to get hit. And whatever about Vitali....we KNOW what happens to Norton when he get's nailed by bigger, stronger guys.

Again, this perceived affording of credit to Vitali through Wladimir is not something I have engaged in.

Fittingly, of all the guys I named, Ed Mahone was not one of them. I distinctly referenced Hide, Sanders, Johnson, Lewis, Byrd....not Mahone. Beating Mahone only proved that like Foreman, Vitali was every inch the bully when the mood took him. Once again, you seem utterly determined to miss the point: it is not resumes that gives Vitali such an easy win over Norton: it is Norton and his sheer inability to deal with bigger stronger guys who could force him to the ropes.

 

I agree, Norton did cave on occasion when faced with a one-punch knockout artist (like Foreman and Shavers).

My disagreement with you is Vitali Klitschko is NOT a one-punch knockout artist. Vitali works from the outside to chip away at people.

Against people who fought like Vitali, Norton did just fine. Muhammad Ali fought Norton three times. He was in the best shape of his life in the rematch. Once again, completely even fight going into the last round. Why? Because of the "style" matchup.

Same with Larry Holmes, another of the best heavyweights of all time. After 14 rounds, the fight with Norton was dead even? Why? Because of the "style" matchup. Norton jabbed with Ali and Holmes and they weren't able to do all the things they wanted like they could when they were free to jab against others.

Vitali Klitschko doesn't have more power than Holmes did. Holmes scored more concussive knockout than Vitali ever has against better comp. And Norton didn't "cower" and go into a shell against him, either. Just like he didn't with Ali.

And both Ali and Holmes had incredible chins. Does Vitali have a better chin then Ali and Holmes, in your mind? Norton still managed to hurt them.

So why in the hell do you think Norton would fold? Norton would do just fine against Vitali because Vitali is no Foreman.

Anyway, I joined the thread because you are insulting guys (who fought the very best the division has produced) for their losses ... while praising a guy (Vitali) who never beat (and one could argue avoided) the vast majority of the top fighters in his era.

You also seem to have a bizzaro notion that Vitali is some ferocious bomber, when he isn't. He wears guys down and chips away at them. He isn't a concussive knockout artist who separated a guy from his senses with one shot.

Hell, Ken Norton might have hit harder than Klitschko. Norton scored more one-punch knockouts than Vitali did.

When Norton fought limited guys, like Randy Stephens, he could blow them out of the water with a single shot. Vitali fights limited guys, and he still pokes and prods them for 10 rounds before they quit.

Long story short, it's easy to look good when your competition is limited. And Vitali's "best" wins have come against extremely limited guys.

 

Did Norton even win the title in the ring? :dunno:

Now Norton hits heavier than Vitali. Hold onto your hat's fellas....we got us a winner here.

Coetzee fought a tonne of big names. I guess he is a threat to Vitali too. ::

 

And Cooney. :egypt:

Vitali folds guys when the mood takes him.

One mistake leading to another. Your first mistake is to assume that Vitali fights like you think he does. Vitali is a puncher but he is also one of the most unpredictably unorthodox fighters ever. He would also be the biggest man Norton ever fought.

Holmes best punch? Jab. Vitali's? Depends on the opponent. Holmes fights Mike Tyson, Ken Norton, Muhammad Ali, Mike Weaver....his best punch is the jab. Vitali fights Hide, Sanders, Lewis and Arreola, his best punch is anything from the 1-2, to the lead left hook, to the right hand downstairs, to a right uppercut to the head or body.

You cannot negate Vitali with the same ease. He is not dependent on any one shot.

Okay I think we are moving from the contradictory to the downright deluded. Vitali Klitschko hits harder out of either hand than Larry Holmes. Period. I remember this argument being made by some misguided fight writers in the run up to Vitali vs Danny Williams. The reckoning was that Williams was "more explosive" {another ill-defined concept}. Klitschko hit that man with a 3" left hook that dropped him for an 8 count and left him with an oozing vagina where his nose used to be. Complete neurological breakdown from Williams....and this was against a 260lb man. Klitschko has face-ripping brain scrambling power. His "problem" is that, on occassion, he seems to prefer...even...enjoy dragging it out. When he steps in with bad intentions he ends things quickly.

Two things here: Vitali has an excellent chin, as did Holmes and Ali. But secondly, and more pertinently, is the issue of Norton losing power and leverage as he tries to hit his man cleanly. Ali and Holmes were far easier to reach. Much easier....Ali enjoyed laying on ropes and inviting shots. Klitschko, on the rare occasion he is forced to the ropes, counters effectively.

:scratcher: See, like....the last 10 pages for my answer to this.

I never insulted anyone for their losses. Norton never won the title in the ring, lost a lot of his fights against marquee opponents, lost also to non-marquee opponents and enjoyed one of his very very few significant wins against a badly out of shape Jerry Quarry. I never insulted anyone, I merely surmised that a man who fails to climb Everest has not achieved any more than the man who successfully climbs Mt McKinley. Fighting the top guys and losing to them is not really all that much. If that was the case then Gerrie Coetzee, who at least won a title in the ring, would be getting Norton-esque adulation around here.

As for Vitali "avoiding" people, well that is just utter bullshit. They only gave him the Lewis fight by an accident, when Lewis was signing to fight Johnson. He signed to fight Byrd when nobody else was interested, and that includes Lewis and Holyfield. He only turned pro in 1996, by which stage guys like Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson etc were established fighters and interested in fighting each other {well... Tyson avoided Lewis until 2002 but hey....less said about that the better}

Anyone who drops and ruins a man's face with a single short left hook has serious power. Again, the distinction is made: power, and the use of power. I reiterate, when Vitali makes the decision to punch, the results, if he lands, are devastating.

