Vitali's mythical poor resume pt 2

[LacedUp]

It depends on how you define an ATG...For me it's a mix of resume, how he would do h2h against other ATGs and level of dominance. He's resume is not the best, I can agree with that but again he was injured for 4 years ..

H2H he would do great against other ATGs, and would beat most of them IMO. The only guys I would favour against Vitali is Ali and Lewis.

His level of dominance is unquestionable.

In my book he's almost an ATG he only needs one "big" win. That's why I still want him to fight and KO that clown Haye.

How can Haye be a clown and a big enough win to define Vitali as an ATG at the same time?

[Weltschmerz]

While I favor Vits highly h2h there is no accurate way to be sure of anything. And leaving out the 4 years he retired he still missed 24 top 10 fighters. His dominance has come at the expense of mostly second rate opposition. And While I think he can compete in any era and with most fighters in history I don't think its justifiable putting him ahead of fighters who fought and beat the higher standards of their times.

Just a subjective assumption. You don't believe in H2H comparison when defining ATG, but you say the contenders of the past were stronger than today's contenders. Pure bias with no factual basis.

[The Big Dunn]

Oh yeah? By who? Ken Norton? Sonny Banks? Henry Cooper?

Holmes, foreman, norton. Yes i think they would. But of course thats just my opinion.

What isn't an opinion is vitali's resume. Its poor.

Despite not having defeated any decent hwt, Vitali will get into the HOF.

Lets see if all you Klit lovers defend Deontay Wilder's trash resume and KO% in the future.

[bklynboy]

Just a subjective assumption. You don't believe in H2H comparison when defining ATG, but you say the contenders of the past were stronger than today's contenders. Pure bias with no factual basis.

There's film. I look at Ray Mercer, for instance, and think that he is better than any heavyweight not named Klitschko for the past 5+ years. Better than Adamek, Pulev, Chiroso, Arreola, Povetkin, Stiverne, Solis. I think he and David Haye would have had a war. (Although I'm not sure that Haye would take the fight.)

Now Ray Mercer was not the best heavy of the 1990s. Rid**** Bowe, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield were there as well.

Let's go further back. I think Ken Norton and Ron Lyle would steam role through this era's contenders. I think VK could beat Norton. It would be a good fight and I think VK would be in a hell-of-a-fight with Ron Lyle.

We have film on these guys. We see how they fought. It's not like we're looking at grainy, jerky movies shot at 16 fps.

[Weltschmerz]

There's film. I look at Ray Mercer, for instance, and think that he is better than any heavyweight not named Klitschko for the past 5+ years. Better than Adamek, Pulev, Chiroso, Arreola, Povetkin, Stiverne, Solis. I think he and David Haye would have had a war. (Although I'm not sure that Haye would take the fight.)

Now Ray Mercer was not the best heavy of the 1990s. Rid**** Bowe, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield were there as well.

Let's go further back. I think Ken Norton and Ron Lyle would steam role through this era's contenders. I think VK could beat Norton. It would be a good fight and I think VK would be in a hell-of-a-fight with Ron Lyle.

We have film on these guys. We see how they fought. It's not like we're looking at grainy, jerky movies shot at 16 fps.

Fantasy match ups are always interesting - and they will be just that. My point is that these anti-Klitschko guys keep bringing up today's 'weak hw era' (say, since Lewis retired), when at the same time you can flip the coin and ask the question: Are the K bros just that superior? They make their opposition look weaker through their dominance and class. I take Vitali's layoff into consideration here, as he would have been prime at that time. His domination is the more impressive,as he had both a 'pre-prime' and 'post-prime' run.

[BattlingNelson]

i've looked into it and found nothing. You've provided nothing. But hey just to make you feel better.....i retract whatever statement hurt bats feelings.

We cool now?

Good. So now we know it was just some random assumption you pulled out of your ass.

Yeah. We cool.

[BattlingNelson]

Just a subjective assumption. You don't believe in H2H comparison when defining ATG, but you say the contenders of the past were stronger than today's contenders. Pure bias with no factual basis.

Not bad. Actually that's an excellent point you just made.

[bklynboy]

Fantasy match ups are always interesting - and they will be just that. My point is that these anti-Klitschko guys keep bringing up today's 'weak hw era' (say, since Lewis retired), when at the same time you can flip the coin and ask the question: Are the K bros just that superior? They make their opposition look weaker through their dominance and class. I take Vitali's layoff into consideration here, as he would have been prime at that time. His domination is the more impressive,as he had both a 'pre-prime' and 'post-prime' run.

I think that today's crop of contenders is poor. The weakest in a very long time. VK and WK have been dominating them. Good for them.

The point is not "Is VK among the best heavys?" He is. The question is: "Does his resume place him among the ATGs?" My answer is no. And I like VK. But he lost to LL. It's not VK's fault that there was no rematch - but there wasn't. It was VK's fault to pull out of the Byrd fight. I think he should have gutted it out, protected his arm, and lost the last three rounds. He still would have won the fight.

Ultimately - he didn't fight enough quality fighters. Props, though, have to be given to VK though for the Byrd fight as VK dominated a fairly good fighter.

[BattlingNelson]

I think that today's crop of contenders is poor. The weakest in a very long time. VK and WK have been dominating them. Good for them.

The point is not "Is VK among the best heavys?" He is. The question is: "Does his resume place him among the ATGs?" My answer is no. And I like VK. But he lost to LL. It's not VK's fault that there was no rematch - but there wasn't. It was VK's fault to pull out of the Byrd fight. I think he should have gutted it out, protected his arm, and lost the last three rounds. He still would have won the fight.

Ultimately - he didn't fight enough quality fighters. Props, though, have to be given to VK though for the Byrd fight as VK dominated a fairly good fighter.

Agreed and well put.

[LacedUp]

Just a subjective assumption. You don't believe in H2H comparison when defining ATG, but you say the contenders of the past were stronger than today's contenders. Pure bias with no factual basis.

Decent and cleverly put, for once I may add.

I have never taken H2H into consideration - and the reason this HW era is poor is based on the skills, head movement, resumes, footwork, boxing schooling etc. Today we have TT a top 10 heavyweight who started boxing beyond age 20! That says something. And it's not the Klitschko's that are poor, it's their competition.

Guys like Chagaev, Pulev, Povetkin, Thompson, Stiverne, Arreola, Byrd etc etc would be equal to the Franc Bothas and Julius Francis' in the 90's. Because they simply don't have the pedigree to be at that level. At the same time, it's very very rare that these guys actually fight each other! Which is the horrible thing.

I believe both Klitschko's would have competed in any era. Whether or not they'd be champions is irrelevant, but they wouldn't be out of their depth in other eras. The contenders would.

So whilst the Klitschko's are great for their time, you can't define them as ATGs based on the fact they would have beaten a Foreman, an Ali, a Liston or a Lewis. Because they didn't. All of the ATGs have had dance partners.

Ali had Liston, Foreman, Norton, Frazier etc.
Lewis had Bowe, Tyson, Bruno, Holyfield,

The Klitschko's have... David Haye? Who I like, but his best win is a 7'2 oaf of a man with ZERO boxing skills.