Відео

Le faltaba la estatura necesaria para enfrentar colosos de mayor envergadura y contundencia.

@annegeddes1469 the young george was 40 and 0 until he lost to Ali... he also lost on points to Jimmy Young a few years later... however all of his other loses came in the 90's after his comeback. George could always take an unbelievable amount of damage, he was a pressure fighter with devastating power and probably the best ever to use this style. He came back in the 90s and shocked the world when he KOd Moorer and became world champion again. Tysons fighting style was the most effective against george (Tommy morrison fight) great example. 👍

@@christianroberts4184 the young george def was weaker then his old ver u can see he had no real def in his young days dwight fought like a better def version of dwight used head movement and angles so if joe used that same style he could have put down george followers got mutiple points which was shown to be flawed george height is advantage pushes means he dominates his power was to much uppercuts and iabs keep take a person out fast swammers lose fast dwight showed if joe used the same defense he would have beat george cause I told u young george couldnt take damage even close to the old ver and dwight was a better swammer then joe didnt used his block good u have to use angles to make George wide punches miss and he made him miss often and dwight blocked often joe didnt show these same def skills they never bring up dwight and act like the match never happened he showed that dumb flawed quote of all swammers lose is crap and folks still say it I dont know why dwight only lost cause he was tired he did better then joes both matches dwight only lost cause he was tired he was winning rounds george said for dwight he said he had trouble hittin him even tho george was taller then him and used the jabs another advantage they say works for george dwight showed height and coming in like joe did didnt matter tom showed punches wide like tyson and hitting quick punches would show a effect on George mike fought Smith who was slow and strong like George u weird people will say but he wasnt strong as George why do that matter as if if he had been as strong he would land no cause he was still slow why is it everytime we make the point of who mike fought that was comparable to George like smith and trever who did pushes yall say it's wrong when it's on video showing trever did pushes and smith was slow and strong like George but when yall say the blind quote of mike was like joe even tho they fought nothing alike that's right its hypocritical why would mike who had the best defense of all time for his style in hw lose to George and mike fought smith who was strong but faster then frank and frank was almost as slow as George and almost as strong and neither one could hit mike much so why would George another proof is berbick which I exposed George wouldnt be able to keep doing that to keep space berbick abused it keep getting countered George was slower then berbick dwight style like joe but better defense ali and jim fast punchers and defense frank real slow and almost as George smith slow and strong Mike had trouble with rangy fighters who fought from range who had lateral movement who had good hand speed and who had good defense They even say in the trever match which I described thats not the way to fight him he came nonstop forward Wasnt that the exact same way george fought? He didn't fight off the jab or use any lateral movement while fighting from distance george would lose off of the breakdown and even said by the commentaries like I said Mike wasnt joe his weaknesses wasnt a uppercut that he just kept running through especially not a slow easy to read one from a person as slow as george it was like I said a person who fought from range and who used good lateral movement Nobody has anybody George fought that can compare to mike so how is it they said he would beat Mike where does it come from its based off of nothing which is odd

