Comments Thread For: Vitali Klitschko: Chisora Will Be The Challenge I Need

[JAB5239]

The Byrd-Vitali fight was halfway competitive based on punch numbers only. Byrd may have landed almost as many shots as Vitali but his punches had nothing on them, were mostly jabs and he too inactive at first to have considered him being in the fight as far as victory goes. Vitali was injured and Byrd appeared to come on at the end but that was not fatigue, it was just an injury. It happens in boxing. End of story.

The fight was competitive because V couldn't hurt Byrd and missed more punches than ever before or since. Boxing is more than just who lands the harder punches. Defense and ring generalship are just two more things fights are judged on. Your double standard holds no weight, end of story.

[jimmy1569]

Viatli is a better fighter, there's no point in arguing it.

Also, for facts, Vitali held the lineal Ring title prior to Wladimir and didn't lose it in the Ring so Wlad having it now means nothing to me.

For all we know Vitali could have retired just so little brother could take the spotlight for a while. If you notice, he did come back after Wlad had things well in control.

Nice....son....most improved poster goes to you.

[Money Shot]

I think Chisora will be a test for Vitali and an entertaining fight although if he's in the same condition as the Adamek fight I see only one winner: VK.

[Dave Rado]

Viatli is a better fighter, there's no point in arguing it.

And Wlad is the better boxer, is far harder to hit, and has much more one-punch power, no point arguing about that either.

When a top boxer goes against a top fighter, the top boxer usually wins.

And you should learn how to spell "Vitali".

Also, for facts, Vitali held the lineal Ring title prior to Wladimir and didn't lose it in the Ring so Wlad having it now means nothing to me.

Vitali never had the lineal title. The Ring title is not always the same as the lineal title and it wasn't in that instance. John Ruiz had the #2 spot at that time and Vitali had to beat Ruiz to become lineal champ. When the lineal title is vacant, a fight between the #1 and #3 can only be for the lineal championship in circumstances where there are genuinely compelling reasons why a fight between the #1 and #2 cannot possibly be made. There were no such reasons at that time. The Ring broke their own rules when they gave him that belt, but no boxing historians regarded him as the lineal champion.

In any case, when a lineal champion retires, he loses the lineal title, and the only way of regaining it is in the ring. So even if he had been the lineal champ when he retired, which he wasn't, that would be irrelevant now.

For all we know Vitali could have retired just so little brother could take the spotlight for a while. If you notice, he did come back after Wlad had things well in control.

Now you're really clutching at straws.

[Dave Rado]

The fight was competitive because V couldn't hurt Byrd and missed more punches than ever before or since. Boxing is more than just who lands the harder punches. Defense and ring generalship are just two more things fights are judged on. Your double standard holds no weight, end of story.

I agree with you on this one. By their logic, Foreman beat Young.

That said, Vitali did win almost every round in that fight, and deservedly so. But I agree that most of the rounds were competitive, and Byrd even won one or two rounds.

Vitali has improved substantially since then, though - his ring generalship, footwork, and his ability to judge space and distance are far better now, and even though his speed has started to go a little recently, the Vitali of today is still much better than the version who fought Byrd.

[Mr. Invincible]

And Wlad is the better boxer, is far harder to hit, and has much more one-punch power, no point arguing about that either.

When a top boxer goes against a top fighter, the top boxer usually wins.

And you should learn how to spell "Vitali".



Vitali never had the lineal title. The Ring title is not always the same as the lineal title and it wasn't in that instance. John Ruiz had the #2 spot at that time and Vitali had to beat Ruiz to become lineal champ. When the lineal title is vacant, a fight between the #1 and #3 can only be for the lineal championship in circumstances where there are genuinely compelling reasons why a fight between the #1 and #2 cannot possibly be made. There were no such reasons at that time. The Ring broke their own rules when they gave him that belt, but no boxing historians regarded him as the lineal champion.

In any case, when a lineal champion retires, he loses the lineal title, and the only way of regaining it is in the ring. So even if he had been the lineal champ when he retired, which he wasn't, that would be irrelevant now.



Now you're really clutching at straws.

Dave, I normally regard you as a rational poster, now you have started to worry me on this one.

First off, I'm a fan of both Klitschko's and have been probably longer than you have been a boxing fan in general. (since about 1998)

Secondly, as VITALI is my favorite heavyweight and second favorite boxer ever, I'm full well how to spell his name. I don understand that spelling or fat finger errors are another way to try and rationalize some type of even footed comeback, but it's futile here, with me.

Next, you were the one that used lineal as a description for Wlad's status, so I followed suit seeing as how if there were a lineal champ since Lennox, it would have to have been Vitali seeing as how he was clearly beating Lennox before an unfortunate cut and two fights later, mopped the floor with a guy Wladimir was destroyed by in 2 rds. Vitali was awarded the Ring title based on beating Corrie Sanders who ranked as the #2 heavyweight in the world while Vitali was #1.