Against guys like......:dunno: :dunno:

Vitali can blow guys out with a single shot. What's your point?

Damn you just don't get it. It's the styles matchup that kills Norton here. That and my having difficulty believing that a man bombed out by somebody called Garcia could ever bother Vitali.....ointlaugh:

 

You want to turn it into a style discussion, and when I do, you come back with did Norton ever win the title in the ring? Hilarious.

If Vitali Klitschko had to beat a prime George Foreman, Muhammad Ali and a prime Larry Holmes in order to win a title, I think he'd have won the title in the ring as many times as Norton did.

And, if Norton got to fight for the title against the likes of Herbie Hide, and defend against "shit fighters" like Obed Sullivan and Ed Mahone and Albert Sosnowski and Danny Williams and all the rest ... I'm sure he'd have won multiple titles and probably would've scored some memorable knockouts (unlike Vitali) because Norton tended to actually beat up or knock out people who weren't as good (unlike Vitali, who pokes and jabs and prods them to death).

Because fighting crap fighters and winning a bunch isn't as impressive as fighting the best of an era and winning some and losing some.

It's as simple as that.

And if you can't see how beating a prime Foreman, Ali and Holmes was "a little more challenging" than fighting Herbie "freaking" Hide, then you don't have a clue.

 

Still not getting it, are we mate?????? I don't have a clue? You can't read.

 

You are the one who doesn't get it.

Beating crap fighters isn't the same as beating great ones. And Vitali isn't a monster puncher.

I can't make it any simpler than that.

If I'm wrong and you're right, where are all the highlight reel knockouts Vitali scored over top fighters?

There aren't ANY.

And when you list all the name fighters from his era: 1999 to 2010 ... Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, Wlad, Byrd, Ruiz, Brewster, Rahman, Chagaev, Valuev, Haye, etc. ... he has no wins and 2 losses.

Just because his brother is good doesn't mean he is. You have to prove it in the ring against the best of that era. Rudy Clay, I mean Ethel Kennedy, I mean Vitali has NEVER done that.

I'll leave it at that.

 

i have a reply at the end of the previous page, i am eating right now so you can go back and read that.:Lok:

 

anyone giving any 70s heavyweight other than larry holmes (if he counts as a 70s heavyweight) ali and george foreman a better than 25% chance at beating vitali is retarded.

ramonza...vitali is not a puncher?? really?

 

I could not agree more, really.

 

He can punch --- but he is not a KO artist. He virtually blows nobody out, despite truly putrid competition. That's hardly an endorsement of a man's punching prowess. Irish has stated he blows people out when the mood takes him --- that strikes me as a mighty generous view of the man. I don't see any reason to entertain your opening sentence, here. I just completely disagree at a core level with the assertion, so I don't think we could make ground in discussion on that.

I'm not saying big brother cannot punch, to be clear. I'm saying he is no better a puncher than, say, Norton was. That's a guy who can punch & hurt his men, but is not going to score dramatic KO's over world-class opposition --- & Klitschko's, "world-class opposition" comes from an infinitely weaker time than did Norton's.

 

Dubble is perfect for this because no one else is this tireless... the rest of us, used to Irish's stuff with the klitschkos, would just throw up our hands and and say fuck it.... Dubble is relentless, thats why I always hated arguing with him and why hes a good poster

 

No Doubt...

WHO Gives a Fuck what Earnie Shavers Thinks???...



REED:shit:

 

He mysteriously dissapeared after picking Marquez over Floyd.

I could be wrong, but i think he also said Ruiz-Oquendo would be an exciting fight.

 

but he will argue those points no matter how wrong he is to the death

and hes making some hugely important points here

 

Translation: I'm getting my ass handed to me and I don't want to talk anymore :laugh11:

 

I wouldn't give Vitali anything like as much as a 25% chance of beating any of those guys. I wouldn't pick him to beat Joe Frazier either.

MTF

 

What hugely important points is he making? That losing to George Foreman and Earnie Shavers means you cannot lose also to Vitali?:dunno: Yes...saying Vitali is not a puncher, and that Holmes and Norton "hit harder" than Vitali...that's a hugely important point. Hugely important if detecting the criminally insane is your job.

Dubble has also pulled out of the argument.....your "Dubble To The Death" synopsis is almost as flawed as his "Norton Is The Puncher Here" belief.

Taking only that slim point, on the issue of punching power, Klitschko is hitting bigger guys and stopping them. The notion that the man is some sort of an aggrandized Ricky Hatton, wearing people down to a nub, is yet another of the seemingly endless departures from reality that Yankee fight fans are happy to indulge in.

If Vitali fought a guy like Norton and was on notice, any notice at all, of Norton's refined and carefully nurtured tendency to fall apart against big guys who came looking for him, then that is exactly what he would do. And Norton was never really hard to find.

Bunch of yanks sitting around with their Bert Sugar teddy-bears, sipping cocoa and reminiscing 'bout the good old days, when they didn't have to share "their" titles with all these "europeans".....:Steve-Dave/MMA::Steve-Dave/MMA::Steve-Dave/MMA:

 

Yes...Joe Frazier, a man who took right hands like they were nothing. A man who breezed past the challenge of super-fast, super-tough and super-powerful men like...wait for it.....some Mexican and an Argentinian brawler who was made of pure, 200-proof molasses.

Joe Frazier......whose defence made the Titanic look positively fucking waterproof.