Vitali's Last 14 Opponents Average 37 Wins and 1.5 losses

Vitali deserves to be in the hall of fame as much as rocky marciano does. No he doesn't. Marciano cleared the best out of his division and the best he faced were experienced, in shape and skilled. He beat men who were battle tested against other greats. I'd pick Vitaly to beat Rocky h2h, but there is no comparison between their achievements.

Your head's too deep in my a.s.s how do you expect me to shut up? P.S tell yo mom I miss her Wow, what a homerotic twat!

you dont get it..he's claiming Vitalis opponents had these great records...but who the hell did the beat?? Quite a few decent fighters. But like I said in another post, it's impossible to accurately evaluate a fighter's career on any single criterion like win-loss ratios, wins over HOFers, average size and weight of opponents etc. Everything has to be taken into account and analysed, but that takes work, and not enough fans are willing to do that.

Shut up you twat. Your head's too deep in my a.s.s how do you expect me to shut up? P.S tell yo mom I miss her

you dont get it..he's claiming Vitalis opponents had these great records...but who the hell did the beat?? Two of them stopped his brother Wlad in fights. So your point is what now exactly?

If you fight undefeated doormen,does that make you an ATG?It doesnt matter what ratios you are bringing,truth is the Klistchkos are bums and their opposition are bums too.They just happen to be bigger bums Shut up you twat.

I must have missed your context, yes. And if Povetkin is out there fighting all I'll give him due credit. I would hope he would want to try his skills against the best though or it sort of detracts from what you're working towards. The problem is you need the rest of the top 10 to be fighting amongst themselves as well to establish hunger and desire as well as building skills, experience and resume. But the lack of activity today seems to hurt this concept so maybe it just is what it is. As far as what you've pointed out about Quarry, that is exactly why other era's are seen as far better than today. We can't blame the Klits for that though anymore than we should give them credit for imaginary h2h fantasy fights, but its a fact that should be taken into consideration when judging the overall worth of an era. Don't get me started on past champions like Johnson and Dempsey. While I admire their skills and what they did on the way up, their championship reigns were just as easy to criticize as any heavyweight champ in history regardless of the fact that they're heavyweight icons. Peace! This is one of the reasons I rate Chambers highly as a Wlad win, due to who Chambers was fighting and beating before challenging for the title. And despite his two losses, I have more respect for his resume than someone like Povetkin, even though one of those losses came at his hands. I just wish more fighters would follow his example. Also wish more fans would give Chambers credit but that's another issue...

Name me one HW who fought so much top competition in a row. No gay ass nostalgic bias welcome in this thread. (ie. dont argue that 28-12 fighters were great simply because they were old), 37-1.5 is the average record of Vits opposition. And their average weight is 245...so not only are they huge but they also have great records. Vitali truly is the GOAT. If you fight undefeated doormen,does that make you an ATG?It doesnt matter what ratios you are bringing,truth is the Klistchkos are bums and their opposition are bums too.They just happen to be bigger bums

You have to go back to the 90's for when Vitali was fighting the type of mugs that Fields padded out record consists of. But from 1998 on he was fighting real contenders and champions, not tomato cans like Big Sky. you dont get it..he's claiming Vitalis opponents had these great records...but who the hell did the beat??

..................and thats great, but how many HOF did they beat when they were on their way up? ...not just when they started reigning their dead division This obsession certain fans have with HOF fighters is annoying. It's a simple minded way of evaluating a fighter's career and just like ridiculous stats shouldn't be the top criterion let alone the sole criterion for determining the quality of a win. Toney got beaten by Peter twice. Holyfield got beaten by Byrd and Ibragimov. Tyson got beaten by Danny Williams. All three fighters lost to a Klitschko in a similar time frame to these wins. What good were their wins over HOFers then?

Well, no he hasn't really. His point is that numbers alone mean nothing, which is quite a good counterpoint to the TS's opening argument, if exaggerated for effect. You have to go back to the 90's for when Vitali was fighting the type of mugs that Fields padded out record consists of. But from 1998 on he was fighting real contenders and champions, not tomato cans like Big Sky.

