Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

prime Vitali Klitschko VS prime George Foreman ('72-'74)

2

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,549 ✭✭✭✭cowzerp


    Vitali is on boxrec at 6,7.5"

    I'd say he is at least 6,6" that's still 3 inches taller than big George.

    Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.



  • Registered Users Posts: 54,495 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    sxt wrote: »
    The 70's approach to fighting would be at a major disadvantage to today...

    The overall 70s approach, or George's 70s approach?

    What fighter today beats a prime 70s Foreman? Haye? Wlad? Solis? Adamek? Chisora? Helenius?

    Or, what fighter today beats a Frazier or Ali or Norton or Holmes?

    I admit that Vit could beat George, apart from him and his brother, who stands little chance vs. prime Foreman, who from today stands any real chance vs. Foreman, or the top men from the 70s?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,730 ✭✭✭sxt


    What height do you think Vitali is?

    I'll tell you what height Foreman is. He was regularly quoted at 6'3.5, 6 foot 3 and half an inch.

    I'd guess that George foreman was 6 foot 3... and that Vitali was 6 foot 7... I 'd guess that Ali was 6 foot 2...


  • Registered Users Posts: 54,495 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    I would argue Foreman is 3/4 inch taller than Ali. Maybe 6'4".

    Vit is about 2-3 inches taller than George.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,730 ✭✭✭sxt


    walshb wrote: »
    The overall 70s approach, or George's 70s approach?

    What fighter today beats a prime 70s Foreman? Haye? Wlad? Solis? Adamek? Chisora? Helenius?

    Or, what fighter today beats a Frazier or Ali or Norton or Holmes?

    I admit that Vit could beat George, apart from him and his brother, who stands little chance vs. prime Foreman, who from today stands any real chance vs. Foreman, or the top men from the 70s?

    I think there is an Irish guy from cork, that would stand a great chance against the smaller, less technically skilled fighter from the 70's ...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 54,495 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    sxt wrote: »
    I think there is an Irish guy from cork, that would stand a great chance against the smaller, less technically skilled fighter from the 70's ...

    Irish is he? Great grandfather Irish?

    Well, waiting for your answer. What best men today apart from Perez:confused: (and Klits) are competitive vs. the best from the 70s?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,730 ✭✭✭sxt


    walshb wrote: »
    I would argue Foreman is 3/4 inch taller than Ali. Maybe 6'4".

    Vit is about 2-3 inches taller than George.

    I'd say 4 inches difference at least... I think most both boxers height would have been exaggerated at one stage or another. Ali's trainer and Ali's daughter said Ali was 6 foot 2 instead of the 6 foot 3 he is credited as...


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,730 ✭✭✭sxt


    walshb wrote: »
    Irish is he? Great grandfather Irish?

    Well, waiting for your answer. What best men today apart from Perez:confused: (and Klits) are competitive vs. the best from the 70s?

    You have put me in a difficult situation, If I say someone that was beaten by a klit, most people will automactically think bum and ridicule me, because that is the information that the media feeds them

    Alot of people are unable to appreciate that the Klits would make most fighters looks like bums. There is a poll on a boxing forum called boxingscene.com, which asks,...Would American football players or Basketballs players beat The klitschkos brothers...

    Poll result is yes 55%!

    I picked Perez because he will never face a Klit , and he will never be subject to be called a bum


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,730 ✭✭✭sxt


    As Ali showed, speed of foot, speed of hand and good defence were the only way to beat Foreman. Ali let Foreman beat himself and Klitschko . Foreman all the way for me !

    Ali had zero speed of foot in his fight against Foreman... ! ...Ali had zero to little defense in this fight !.. ....Ali was dead on his feet for most of the fight against Foreman...


  • Registered Users Posts: 54,495 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    sxt wrote: »
    Ali had zero speed of foot in his fight against Foreman... ! ...Ali had zero to little defense in this fight !.. ....Ali was dead on his feet for most of the fight against Foreman...

    This post tells me that either you were blind drunk watching the fight, or you are simply terrible at analysing. It's so off the mark there has to be an explanation?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 54,495 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    sxt wrote: »
    You have put me in a difficult situation, If I say someone that was beaten by a klit, most people will automactically think bum and ridicule me, because that is the information that the media feeds them

    Alot of people are unable to appreciate that the Klits would make most fighters looks like bums. There is a poll on a boxing forum called boxingscene.com, which asks,...Would American football players or Basketballs players beat The klitschkos brothers...

    Poll result is yes 55%!

    I picked Perez because he will never face a Klit , and he will never be subject to be called a bum

    What have BB&AF players got to do with my query?

    I appreciate the Klits. My query is what fighters apart from them, today, would be better than the best men from the 70s?

    You said the 70s approach wouldn't cut it when fighting the men from today.
    Well, who are these men today that would back that up?