the young george def was weaker then his old ver u can see he had no real def in his young days dwight fought like a better def version of dwight used head movement and angles so if joe used that same style he could have put down george followers got mutiple points which was shown to be flawed george height is advantage pushes means he dominates his power was to much uppercuts and iabs keep take a person out fast swammers lose fast dwight showed if joe used the same defense he would have beat george cause I told u young george couldnt take damage even close to the old ver and dwight was a better swammer then joe didnt used his block good u have to use angles to make George wide punches miss and he made him miss often and dwight blocked often joe didnt show these same def skills they never bring up dwight and act like the match never happened he showed that dumb flawed quote of all swammers lose is crap and folks still say it I dont know why dwight only lost cause he was tired he did better then joes both matches dwight only lost cause he was tired he was winning rounds george said for dwight he said he had trouble hittin him even tho george was taller then him and used the jabs another advantage they say works for george dwight showed height and coming in like joe did didnt matter tom showed punches wide like tyson and hitting quick punches would show a effect on George mike fought Smith who was slow and strong like George u weird people will say but he wasnt strong as George why do that matter as if if he had been as strong he would land no cause he was still slow why is it everytime we make the point of who mike fought that was comparable to George like smith and trever who did pushes yall say it's wrong when it's on video showing trever did pushes and smith was slow and strong like George but when yall say the blind quote of mike was like joe even tho they fought nothing alike that's right its hypocritical why would mike who had the best defense of all time for his style in hw lose to George and mike fought smith who was strong but faster then frank and frank was almost as slow as George and almost as strong and neither one could hit mike much so why would George another proof is berbick which I exposed George wouldnt be able to keep doing that to keep space berbick abused it keep getting countered George was slower then berbick dwight style like joe but better defense ali and jim fast punchers and defense frank real slow and almost as George smith slow and strong Mike had trouble with rangy fighters who fought from range who had lateral movement who had good hand speed and who had good defense They even say in the trever match which I described thats not the way to fight him he came nonstop forward Wasnt that the exact same way george fought? He didn't fight off the jab or use any lateral movement while fighting from distance george would lose off of the breakdown and even said by the commentaries like I said Mike wasnt joe his weaknesses wasnt a uppercut that he just kept running through especially not a slow easy to read one from a person as slow as george it was like I said a person who fought from range and who used good lateral movement Nobody has anybody George fought that can compare to mike so how is it they said he would beat Mike where does it come from its based off of nothing which is odd

the young george def was weaker then his old ver u can see he had no real def in his young days dwight fought like a better def version of dwight used head movement and angles so if joe used that same style he could have put down george followers got mutiple points which was shown to be flawed george height is advantage pushes means he dominates his power was to much uppercuts and iabs keep take a person out fast swammers lose fast dwight showed if joe used the same defense he would have beat george cause I told u young george couldnt take damage even close to the old ver and dwight was a better swammer then joe didnt used his block good u have to use angles to make George wide punches miss and he made him miss often and dwight blocked often joe didnt show these same def skills they never bring up dwight and act like the match never happened he showed that dumb flawed quote of all swammers lose is crap and folks still say it I dont know why dwight only lost cause he was tired he did better then joes both matches dwight only lost cause he was tired he was winning rounds george said for dwight he said he had trouble hittin him even tho george was taller then him and used the jabs another advantage they say works for george dwight showed height and coming in like joe did didnt matter tom showed punches wide like tyson and hitting quick punches would show a effect on George mike fought Smith who was slow and strong like George u weird people will say but he wasnt strong as George why do that matter as if if he had been as strong he would land no cause he was still slow why is it everytime we make the point of who mike fought that was comparable to George like smith and trever who did pushes yall say it's wrong when it's on video showing trever did pushes and smith was slow and strong like George but when yall say the blind quote of mike was like joe even tho they fought nothing alike that's right its hypocritical why would mike who had the best defense of all time for his style in hw lose to George and mike fought smith who was strong but faster then frank and frank was almost as slow as George and almost as strong and neither one could hit mike much so why would George another proof is berbick which I exposed George wouldnt be able to keep doing that to keep space berbick abused it keep getting countered George was slower then berbick dwight style like joe but better defense ali and jim fast punchers and defense frank real slow and almost as George smith slow and strong Mike had trouble with rangy fighters who fought from range who had lateral movement who had good hand speed and who had good defense They even say in the trever match which I described thats not the way to fight him he came nonstop forward Wasnt that the exact same way george fought? He didn't fight off the jab or use any lateral movement while fighting from distance george would lose off of the breakdown and even said by the commentaries like I said Mike wasnt joe his weaknesses wasnt a uppercut that he just kept running through especially not a slow easy to read one from a person as slow as george it was like I said a person who fought from range and who used good lateral movement Nobody has anybody George fought that can compare to mike so how is it they said he would beat Mike where does it come from its based off of nothing which is odd

@@ascendediam yea bro nice analysis. in my opnion mike in his prime would also best holyfield and lewis.

