Vitali's mythical poor resume pt 2

He "trained for a year" not for Lennox, but for title shot regardless of opponent. So he received short notice and get force his training instead of Lennox, who trained in normal order. No he trained for Lennox for a year. And you know he trained for a fight on the undercard of Lennox-Johnson right? Kirk Johnson was paid step aside money by Vitali as he was promised an "easier" fight at the crown afterwards.

Vitali had trained for a year for Lennox Lewis - any one with a sense of knowledge knows this by now. He had initially trained to be on the undercard of the fight. So it's not like he came out of shape. Lennox also took the fight on two weeks notice. He "trained for a year" not for Lennox, but for title shot regardless of opponent. So he received short notice and get force his training instead of Lennox, who trained in normal order.

You said it! Vitali had trained for a year for Lennox Lewis - any one with a sense of knowledge knows this by now. He had initially trained to be on the undercard of the fight. So it's not like he came out of shape. Lennox also took the fight on two weeks notice.

If you want to know just how special Vitali was and is, just watch his fight against Lewis. That fight was taken on 2 weeks notice and until this day I think he would have KO'd Lewis had that fight continued. You said it!

lol at this thread, there are like 50 ppl arguing that Vitaly is a great fighter and 2 (including jab) arguing that he sucks:) just give up already man :wave: I don't think people are saying Vitali sucks, just that his resume isn't ATG material. Which it isn't.

lol at this thread, there are like 50 ppl arguing that Vitaly is a great fighter and 2 (including jab) arguing that he sucks:) just give up already man :wave:

Great post. Well said. That was much more than I cared to elaborate on for them to ignore but I'm glad somebody said it. Anyways, with that said spot on and pretty much summing up this whole thread, this one is pretty much done. When some idiots on here show optimism about Wilder's career thus far and compare it to Vitali Klitschko's, it pretty much reveals where they stand both mentally and on this forum. It's a sad thing. ~The End~ THE END! THE END! THE END!

Please... I didn't duck Deontay Wilder's resume... anyone who gets knocked down by a fat bum out of happy hour is just a glass jaw waiting to shatter. Again examples of inferior fighters & looping them in with Klitschko. Statistics that are garnered at the highest level are valid. Klitschko has been in 17 TITLE fights.. the sooner you realize this... the better the banter will be.... you're NOT winning any debate here.. all you're doing to prove your points is getting cheerleaded on by other's. Vitali Klitschko has been in with the VERY top of the competition.. (that being Lennox Lewis.. who some regard as the best heavy of the past two decades)... so the fact that you keep harping on his lack of competition is laughable. We already KNOW what he's capable of doing against the very best competition.. there's no if's & 's or buts about it. & yes at the very least this fight ended up being a tie.. no one got the better of the other. Lewis got the official W..that's it... that result is the most talked about result on the forums because it left such an incomplete taste in everyone's mouths.. if you watched the fight.. then you know i'm right.. He was cut up against a fat semiretired Lewis... we get it.... but this doesn't take away from the great account of himself he gave in this fight when most of the boxing public thought Lennox was out of his league... we now know that this was the last fight in the heavyweight division between two alltime great heavyweights & that is why it was such a slugfest. I am not cheerleading... i'm stating the facts about his career... what you're doing is diminishing those facts with opinion laden agenda that has no merit... for someone clearly knowledgeable about boxing like you are to have such bias over one of if not the most dominant heavyweight of the past 100 yrs... & yes when we talk head to head & all the haters automatically put him in the top 5 to 10... just proves your agenda. Head to head ratings is a way of stating how dominant Klitschko REALLY has been without actually saying so.. let's see where does Wilder rank in HEAD TO HEAD.. SINCE you so like to equate the two as one & the same. Great post. Well said. That was much more than I cared to elaborate on for them to ignore but I'm glad somebody said it. Anyways, with that said spot on and pretty much summing up this whole thread, this one is pretty much done. When some idiots on here show optimism about Wilder's career thus far and compare it to Vitali Klitschko's, it pretty much reveals where they stand both mentally and on this forum. It's a sad thing. ~The End~