    I am aware that the Klits have dominated most of them, but still, I have seen them when not meeting Klits, and I am puzzled as to which ones would be bettre or even really trouble the best 70s men.

    Bear in mind that neither Klit is a guarantee to be the best when the likes of Ali, Frazier, Foreman and Holmes, to name a few, are in the pot.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,549 ✭✭✭✭cowzerp


    sxt wrote: »
    Ali had zero speed of foot in his fight against Foreman... !
    Correct, this was the game plan and Big George had very good cutting off skills and Ali knew this.
    sxt wrote: »
    ...Ali had zero to little defense in this fight !..
    I strongly disagree, he took most on the arms and used the roped to take a lot of the trauma-not standard defense but that was all part of the plan and the only way he could beat the almost unbeatable Foreman
    sxt wrote: »
    ....Ali was dead on his feet for most of the fight against Foreman...

    He wasn't-he was tired as his body was getting pounded and it was meant to be something like 46 degrees heat, both where and Ali knew George would tire, in hindsight if George had of took a round or 2 off during the fight he would have easily won the fight.

    Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.



  • Registered Users Posts: 54,495 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    cowzerp wrote: »
    Correct, this was the game plan and Big George had very good cutting off skills and Ali knew this.


    I strongly disagree, he took most on the arms and used the roped to take a lot of the trauma-not standard defense but that was all part of the plan and the only way he could beat the almost unbeatable Foreman



    He wasn't-he was tired as his body was getting pounded and it was meant to be something like 46 degrees heat, both where and Ali knew George would tire, in hindsight if George had of took a round or 2 off during the fight he would have easily won the fight.

    Spot on, Paul. And, as I noted in a previous post, Formean was excellent at making a ring a very small place. I also noted that it would take a peak Clay/Ali to physically get away from a prime Foreman. Ali still used his feet to manoeuvre George to where Ali wanted the fight to take place. That is an example of clever feet and clever brain. He needed his feet a good deal, just in a different way to all out speed.

    Ali's game plan was to confuse George, spear George, out last George; and he did this to perfection. Rode many of George's bombs too.

    Why do you think if George took a rd or two off he would have "easily" won the fight? I cannot agree here. I think Ali beats George all the time, no matter what the tactics. Ali is just a notch above. His style is wrong for Foreman.

    Of the 8 rds, which did George easily win? I had Ali winning several rds even before the 7th and 8th began.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,549 ✭✭✭✭cowzerp


    walshb wrote: »
    What have BB&AF players got to do with my query?

    I appreciate the Klits. My query is what fighters apart from them, today, would be better than the best men from the 70s?

    You said the 70s approach wouldn't cut it when fighting the men from today.
    Well, who are these men today that would back that up?

    I am aware that the Klits have dominated most of them, but still, I have seen them when not meeting Klits, and I am puzzled as to which ones would be bettre or even really trouble the best 70s men.

    Bear in mind that neither Klit is a guarantee to be the best when the likes of Ali, Frazier, Foreman and Holmes, to name a few, are in the pot.

    The basketball thing show's that most people vastly underrate the brothers, both would be up there in any generation, Wlad's chin meaning he will lost some fights, Vitali as i always say remains extremely hard to beat for anyone, Vitali blow's Frazier away

    i think style wise he is all wrong for 70's george as george would be quite easy to hit against Vitali's style

    90's George could trouble Vitali as he still had chin, Power and an excellent jab, Ali again would struggle with Vitali but if it was happening tomorrow i would genuinely think 50-50

    Funny enough i think Holmes at peak could be the harder match for Vitali than any of the others as he would be the best of them for a chess match and tactical fight and he had great all round skills.

    Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.



  • Registered Users Posts: 54,495 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    cowzerp wrote: »
    The basketball thing show's that most people vastly underrate the brothers, both would be up there in any generation, Wlad's chin meaning he will lost some fights, Vitali as i always say remains extremely hard to beat for anyone, Vitali blow's Frazier away

    i think style wise he is all wrong for 70's george as george would be quite easy to hit against Vitali's style

    90's George could trouble Vitali as he still had chin, Power and an excellent jab, Ali again would struggle with Vitali but if it was happening tomorrow i would genuinely think 50-50

    Funny enough i think Holmes at peak could be the harder match for Vitali than any of the others as he would be the best of them for a chess match and tactical fight and he had great all round skills.


    I agree with the Holmes scenario. I know I said earlier that boxers would struggle wit Vit, but Holmes style is perfect to offset Vit's size.

    Frazier may lose, but blown away? No. Vit wasn't the killer Foreman was. I see this going the route.


  • Registered Users Posts: 83 ✭✭tysonslovechild


    walshb wrote: »
    Well, some dispute that and say Vit was. I say BOTH were. Vit was far from fresh, as only expected. The video to me shows BOTH men pretty tired, and close to exhaustion.

