Vitali's mythical poor resume pt 2

[bklynboy]

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.

Well said.

[Boxing Goat]

Well, résumé is about who you beat, and he didn't beat the two best fighters on that list, Byrd and Lewis so they're off.

It's a lot different when they're gone. Atrocious for someone people often call a top ten great. Either way, its absurdly weak for a guy that his fans like to call the greatest and most dominant heavyweight ever. I can guarantee with complete certainty that you will not find anyone else in boxing that is called the 'most dominant *insert division* ever' and an ATG with such a poor record. No other division, and no other group of people are so adamant.

If that was anyone else's record, you would be laughed out of town for suggesting that this is the record of the most dominant heavyweight in the history of boxing. However, it seems like a lot of deluded fans flock to the Vitali bandwagon.

He's a good fighter and champion, but his record/resume is really ****. Most experts rank him highly inspite of his record, not because of it.

First off, I never said he is an ATG based on his resume. It's hard to be with the time he took off. To me he is an ATG when it comes to how he would fare against other all time greats and the top fighters in the division during his era. He is as dominant as any heavyweight. He crushes his foes one sidedly and scarcely loses a round. That says it all really.

That said, he lost to Byrd by a fluke injury only and Lewis to another bad circumstance. Both while beating them.

You know this and so do I so don't act coy. It's not making you seem too bright in lieu of your well thought out and displayed response to my previous post.

[Boxing Goat]

Yes I did. I saw you completely discredit Lamon Brewster in his victory over Wladimir, which I quoted.

And btw, instead of talking around the subject, are you going to provide evidence that Solis, Hide, Williams and Chisora were ranked top 10 when Vitali fought them? You accused me of lacking research, so I presume you must have done something on your own.

Oh, and by the way, Vitali's list of wins against top 10 opponents has just been cut to a mere 6 in a 47 fight career.

1) Arreola
2) Gomes
3) Adamek
4) K Johnson
5) Sanders
6) Peter

I guess that's the stuff legends are made of. To compare, Haye is scheduled to win his #5 top 10 opponent in just 28 fights.

Interesting.

OK, then I will play your narrow minded game.

PROVE to me and everyone else whos reading this that those fighters were not ranked in the Ring top ten ever while taking into account that Ring updates it rankings weekly online and monthly in the actual magazine.

PROVE it or shut the **** up.

[Boxing Goat]

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.

Poor compared to what exactly?

He has the 6th most heavyweight title defenses of all time and would be in 3rd in that catagory had he not retired.

This was defenses against mostly top ten opposition including a KO1 vs an olympic gold medalist in his prime.

That's not weak by any stretch. You're deluded.

[Boxing Goat]

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.

You do realize that a still maturing Wladimir stopped Ray Mercer right?

[Grimmer]

Poor compared to what exactly?

He has the 6th most heavyweight title defenses of all time and would be in 3rd in that catagory had he not retired.

This was defenses against mostly top ten opposition including a KO1 vs an olympic gold medalist in his prime.

That's not weak by any stretch. You're deluded.

Shame it's a paper belt and not the true heavyweight championship of the world.

So by comparison, he's quite far off the others.

[Boxing Goat]

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.

No props for winning against and ATG like LL? Pleeease.

[BattlingNelson]

Shame it's a paper belt and not the true heavyweight championship of the world.

So by comparison, he's quite far off the others.

What does it take to be a 'true' champion?

[LacedUp]

OK, then I will play your narrow minded game.

PROVE to me and everyone else whos reading this that those fighters were not ranked in the Ring top ten ever while taking into account that Ring updates it rankings weekly online and monthly in the actual magazine.

PROVE it or shut the **** up.

Lol. You claimed that they were top 10, I did not. I provided you evidence that they were not top 10 in the annual rankings, and now you also want me to prove that they weren't top 10, even though you were the one who claimed I hadn't done research AND they were top 10.

Since you must have done the research, I'm sure you can jus find your notes and show us they were top ten. Otherwise you are just shelling out baseless nonsense in order to elevate his resume to a place that it shouldn't belong.

As always I'll wait for your proof..

[bklynboy]

You do realize that a still maturing Wladimir stopped Ray Mercer right?

Yes. Not nitpicking or nothing as a that was a dominating win by WK but the Mercer he fought was around 40 and not the same as he was in the mid 90s.

It was a good win for Wlad (not Vitali) as Wlad did what an up-and-coming fighter is supposed to do - and that is to dominate an old-guard gate keeper. If WK had trouble with Mercer we all would be pointing to that fight.

The original post was that the 1990s had far better competition than what exists today. F**k it - Tyson Fury is considered a TOP 5 boxer. What's up with that? I like the guy, and his skills have vastly improved over the past 3 years but still. If that doesn't show the level of competition at the heavyweight level today ... what does?