They have poor resumes because they haven't fought each other PROVING they're good fighters. Nobody who know boxing cartes about some paper title, its all about who you beat. Vits best wins are over guys who beat nobodies more often than not. I've proven this beyond a reasonable doubt. Stop cheerleading. If you're going to do that we might as well call Lamar Clark an ATG heavy because he was 43-3(42) with a 91.3% which is better than Vittles. We also might as well brand Deontay Wilder one of the very best of this era based on what he's accomplished thus far. Did you think I wouldn't notice you avoiding that question? Ducking it if you please.. :wave: Please... I didn't duck Deontay Wilder's resume... anyone who gets knocked down by a fat bum out of happy hour is just a glass jaw waiting to shatter. Again examples of inferior fighters & looping them in with Klitschko. Statistics that are garnered at the highest level are valid. Klitschko has been in 17 TITLE fights.. the sooner you realize this... the better the banter will be.... you're NOT winning any debate here.. all you're doing to prove your points is getting cheerleaded on by other's. Vitali Klitschko has been in with the VERY top of the competition.. (that being Lennox Lewis.. who some regard as the best heavy of the past two decades)... so the fact that you keep harping on his lack of competition is laughable. We already KNOW what he's capable of doing against the very best competition.. there's no if's & 's or buts about it. & yes at the very least this fight ended up being a tie.. no one got the better of the other. Lewis got the official W..that's it... that result is the most talked about result on the forums because it left such an incomplete taste in everyone's mouths.. if you watched the fight.. then you know i'm right.. He was cut up against a fat semiretired Lewis... we get it.... but this doesn't take away from the great account of himself he gave in this fight when most of the boxing public thought Lennox was out of his league... we now know that this was the last fight in the heavyweight division between two alltime great heavyweights & that is why it was such a slugfest. I am not cheerleading... i'm stating the facts about his career... what you're doing is diminishing those facts with opinion laden agenda that has no merit... for someone clearly knowledgeable about boxing like you are to have such bias over one of if not the most dominant heavyweight of the past 100 yrs... & yes when we talk head to head & all the haters automatically put him in the top 5 to 10... just proves your agenda. Head to head ratings is a way of stating how dominant Klitschko REALLY has been without actually saying so.. let's see where does Wilder rank in HEAD TO HEAD.. SINCE you so like to equate the two as one & the same.

Wait is the OP saying Vitali's resume is mythical or is he saying it is poor? or both?

Ever notice how the sockpuppet alts always crawl out of the woodwork for these threads? :chuckle9: That fact has not escaped me!

The difference between all these fighters mentioned is that Klitschko is a champion & 3 times over... has double figure title defenses... has been in numerous title fights.. but yeah keep thinking that he's been fighting in some minor league boxing division that hasn't been the heavyweight division.. They have a poor resume because they don't have any belts around there waist.... they've never taken a top 5 great heavy & outboxed him. Klitschko practically has the best stoppage rate & scorecard rate in the entire history of heavyweight championship boxing... that's your resume. They have poor resumes because they haven't fought each other PROVING they're good fighters. Nobody who know boxing cartes about some paper title, its all about who you beat. Vits best wins are over guys who beat nobodies more often than not. I've proven this beyond a reasonable doubt. All that other stuff is just opposition being thoroughly dominated in a fashion never seen before.. what other boxer has EVER outboxed all 47 of his opponents.. outslugged them... outthrown & outlanded them... never once giving an opponent 3 rds in a boxing match...certainly NOT even Mayweather can remotely claim any of the above mentioned... so keep on thinking the opponents sucked instead of realizing how much KLITSCHKO made them suck. Stop cheerleading. If you're going to do that we might as well call Lamar Clark an ATG heavy because he was 43-3(42) with a 91.3% which is better than Vittles. We also might as well brand Deontay Wilder one of the very best of this era based on what he's accomplished thus far. Did you think I wouldn't notice you avoiding that question? Ducking it if you please.. :wave:

My bases is on them never having beaten more than ten top 10 fighters before or after Vits, combined! Its impossible to determine how good a fighter is unless he's fighting other good fighters Anybody can build a glossy record fighting second rate fighters. Take Deontay Wilder for instance He's got a pristine record. Even has a 1st round ko over a former heavyweight titlist. If he retires tomorrow do we call him one of the best from this era? Or do we more accurately say he never fought anyone good to truly evaluate how good he was? Lets not make exceptions because you want Vits comp to be better than they've proven. Were they horrible (LaMar Clark style), no? Do they make for a poor resume though? Hell yes! The difference between all these fighters mentioned is that Klitschko is a champion & 3 times over... has double figure title defenses... has been in numerous title fights.. but yeah keep thinking that he's been fighting in some minor league boxing division that hasn't been the heavyweight division.. They have a poor resume because they don't have any belts around there waist.... they've never taken a top 5 great heavy & outboxed him. Klitschko practically has the best stoppage rate & scorecard rate in the entire history of heavyweight championship boxing... that's your resume. All that other stuff is just opposition being thoroughly dominated in a fashion never seen before.. what other boxer has EVER outboxed all 47 of his opponents.. outslugged them... outthrown & outlanded them... never once giving an opponent 3 rds in a boxing match...certainly NOT even Mayweather can remotely claim any of the above mentioned... so keep on thinking the opponents sucked instead of realizing how much KLITSCHKO made them suck.