@@thomasmuller4236 for some odd reason looney followers have said any holy could beat mike would lose to any holy Yet a young holy was a full brawler No brawler or person who did brawl alot ever got anywhere with a young mike but easily countered and ontop of that young holy was a lhw even commentaries when mike had matches said that's not the way to fight him so where does it come from a young brawler holy could do it? Doesn't make sense never has Holy to me when he was a hw was the best all arounder hw of all time well minus these middle-late 00s since he isn't as advanced Lennox is the best outboxer+heavy+power hw I ever seen even now we never had that combo a young len was a lhw the difference is he fought smarter when he was younger his size would hold him back vs a hw mike These are the only versions that lose to mike My analysis aren't bias like most or like most who like to act blind I describe exactly what's on video nothing else

@@ascendediam watch tyson vs lennox even at this time tyson won round 1. by moving and using his jab. and imagine in his prime how much faster he was. he would outbox lennox or ko him cause lennox chin is really not good(his only weskness). and holyfield was a brawler yes but the think is tyson in his prine was different. was hard to get hit while throwing combinations. i think he also would outbox holyfield.

@@thomasmuller4236 thats a myth len was tougher he fought the harder hitters ever he never was In danger early or was he ever dropped by those how is that a weak chin He even fought mercer took mutiple shots mercer is top 20 hardest hitters ever that's very impressive to take shots from that man not only being heavy mercer was but a real hard hitter Agian I only said Mike could best those young lhw ver of holy and len cause the older ver that he did fight just was to skilled and smart at their styles to lose to a young mike cause he was outdated if we look at people they fought in their old age compared to how a young mike fought

the young george def was weaker then his old ver u can see he had no real def in his young days dwight fought like a better def version of dwight used head movement and angles so if joe used that same style he could have put down george followers got mutiple points which was shown to be flawed george height is advantage pushes means he dominates his power was to much uppercuts and iabs keep take a person out fast swammers lose fast dwight showed if joe used the same defense he would have beat george cause I told u young george couldnt take damage even close to the old ver and dwight was a better swammer then joe didnt used his block good u have to use angles to make George wide punches miss and he made him miss often and dwight blocked often joe didnt show these same def skills they never bring up dwight and act like the match never happened he showed that dumb flawed quote of all swammers lose is crap and folks still say it I dont know why dwight only lost cause he was tired he did better then joes both matches dwight only lost cause he was tired he was winning rounds george said for dwight he said he had trouble hittin him even tho george was taller then him and used the jabs another advantage they say works for george dwight showed height and coming in like joe did didnt matter tom showed punches wide like tyson and hitting quick punches would show a effect on George mike fought Smith who was slow and strong like George u weird people will say but he wasnt strong as George why do that matter as if if he had been as strong he would land no cause he was still slow why is it everytime we make the point of who mike fought that was comparable to George like smith and trever who did pushes yall say it's wrong when it's on video showing trever did pushes and smith was slow and strong like George but when yall say the blind quote of mike was like joe even tho they fought nothing alike that's right its hypocritical why would mike who had the best defense of all time for his style in hw lose to George and mike fought smith who was strong but faster then frank and frank was almost as slow as George and almost as strong and neither one could hit mike much so why would George another proof is berbick which I exposed George wouldnt be able to keep doing that to keep space berbick abused it keep getting countered George was slower then berbick dwight style like joe but better defense ali and jim fast punchers and defense frank real slow and almost as George smith slow and strong Mike had trouble with rangy fighters who fought from range who had lateral movement who had good hand speed and who had good defense They even say in the trever match which I described thats not the way to fight him he came nonstop forward Wasnt that the exact same way george fought? He didn't fight off the jab or use any lateral movement while fighting from distance george would lose off of the breakdown and even said by the commentaries like I said Mike wasnt joe his weaknesses wasnt a uppercut that he just kept running through especially not a slow easy to read one from a person as slow as george it was like I said a person who fought from range and who used good lateral movement Nobody has anybody George fought that can compare to mike so how is it they said he would beat Mike where does it come from its based off of nothing which is odd