The Klitschkos use vulture tactics to snatch up the inexperienced cubs before they grow into dangerous Lions. Thats why they schedule guys with 15 fights to their name(Solis, Chisora) or guys with 4 fights at Heavyweight(Haye,Adamek). That's an unfair accusation. Solis was a mandatory and top ten fighter at the time Vitali fought him, and hardly a spring chicken either. It wasn't Vitali's fault he wasn't prepared to challenge himself before stepping into the ring with him. Haye and Adamek were both fighters the public was clamouring for the Klits to fight. This is so obvious it doesn't really need repeating. Chisora's the only fighter in recent years you could conceivably label that accusation at towards the Klits, and it never came off so it's a moot point. Let's keep things fair and honest here.

Yeah, but he fought bums only so you've spectacularly missed the point. Well, no he hasn't really. His point is that numbers alone mean nothing, which is quite a good counterpoint to the TS's opening argument, if exaggerated for effect.

If Byrd & Lewis were the 2 best fighters he ever fought.. wouldn't a normal boxing fan expect them to have won more than the 3 rds collectively they banked out of the the 15 rds they fought Klitschko... after all aren't they supposed to be superior to him.. wouldn't it have been the other way around with Klitscko only winning 20% of the rds on all the judges paid to score the action IN THE RING.. How come Vitali didn't allow them to win more than that? These fighters are the best two fighters he ever faced & for some reason they;re just like ALL The other 43 fighters he;s faced & couldn't MUSTER more than 2 rds apiece on him.. EXACTLY like everyone else fared that he beat.. wouldn't they have been the exception to the norm OR what you're really saying is he conveniently got injured against them & was healthy against all the other fighters below them..you're all full of crap & you KNOW PERFECTLY WELL.. NO INJURIES OR CUTS.. NO LOSSES ON HIS RESUME... EVERYTHING & I MEAN EVERYTHING IN HIS HISTORY & MOST IMPORTANTLY WHAT HE WAS DOING IN THOSE PARTICULAR BOUTS SUGGEST THAT HE DOESN'T LOSE OTHERWISE.. YOU ALL KNOW IT & I DO TOO.. SO STOP FRONTIN' about it.. Vitali Klitschko is really 43 - 0 with 2 incomplete fights... that's WHAT IT REALLY IS IF WE GET RID OF BOXING POLITICS & PROPOGANDA.. pLUS THE FACT THEY STOLE A KO from him in the bRIGGS FIGHT & THAT SHOULD BE RULED A TKO . HE WAS MORE BEAT UP THAN ADAMEK.. IN FACT TEN TIMES MORE.... SO ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW IS THAT ONLY 2 FIGHTERS HOFFMAN & JOHNSON CAN SAY THEY WERE NOT KNOCKED OUT BY A PHYSICALLY HEALTHY VITALI KLITSCHKO.. THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND... HE STILL HAS THE HIGHEST KO RATIO IN HEAVYWEIGHT HISTORY BUT IT REALLY IS 95.4% INSTEAD OF THE 88.88% IT STATES IN THE BOOKS... 5 FIGHTERS SURVIVED.. BUT REALLY IT WAS ONLY 2 THAT LEGITIMATELY DIDN'T GET KTFO BY HIM..... THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH HERE.. NOT TO MENTION THOSE 2 WHO SURVIVED LOST 24 OF 24 RDS.. BRIGGS WHO UNOFFICIALLY GOT KOED LOST ALL 12.. tHAT'S 12 -0 FOR THOSE GUYS & 12 -3 VS LEWIS & BYRD... THINK ABOUT THAT & SMOKE IT IN YOUR PIPES.. THE FIVE FIGHTERS NOT TO GET koed by him won a total of 3 rds in 51 rds that were fought... that's 48-3 favoring Vitali against those who didn't get ko;ed... the 40 who did get KO'ED & THOSE TOTAL 168 RDS. WON COLLECTIVELY 7 OR 8 RDS MAX..... THAT;S 161-7 IN VITALI'S favor.... all in all he;s won 209 out of the 219 rds he's ever fought & that's 95%.. same as his TRUE KNOCKOUT PERCENTAGE... & THE 3 RDS HE LOST VS LEWIS & BYRD WAS TOWARDS THE END.. YOU GUESSED IT WHEN HIS INJURIES STARTED TO TAKE OVER.. LEWIS & BYRD DIDN'T WIN A RD WHEN HE WAS RELATIVELY NOT HINDERED... THAT'S ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.. THESE ARE ALL FACTS & YOU CAN GO CHECK IT UP.. SO KEEP ON BSING.. I KNOW THE TRUTH. Can you please use some fukking paragraph breaks?? Giant blocks of caps locked semi-literate text randomly interspersed with the words "kapish" and "son" don't make for easy reading at the best of times. Thanks.