Just remember: He's e-hard and will challenge you to a cyber fist-fight here soon :chuckle9: God I hope not. Those guys scare me to death! Personally I think this one is probably getting dialysis about now or taking care of some other ailment.

Just remember: He's e-hard and will challenge you to a cyber fist-fight here soon :chuckle9: :haha::haha:

This is funny watching him duck you :chuckle9: In the immortal words of Joe Louis, "they can run, but they can't hide!"

The thread is about Vitali's resume not being weak at all. Being 15-2 in title fights against mostly top ten ranked contenders is not poor by any means. By you saying that he has the 2nd best resume in the last decade pretty much supports what me and the TS have been saying. That's all that needed to be said really. This thread and many other prove Vits resume is weak. And by saying Vits has the second best resume in a decade at heavyweight whats really being said is the division has sucked. Don't worry about responding, but I'm gonna keep showing you the light!

I don't understand who the vitali fans are trying to convince ... themselves maybe? It would be great if people could simply respect him for what he has done, he has proved to be the second most accomplished fighter of his era (behind his brother) and most agree that head to head he would give anybody in history a hard night. That's my stance and I believe also the stance of MOST of the so called 'haters' here. personally I actually like and respect vits it's the obsessive 'flomo'/pactard' type fans that I have the problem with. Bottom line is his resume is okay but unfortunately there are NO really great or defining wins on it even if you look at tyson whom people regularly shit on resume wise he had defining wins v spinks etc people can point to that and say fuck on that night I don't know who would beat him... I obv think vits would beat the likes of spinks etc but the thing is Tyson DID beat spinks ... Vitali DIDN'T. What's vitali's defining win? one fight that you can point to and say wow he was like a god that night? Vit fans never seem to answer that one question ... as everybody knows his defining fight is a brave but losing effort v lewis. Who could have beaten Vits on the defining night of Vit's career ... well an old out of shape Lewis for one .... they have to bring in the 'IF But Could have might have' shit to get around that. maybe if there had been a rematch against lewis vits 'if but could have might won' ... thing is there WASN'T Maybe if he hadn't been cut up VIA PUNCHES Vits 'if but could have might have won' v lewis ... thing is HE WAS. IF He had fought Haye instead of Wlad Vits 'if but could have might have won' too ... thing is HE DIDN'T If he fought Rachman he 'if but could have might have won'... thing is HE DIDN'T Sure he 'if but could have might have' beaten the past prime Tyson ... thing is HE DIDN'T Sure he 'if but could have might have' beaten Tua ... thing is HE DIDN'T You can't call a guy a top atg based on what he 'if but could have might have' done in the same way you can't give floyd credit for beating pac simply because you think he 'if but could have might have' beaten him. Tyson 'if but could have might have' been the greatest of all time IF Cus hadn't died etc ... the nuthugger arguments are basically 'look at all the nobodies her dominated ... because he beat a load of them he obviously 'if but could have might have' beaten ali... therefore he's clearly the best ever and anybody who doesn't agree is a hater.' The thread is about Vitali's resume not being weak at all. Being 15-2 in title fights against mostly top ten ranked contenders is not poor by any means. By you saying that he has the 2nd best resume in the last decade pretty much supports what me and the TS have been saying. That's all that needed to be said really.

It is what it is, he beat Sanders for the Ring belt, meaning the was the one and only champion. Period. IT'S PART OF THEIR RULES, NOT MINE. THE RESIDENT EXPERT SHOULD BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU. There's no discussion about it. Then Vitali beat the 2nd ranked heavyweight for good measure when he beat Peter apon his return in 2008. He did explain it and why Vits was never the lineal champ. Live with it. Still ignoring the tough questions, huh? :lol1:

vitali klitschko linear champ! haha! that's a good one. you probably think wlad is linear champ because he beat sultan ibragimov lmao! beating the #3 guy in the division who happens to be a complete bum with zero legit wins=linear champ in the klitschko era of "dominance" It is what it is, he beat Sanders for the Ring belt, meaning the was the one and only champion. Period. IT'S PART OF THEIR RULES, NOT MINE. THE RESIDENT EXPERT SHOULD BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU. There's no discussion about it. Then Vitali beat the 2nd ranked heavyweight for good measure when he beat Peter apon his return in 2008.