the young george def was weaker then his old ver u can see he had no real def in his young days dwight fought like a better def version of dwight used head movement and angles so if joe used that same style he could have put down george followers got mutiple points which was shown to be flawed george height is advantage pushes means he dominates his power was to much uppercuts and iabs keep take a person out fast swammers lose fast dwight showed if joe used the same defense he would have beat george cause I told u young george couldnt take damage even close to the old ver and dwight was a better swammer then joe didnt used his block good u have to use angles to make George wide punches miss and he made him miss often and dwight blocked often joe didnt show these same def skills they never bring up dwight and act like the match never happened he showed that dumb flawed quote of all swammers lose is crap and folks still say it I dont know why dwight only lost cause he was tired he did better then joes both matches dwight only lost cause he was tired he was winning rounds george said for dwight he said he had trouble hittin him even tho george was taller then him and used the jabs another advantage yall say works for george dwight showed height and coming in like joe did didnt matter tom showed punches wide like tyson and hitting quick punches would show a effect on George mike fought Smith who was slow and strong like George u weird people will say but he wasnt strong as George why do that matter as if if he had been as strong he would land no cause he was still slow why is it everytime we make the point of who mike fought that was comparable to George like smith and trever who did pushes yall say it's wrong when it's on video showing trever did pushes and smith was slow and strong like George but when yall say the blind quote of mike was like joe even tho they fought nothing alike that's right its hypocritical why would mike who had one of the best defense of all time in hw lose to George and mike fought smith who was strong but faster then frank and frank was almost as slow as George and almost as strong and neither one could hit mike much so why would George another proof is berbick which I exposed George wouldnt be able to keep doing that to keep space berbick abused it keep getting countered George was slower then berbick And no it wouldn't be anything like a joe match cause mike fought nothing like him So no mike wouldnt lose it was stupid of you to say that watch matches and no cus didnt say that so stop repeating myths thst other followers say Seems like your the casual

@@ascendediamGeorge would definitely win

100%

the young george def was weaker then his old ver u can see he had no real def in his young days dwight fought like a better def version of dwight used head movement and angles so if joe used that same style he could have put down george followers got mutiple points which was shown to be flawed george height is advantage pushes means he dominates his power was to much uppercuts and iabs keep take a person out fast swammers lose fast dwight showed if joe used the same defense he would have beat george cause I told u young george couldnt take damage even close to the old ver and dwight was a better swammer then joe didnt used his block good u have to use angles to make George wide punches miss and he made him miss often and dwight blocked often joe didnt show these same def skills they never bring up dwight and act like the match never happened he showed that dumb flawed quote of all swammers lose is crap and folks still say it I dont know why dwight only lost cause he was tired he did better then joes both matches dwight only lost cause he was tired he was winning rounds george said for dwight he said he had trouble hittin him even tho george was taller then him and used the jabs another advantage yall say works for george dwight showed height and coming in like joe did didnt matter tom showed punches wide like tyson and hitting quick punches would show a effect on George mike fought Smith who was slow and strong like George u weird people will say but he wasnt strong as George why do that matter as if if he had been as strong he would land no cause he was still slow why is it everytime we make the point of who mike fought that was comparable to George like smith and trever who did pushes yall say it's wrong when it's on video showing trever did pushes and smith was slow and strong like George but when yall say the blind quote of mike was like joe even tho they fought nothing alike that's right its hypocritical why would mike who had one of the best defense of all time in hw lose to George and mike fought smith who was strong but faster then frank and frank was almost as slow as George and almost as strong and neither one could hit mike much so why would George another proof is berbick which I exposed George wouldnt be able to keep doing that to keep space berbick abused it keep getting countered George was slower then berbick And no it wouldn't be anything like a joe match cause mike fought nothing like him So no mike wouldnt lose it was stupid of you to say that watch matches and no cus didnt say that so stop repeating myths thst other followers say