Tye Fields was 41-1 at 1 time Yeah, but he fought bums only so you've spectacularly missed the point.

Thats because previous Heavyweights of the past actually fought each other. You dont find it strange that Adamek, Haye, Dimentrenko, Boystov, Johnson, Povetkin, Sam Peter, Ibragimov and Chagaev didnt have a single boxing match between them as of a month ago? WTF? In the old days, #3-#10 they would fight amongst themselves before getting a title shot, now all you need is a padded record and a top 20 ranking and you move all the way to Klitschko. The numbers are inflated and the fight records mean nothing. Indeed. This to me is the real problem with today's division, not lack of talent. That, and less than top conditioning. And you can add Solis to that list.

you mean the fight was stopped because of a cut by doctors, i don't think you want the fact known that Vitali was winning on all the judges score cards. So? Did the fight go to the cards? Or, was Vitali unable to continue because of the damage Lewis had done to his face? As straight forward a TKO as they get bro. The only people who dispute it are proven idiots like Tunney, Die Antwoord, Domination and the rest of our very own KKK that troll these parts.

I didn't criticize Dempsey or Braddock or Johnson, per se. But the ERA itself, in general. The good thing was, a contender could fight every few weeks, and probably be facing other Top contenders. And he may never have gotten a Title shot. The bad thing, the Champ, who is making a little more money then the rest, could afford to sit idle for a year straight. And there was nothing to enforce The Champion to fight the # 1 contender. So that #1 contender could end up facing other Top 10 contenders, for years as a result. Those contenders you speak of are a product of their environment. Sugar Ray Robinson would probably wish to be in Today's era, and only fight twice per year, and make 10 million each. He surely didn't like Boxing, as much as today's top fighters do. Meanwhile today's contender works his way up to a Mandatory Position, and the Champion has to face him or get stripped. Therefore the contender doesn't have to wait around, and clean out the entire division just to get a crack at the Title. And the Champion can't wait around 2 years without facing a Contender. The Champion is usually the only one who faces Top 10 guys all the time. The Top 10 guys don't have to wait around for years to get a shot. Especially with more opportunities within the different sanctioning bodies (WBA, WBC, WBO, IBF). In that regard, today's era >>> certain Era's of the past. More opportunities for more fighters, with far less Fights on average. Are they a little more spoiled then fighters of the past? Yes. But that comes with the territory and has nothing to do with ability. And usually, a Fighter today is only gonna have over 100 fights in the Amateurs, not in the Pro's We're going to have to agree to disagree because I don't think we're going to find any common ground on this. More opportunities for more fighters with less fights equals watered down with less experience, which leads to less skill. Mind you Im not saying less talented, they just don't cultivate it today because they don't have to. If they don't have to how can they truly be hungry? I appreciate the flame free posts though, thank you. Gotta get some sleep now but I'll check this thread later.

Nice spin.. to save face.. when originally you painted a picture of his opponent"s..opponents fighting fighters with supposedly losing records.. now we're getting 70% record opposition.. which is respectable for most top level fighters fighting on there way up... so that's not good enough for you... you're embarassing yourself son.. you just got caught in an embarassment & ridickulous post you made earlier.. take the lesson learned with a grain of salt & stop spinning... you were found.. son... go back to the drawing board because all i'm hearing from you this evening is utter & complete nonsense.. come back with better material.. ok! Answer the question, when is 35-15 a respectable record when you have no wins over any type of good competition? Kevin McBride is a perfect example. He's a slow fighter with limited skills, but he has a little name recognition from some nifty promotional work. Spin that.

I told him it was a funny post, but probably dishonest. I didn't bother checking Boxrec for the stats. No world class Fighter's Boxrec is filled with undefeated opponents, who's record is also filled up with winning record, ad infinity. Nothing dishonest about my post or those numbers, Cup. We're talking about the strength of an era, right? Is it better to have a fighter on your resume with mixed wins and losses against upper level competition while not having a perfect record yourself, or a fighter with with mostly nobodies on his record and all losses to any top comp? Personally I think the guy who has been tested and has wins against some quality opponents is better than the guy who has never beaten a fighter with a pulse. Thats just me though and another problem with today division. Those shiny records are misleading and don't always represent true skill and determination.