    My point is that I would like the poster to show me how Vit was somehow fitter than George? He has not done this.

    BTW, who do you think wins? I know both men are favourties of yours.

    I see George winning most times, but not easily.

    He never said fitter he said more athletic, I tend to agree he probably was, He had a good kickboxing career also, and was always involved in sports, hes married to an ex athlete also and holds a degree in sports science. The point I am trying to make is he is someone who understands the importance of conditioning and would be better prepared than the average boxer as regards conditioning etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 54,495 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    He never said fitter he said more athletic, I tend to agree he probably was, He had a good kickboxing career also, and was always involved in sports, hes married to an ex athlete also and holds a degree in sports science. The point I am trying to make is he is someone who understands the importance of conditioning and would be better prepared than the average boxer as regards conditioning etc.

    Hold on, read over his posts. He said fitter, as well as more athletic. If he did not say fitter I would not have brought it up.

    I see nothing to suggest clarity on either of these claims.

    Post #12: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056556966


  • Registered Users Posts: 83 ✭✭tysonslovechild


    walshb wrote: »
    Hold on, read over his posts. He said fitter, as well as more athletic. If he did not say fitter I would not have brought it up.

    I see nothing to suggest clarity on either of these claims.

    Post #12: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056556966

    true he did say both, apologies. vitali for me wins this, its a close fight but vitalis movement is key here i believe as he steps out of position after getting his shots off, hes a master of keeping fighters at range and teeing off that big right. I see vitali stopping foreman in nine.

    Walshb, do you agree vitali is more athletic?


  • Registered Users Posts: 54,495 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    true he did say both, apologies. vitali for me wins this, its a close fight but vitalis movement is key here i believe as he steps out of position after getting his shots off, hes a master of keeping fighters at range and teeing off that big right. I see vitali stopping foreman in nine.

    Walshb, do you agree vitali is more athletic?

    No I do not. I would like to hear why the poster thinks this? What has he seen from a stiff and robotic Vitali to make this claim. Vits footwork is not at all impressive. Not saying he has no athleticism, just that it is no way clear that he is more an athletic man than a prime Foreman.

    Also, keeping Chisora, Williams, Adamek, Peter etc at range is one thing, now, keeping a prime Foreman at range, and away from you is a whole different ball game. Vit wasn't able to keep a faded Lewis away, and Lewis is the best of all his opponents. That Lewis was not near as fearsome as a prime Foreman.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,683 ✭✭✭plasmaguy


    Having watched a rerun of the Vitali v chisora fight, vitali was very average and was even troubled by chisora at times.

    Chisora has the frazier style which can be effective, bobbing and weaving, and clearly vitali had some problems coping with it.

    I think Tyson in his prime would have knocked out Vitali in the first round, at least vitali aged 40+. Tyson would be much too fast for him. Tyson knocked out a fair few tall guys like Vitali, a few 6"4, and 6"5, and I think a 6"6 guy, so it wouldn't be a stretch to knock out Vitali.

    The bigger the fighter, generally the slower the reactions, and that's why Tyson demolished a lot of those big fighters.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,549 ✭✭✭✭cowzerp


    His jabbing shoulder was injured early on, so his best weapon which is his jab was not used, and he still comfortably won

    Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 956 ✭✭✭RiseToTheTop


    plasmaguy wrote: »
    Having watched a rerun of the Vitali v chisora fight, vitali was very average and was even troubled by chisora at times.

    Chisora has the frazier style which can be effective, bobbing and weaving, and clearly vitali had some problems coping with it.

    I think Tyson in his prime would have knocked out Vitali in the first round, at least vitali aged 40+. Tyson would be much too fast for him. Tyson knocked out a fair few tall guys like Vitali, a few 6"4, and 6"5, and I think a 6"6 guy, so it wouldn't be a stretch to knock out Vitali.

    The bigger the fighter, generally the slower the reactions, and that's why Tyson demolished a lot of those big fighters.

    I agree.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,683 ✭✭✭plasmaguy


    cowzerp wrote: »
    His jabbing shoulder was injured early on, so his best weapon which is his jab was not used, and he still comfortably won

    Fair point...but from what I saw, once you get around or inside his jab, he's very vulnerable and average on the inside, and Chisora showed that.

    He's definitely there for the taking by even an average fighter, if they have the right approach.

    Again, someone fast and good in close, like Tyson would demolish him in the first round in my opinion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,683 ✭✭✭plasmaguy


    walshb wrote: »
    I would argue Foreman is 3/4 inch taller than Ali. Maybe 6'4".

    Vit is about 2-3 inches taller than George.

    Agreed. Ali was actually quite tall, and towered above sonny liston who was about 6"1. They used to say Liston was a big bad man, a big bear, etc and yes he had awesome reach among other stats, but Ali was actually a good bit taller than him, so its hard to see why Ali would be so afraid of him, even though he probably was a bit.

    Foreman is/was 6"4 I would say.

    Anyways, Tyson and Frazier to a point proved that height can be got around. I think the Frazier way was to negate his opponents longer reach and jab with his bobbing style.

    Big fighters like Vitali like big fighters like themselves who present a standing target.

    Tyson was also very hard to jab against when he was younger.

    Foreman on the other hand, didn't really defend himself in his prime, so if he didn't knock someone out early, there was always a chance against him.


  • Registered Users Posts: 561 ✭✭✭minty16


    I dont think people realise how good prime Foreman was. Go and look at the tapes. The guy was an animal. Nobody could stop him, and he stopped some darn good fighters. I've never seen such brute strength and power in a boxer as prime Foreman.
    Ali beat him because he was smarter than him, using great tactics. Foreman also had a troubled preparation for this fight. If Foreman wins the rumble in the Jungle he is the greatest , thats the fine margins we are dealing with here. If Foreman had fought Ali again he probably would have won. Ali's style is bad for Foreman, but the experience of the defeat combined with the troubled prep makes me feel he would have had a great chance to beat him. At the same time I realise Ali knew he could probably not perform to that level again so I dont blame him. Still adds to the point that Foreman wins the rematch though. I have Ali and Foreman as CLEAR 1 and 2 all time HW's.

    Kilt and Foreman is a great fight. These two guys are out on their feet. What swings it in favour of GF is watching Vitali against Lennox Lewis. Lewis in 2003 to me was like a poor mans version of Foreman 30 years before. I think Vitali has a chance to beat 03 Lewis but it's 50-50 from the couple of rounds we see. 73 Foreman has too much.


  • Registered Users Posts: 54,495 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    plasmaguy wrote: »
    Agreed. Ali was actually quite tall, and towered above sonny liston who was about 6"1. They used to say Liston was a big bad man, a big bear, etc and yes he had awesome reach among other stats, but Ali was actually a good bit taller than him, so its hard to see why Ali would be so afraid of him, even though he probably was a bit.
    .

    That was commenetd on by several at the time, that when Clay/Ali met Liston, Clay/Ali looked the bigger man, he sure had a 1-2 inch height advantage, but also, the way Clay/Ali carried himself, stood tall, broad etc, he looked every bit as big and bigger than Liston. When they stood centre of the ring Clay/Ali sure showed his confidence. He looked the boss. Unreal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,730 ✭✭✭sxt


    minty16 wrote: »

    Kilt and Foreman is a great fight. These two guys are out on their feet. What swings it in favour of GF is watching Vitali against Lennox Lewis. Lewis in 2003 to me was like a poor mans version of Foreman 30 years before. I think Vitali has a chance to beat 03 Lewis but it's 50-50 from the couple of rounds we see. 73 Foreman has too much.

    The size and height advantage of a Vitali or a Lewis is very significant over a Foreman... It is a massive differnence which cannot be overlooked , especially if these fighters with these considerable size advantages are some of the best elite boxers ever. Vitali has one of the best chins in heavyweight boxing history .

    George foreman obviously was a very hard puncher but he weighed the same as david haye , but he would have been alot slower and easier to hit . Geroge foreman in his prime was very small compared to todays boxers . Vitali has a grantie chin and is one of the finest heavyweight outside boxers ever.. Ali stood toe to toe and let foreman use his face and body as a punching bag for most of their fight, that was his tactic . Foreman would not even have that kind of opportunity against a much taller, heavier, more powerful man with a massive clinical demoralising jab and a right to back it up

    I think Vitali beats him every time and Vladamir beats him on most occasions


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,549 ✭✭✭✭cowzerp


    He was 220lb as a young boxer, heavier than Tyson was-he is 1 of the hardest hitters if not the hardest hitter in boxing history, his chin is grade a and he was tough as they came, he could lack finesse at times but was a monster and still would be if around today, the brothers trouble anyone ever and George is no different.

    Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 956 ✭✭✭RiseToTheTop


    Only when Vitali was 28 and over did he start to weigh in at over 240lbs regularly. By that age Foreman was almost retired. (1st time.)

    Before he weighed in mostly around 236lbs. There isn't a "massive difference" weightwise.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 54,495 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    sxt wrote: »
    Geroge foreman in his prime was very small compared to todays boxers .

    I don't think I can take you seriously when you post this. The man was 6 feet 3 or 4 and 220 lbs of solid muscle. Which men today are somehow so much bigger, fat wise, or natural wise. We know Klits are, but those two apply to any era, and probably future eras too.

    Haye was never naturally close to Foreman in size of physique.


Advertisement