Vitali vs Foreman: Who had the better technique?

Ok, so the agenda here is to find out what you think about this, meaning how you define boxing technique.

I am not asking who would win between the two, nor who is the more accomplished as a fighter.

Who is technically the better fighter between these two physically imposing men. Foreman with his more traditional skills or Vitali with his unique style.

 

I think both guys could right-fully be criticized for having less than stellar technique. And so it's an interesting comparison - whose technique is more bad?

But if you consider that punching power is largely a function of technique, that good technique's biggest consequence is punching power, and like-wise, that the biggest negative consequence of poor technique is a lack of punching power, then by definition you have to say, Foreman.

That's not to say that Foreman's power wasn't largely due to his size and strength. But it is to say that without technique, Foreman could not have had the punching power he did.

 

Punching power has definitely much to do with technique and in that sense Foreman's punch technique was much better. Then again, Vitali's punching style is obviously a matter of choice and it enables him to throw much more, much more accurately and from every position, which has brought him similar results.

Personally I think it is a landslide in favor of Vitali especially because of his defense, but I think many define things differently from me

 

I think power has very little to do with technique.

 

Offensively: Foreman threw punches in a more conventional manner than does Vitali. Defensively: Vitali has better technique.

I voted for Foreman because I have a bias towards offense when discussing technique.

 

Power is a result of at least 4 distinct but intertwined criteria.

1. The physical tools required to generate power- muscular strength, fist size, bone density, leg strength etc.

2. The training required to maximise the existing physiological tools.

3. The mindset required to put 1 and 2 together in the midst of a fight.

4. The inability of the respective opponent to physiologically and psychologically absorb the punishment that 1, 2, and 3 are responsible for.

Example:

Lewis KO5 Briggs
Vitali Dec 12 Briggs
____________________

Who hit harder? We know Lewis hit's harder, but can we deterine it off that result alone? Probably not. Briggs was 40lbs heavier, had taken steroids and was mentally better established. Vitali, for that matter, was past his own peak, and has furthermore distanced himself, over time, from the KO or Bust approach.

Anyone who doubts this need only remind themselves of the fact that sprinting has as much to do with the strength of the leg as it has to do with the abundance of fast twitch muscles and the speed out of the block.

 

As for the original question, who had better technique, clearly Vitali did/does. Foreman never dictated the pace of a fight in his life.

 

blah blah blah

Power is the result of strength and technique.

 

Power only exists where your strength exceeds your opponents ability to absorb it.

Otherwise it wouldn't be power, would it?

 

So Vitali fought a better Shannon Briggs than Lewis?

Lewis stops 2010 Briggs in two rounds, tops.

 

Both men had underratedly effective technique.

I really define 'technique' in boxing terms as impartible skill. Ie stuff that's teachable. Otherwise it's just instinct & physicality. If I could have a two hour coaching session with either Foreman or Vitali....I think I'd take it with Big George. But not by much.

 

I'm not so sure. If it was the same ref he'd probably let Briggs continue even after a 20 count.

 

AgSTEVED. As a one-punch KO artist Lewis was in different class entirely to Vitali and with a free target ahead of him it wouldn't have taken long.

If Vitali actually tried to hit with more than just his arm, then perhaps he would hit much harder. Then again, if Ali had tried to hit wit his body eight behind his shots, he might have been Joe Frazier.

Vitali's accumulating style works for him exceptionally well. There is no reason to claim him being something he obviously isn't, and a big one-punch hitter he is not

 

Both had unconventional and somewhat blasphemous technique form a purist standpoint, but there's no question who was the better fighter... Foreman

 

I wouldn't say it's so cut and dry.

 

When Vitali beats someone who is a mere level or two below the level of, say Joe Frazier, then a case is worth making.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- Vitali has legitimately stepped up into world class level once and, despite a decent start, he lost by mid-round stoppage. It is the single gauge of Vitali's world class credentials we have and though he was certainly not disgraced, he failed. Foreman, on the other hand, holds devestating wins over Joe Frazier, who was miles better than anyone Vitali has ever beaten, and guys like Norton, who were IMHO still much better than any of Vitali's wins.