Lastly, Ring did indeed break rules for Wlad to become their champ by beating Chagaev since the #2 ranked heavyweight was Vitali and they obviously would not fight for that title.

So, based on what I wrote here, who is grasping at the thiner straws?

P.S. Sorry if there is any misspelled words in there.

[Mr. Invincible]

I agree with you on this one. By their logic, Foreman beat Young.

That said, Vitali did win almost every round in that fight, and deservedly so. But I agree that most of the rounds were competitive, and Byrd even won one or two rounds.

Vitali has improved substantially since then, though - his ring generalship, footwork, and his ability to judge space and distance are far better now, and even though his speed has started to go a little recently, the Vitali of today is still much better than the version who fought Byrd.

I definitely agree with this. Today's Vitali is the best version even though he's older. Call it maturity or whatever, but I wouldn't pick anyone in history over him at this stage. Just too good and too big.

[Dave Rado]

First off, I'm a fan of both Klitschko's and have been probably longer than you have been a boxing fan in general. (since about 1998)

Subtract thirty years and you'd be more in the ball park. I was following boxing in the late 60s.

Next, you were the one that used lineal as a description for Wlad's status, so I followed suit seeing as how if there were a lineal champ since Lennox, it would have to have been Vitali seeing as how he was clearly beating Lennox before an unfortunate cut and two fights later, mopped the floor with a guy Wladimir was destroyed by in 2 rds. Vitali was awarded the Ring title based on beating Corrie Sanders who ranked as the #2 heavyweight in the world while Vitali was #1.

You're wrong. Sanders was ranked #3 at that time, as I pointed out in my previous post. That's why no boxing historians regarded Vitali as the lineal champion when he beat Sanders (which you can confirm for yourself if you use google).

However I did mis-remember who was ranked #2 at that time - it was actually Byrd, not Ruiz. See here.

Lastly, Ring did indeed break rules for Wlad to become their champ by beating Chagaev since the #2 ranked heavyweight was Vitali and they obviously would not fight for that title.

No they didn't break any rules in that case. The rule, as I pointed out in my previous post, both in the case of The Ring's title, and in the case of the lineal championship as recognised by boxing historians in general (the two are not always the same thing), is that when the lineal title is vacant, a new champion can be crowned either by a face-off between the #1 and #2, or in exceptional circumstances, where there are genuine reasons why a fight between the #1 and #2 is impossible to make, by a face-off between the #1 and #3. If ever there have been genuine reasons why a fight between the #1 and #2 can't be made, there were such reasons in this case, because no one can expect two brothers to fight each other. That's why not only The Ring but almost every boxing historian has regarded Wlad as the lineal champion since he beat Chagaev.

See here for example.

So, based on what I wrote here, who is grasping at the thiner straws?

What you have demonstrated is that (a) you didn't read my post properly and (b) your knowledge of boxing history in general and of the lineal championship in particular is not very good.

[jimmy1569]

Subtract thirty years and you'd be more in the ball park. I was following boxing in the late 60s.



You're wrong. Sanders was ranked #3 at that time, as I pointed out in my previous post. That's why no boxing historians regarded Vitali as the lineal champion when he beat Sanders (which you can confirm for yourself if you use google).



No they didn't break any rules in that case. The rule, as I pointed out in my previous post, both in the case of The Ring's title, and in the case of the lineal championship as recognised by boxing historians in general (the two are often not the same thing), is that when the lineal title is vacant, a new champion can be crowned either by a face-off between the #1 and #2, or in exceptional circumstances, where there are genuine reasons why a fight between the #1 and #2 is impossible to make, by a face-off between the #1 and #3. If ever there have been genuine reasons why a fight between the #1 and #2 can't be made, there were such reasons in this case, because no one can expect two brothers to fight each other. That's why not only The Ring but almost every boxing historian has regarded Wlad as the lineal champion since he beat Chagaev.



What you have demonstrated is that (a) you didn't read my post properly and (b) your knowledge of boxing history in general and of the lineal championship in particular is not very good.

Lennox relinquished the LAST remaining link to the Lineal title he had when he unified again st Hol.yfield. He gave all 3 belts away rather than face it's eventual successor. He gave up the WBC belt which was the LAST remaining link to the lineage & Sanders & Klitschko fought for it. Vitali WON & therefore was the first to have that last remaining belt that the last lineage holder had. The Wba & Ibf belts Lennox gave away to Ruiz & Byrd were part of that Lineage. The LAST belt held by a Lineage champion is THE last one recognized as the one that continues the Lineage. Vitali EVENTUALLY GOT THAT belt back by beating Peter & This is why he always states proudly before his fights that he's got the belt that Ali. Tyson & Lewis had.

[Alx.]

not taking anything away from del boy, he put a beating on helenius