Comments Thread For: George Foreman on Klitschko-Haye, Heavyweights, More

[Gratide]

Gotta love George he tells it like it is . really miss him on HBO . We do need more excitment in the HW divsion . No one jumps up to challenge k2 , much like Larry Holmes for so long . I guess it kinda goes in cycles . We have a kid in Alabama , Deontay Wilder who won the only medal in the last olympics ; he's has a great punch but not much amatuer in his past . he's about 6'6" and 220 , about two more years he'll be ready to be a contender . he's been on FHF a couple of times in a undercard usually last 2 rounds before he ko's them .

[DrewWoodside]

The recent collapse of talks between rival heavyweight champions Wladimir Klitschko and David Haye has caused frustration throughout the boxing world.

[Click Here To Read More]

Interesting read-

[WladIsTheChamp]

Expect them to duck this thread like the plague

You are right, they are ducking like ****. Where are you Klitschko hatin biatches? Didn't you just hear the great George Foreman say that Wlad would have been great in any era and that today's HWs are as good as the HWs in any other era?

[Tiozzo]

You are right, they are ducking like ****. Where are you Klitschko hatin biatches? Didn't you just hear the great George Foreman say that Wlad would have been great in any era and that today's HWs are as good as the HWs in any other era?

I reckon that's not exactly what he said

he said nothing stands out apart from the bros, and that the bros would have been great in any era, but the division, apart from the bros and Haye, is weak

I agree with Foreman, and it was a good read

[WladIsTheChamp]

I reckon that's not exactly what he said

he said nothing stands out apart from the bros, and that the bros would have been great in any era, but the division, apart from the bros and Haye, is weak

I agree with Foreman, and it was a good read

Perhaps you need to read it again then, direct quote from Foreman:"The top boxres of today are just as good as any era."

Weren't you one of the haters that kept on saying that this is a weak era and that the Klitschkos wouldn't cut in other eras? Cause I remember you saying something like that.

[Tiozzo]

Perhaps you need to read it again then, direct quote from Foreman:"The top boxres of today are just as good as any era."
Weren't you one of the haters that kept on saying that this is a weak era and that the Klitschkos wouldn't cut in other eras? Cause I remember you saying something like that.

you just owned yourself

Well there you have it Klitschko hating biatches.... George Foreman, without a doubt the top 10 ATG ever, has said it himself: The boxers today are as good as they always were and that Wladimir Klitschko would have been great in any era. How about that hating biatches?

not exactly the same thing is it ? I reckon the top boxers are in a class apart from THE BOXERS, which means the overall crop

let me make this simple for you : Foreman acknowledges that the Klits are great and would have been in any era, but the good challengers and the quality overall of the divisio is low

and you are confused about me : the Klits would have been top 10 in any era, but it is a fact that the division is weak apart from the champions

get your act together

[WladIsTheChamp]

you just owned yourself




not exactly the same thing is it ? I reckon the top boxers are in a class apart from THE BOXERS, which means the overall crop

let me make this simple for you : Foreman acknowledges that the Klits are great and would have been in any era, but the good challengers and the quality overall of the divisio is low

You are an idiot that lacks any reading comprehension aren't you? "Top boxers" doesn't just mean the Klitschkos, especially since he mentions the Klitschkos separately in a different paragraph AFTER he says "top boxers" and discusses other topics. If he just meant the Klitschkos, he wouldn't have said "top boxers", he would have said the Klitschkos only. Top boxers means top boxers, which is obviously more than just the two brothers. Too difficult for you to apprehend? Besides, if he meant that everyone but the Klitschkos are ****, then how could the Klitschkos be "great" (his words not mine) in any other era if they just dominated a **** division?

Your hatin @ss can't spin this ****, Foreman is obviously saying this era is as good as any other in terms of talent, it just needs more publicity.

[Tiozzo]

You are an idiot that lacks any reading comprehension aren't you? "Top boxers" doesn't just mean the Klitschkos, especially since he mentions the Klitschkos separately in a different paragraph AFTER he says "top boxers" and discusses other topics. If he just meant the Klitschkos, he wouldn't have said "top boxers", he would have said the Klitschkos only. Top boxers means top boxers, which is obviously more than just the two brothers. Too difficult for you to apprehend? Besides, if he meant that everyone but the Klitschkos are ****, then how could the Klitschkos be "great" (his words not mine) in any other era if they just dominated a **** division?

Your hatin @ss can't spin this ****, Foreman is obviously saying this era is as good as any other in terms of talent, it just needs more publicity.

My reading comprehension is fine, yours is horribly biased though, biased to the point of making up stuff Foreman didn't say, and getting to conclusions based on nothing but your agenda, as I have exposed previously.

''The Klitschko brothers are good boxers. They're not the best by any means but they beat everyone else around because they've had time and experience and they've developed their craft better than anyone else. But other than that, no one stands out in my mind.''

If there were worthy challengers around and people who are good enough for Foreman to take notice, he wouldn't be saying this. So the so called top boxers really are the bros, period.

''Parents were having children that really took after their parents who were striving and hungry for the American dream. But not only the American dream. Europe itself had overcome the hostile environment of the way and there were so many people who wanted things for their family. That created the best boxers ever and I think by the end of the nineties there wasn't any left. There was nobody to give them that ambition anymore.The parents of the present generation didn't know anything about hunger.''

In other words, today's boxers aren't as good overall because they don't have the same drive because their parents didn't transer that drive and hunger to them.

You cannot be objective, it's just impossible for you to do. If Foreman had said anything negative about the Klitschkos like some other fighters/experts sometimes do, you wouldn't be calling him an ATG top 10, you would be calling him a punch drunk preacher. So much for the objectivity.

Do you really believe the overall crop is as good as in any other era ? Well, that's just sad. Who are the top challengers ? When they're not has-beens like Ruiz and Rahman, they're overmatched, out of shape bums like Arreola. Apart from that, you have Adamek, a blown-up lightheavy, Peter is still in an eliminatory position after 2 losses to Wlad, and you dare call this era just as good as any other ? Give me a break you ****en ******.

[Joeyzagz]

He said there are some boxers who could floor him and he mentioned Lennox Lewis!

Lennox could probably beat anyone in history.

[alembic]

Interesting to read about George being a Naseem fan. I remember watching Naseem-Barrera and George was the analyst. When Barrera started getting the better of exchanges, Jim Lampley's enthusiasm rose, typical of anyone (like me) watching an underdog doing better than expected. It got to a point where George said something like, you're a journalist, you shouldn't downplay Naseem, you should be more objective. To which Lampley replied, "I like him (Naseem) just fine." Kinda entertaining, that was.

I loved George's commentary for Trinidad-Whitaker too.