MTF

 

After the Lewis fight though, has Vitali ever had a chance (even a theoretical one) to do so?

Larry Holmes also never beat anybody close to Joe Frazier's level. In fact, the next best guy he fought, Ken Norton, in the eyes of many beat him. Yet many, myself included, would rank him over George.

This was not the actual question though but perhaps these can't be separated

 

How can you discount the role of technique though? I agree that our ability to perceive power is a function of the opponent's ability to absorb it. However, taken over a population of opponents, it's not unreasonable to assume that it's constant across fighters, in which case it can be discarded as a factor in making comparisons.

 

A 105 lber with perfect technique will not have more power than a heavyweight with the worst technique.

Power and technique are mostly unrelated.

If you add a qualifier...'effective' power, or 'well-placed' or whatever...then technique will matter. But power is power and it has very little to do with technique.

Before I start hearing from people who cannot read, there are all kinds of reasons technique can help a fighter get more ko's, etc...but getting ko's--while usually indicative of power--is not conclusive of power.

 

Vitali doesn't hold a single win over someone who would be favored over any good heavyweight in the history of the division.

 

When a guy beats everybody in front of him barring fights he receives freakish injuries in and barely loses 5 rounds in the process..... you can't make any cut and dry judgements about who he's worse than.

Of course a guy who hasn't had an opportunity to fight anybody decent uninjured hasn't got very good wins, that doesn't tell us anything.

Im just saying there's much room for speculation, if we're honest here.

 

Well technique obviously plays a part.....I mean a good boxing coach could take a guy off the street and increase his power by X% (probably a pretty significant%) in minutes. But overall, I agree that strength (including plyometric power) are far bigger factors, especially at the pro level where you assume they ALL know how to punch correctly.

That said a guy like Vitali absolutely arm punches. But not because nobody has taught him to punch properly, it works in the context of his style and physicality.

 

No, he has been 'robbed' (if that he is the word) by the paucity of those around him to a large extent, but the key here is that he HAD a chance to beat someone of that class in Lewis. And even though he hit Lewis with everything but the kitchen sink for four rounds, and that Lewis was old, inactive and at a career high weight, he failed.

It isn't that Vitali hasn't had a chance. He has. Had he taken that chance and THEN gone on to demolish all the fuckwits he has faced since, then a case could be made. He didn't, so IMHO it can't.

MTF

 

The point is that Vitali hasn't beaten everyone in front of him. He lost to Lewis, who was his one, single stand-out opponent. And there is nothing freakish about having your face cleaved open with punches you didn't get out of the way of. That has happened in boxing since time immemorial.

The trick is not to get hit. When faced with a guy he didn't tower over, who wasn't frightened of him in the least and who was good enough to hit him back, the ONE SINGLE TIME Vitali has really faced such a foe, he got hit hard and often enough to be turned into a bloody mess. That is the TRUE gauge of his capabilities, IMHO, not his ability to turn sludge into papier mache.

MTF

 

I would like to add that the second best fighter he's been in there with is pretty clearly Chris Byrd. 0-2 baby.

 

Foreman overpowered his opponents. When he fought an intelligent fighter, he was outclassed. He didn't understand the definition of game plan. You can even argue that Tyson was a better fighter than Foreman. What separated the two was punching power and Tyson had better technique.

 

Agree with the first paragraph.

Agree with the 2nd paragraph, but with a qualifier...I thought Vitali was throwing huge punches against Briggs and not his typical (since Lewis, at least) arm punches. Way back when I used to claim that Vitali's right hand was the hardest punch in boxing, but he hasn't shown it in so long that I don't say much when people say he doesn't have power. I think very few people could stand up to the bombs he was dropping on Briggs and while knocking someone down is the usual way we judge power, breaking bones in the face is also a good metric.

 

Vitali beat Williams who beat Tyson who beat Holmes who beat Ali.

 

Touche- you sound like Irish...

MTF ::

 

You know boxing! And the game.:hammert: