Vitali's mythical poor resume pt 2

[BattlingNelson]

So he won the heavyweight championship of the world and defended it once and against Danny Williams? And this makes him an ATG?

Did I say that?

No. You however, said that Vitali was never 'the man' and never a 'true' champion. You wont say that anymore right?

[Boxing Goat]

Mercer was in his prime in '90-'94. Big props to Wlad!!

Okay then, I didn't know you were the authority on when a fighter was prime. That means Lennox Lewis almost lost to a past prime Mercer. Glad you agree.

Back to reality, Mercer was 40 but still a good fighter and was on a good winning streak when Wladimir pummelled him to be the 1st to ever stop the gold medalist.

Your plight is weak like you are.

[bklynboy]

You are nitpicking by saying that Mercer was better when Wladimir himself destroyed him at a time when Vitali was killing the guys that knocked Wladimir out.

Yea Mercer was older but as you say, 40 is not that over the hill for a heavyweight dedicated to their craft.

Wladimir and Vitali would have beaten any version of him too.

I think that Mercer was far better in the mid 1990s around 30 years old than when he was 40. Some fighters peak early such as an Arturo Gatti and Mike Tyson. (Either cause of style, injury, drugs/lifestyle, mental instability, whatever) Others have a much longer prime (Roy Jones) until age finally takes away their other-worldly reflexes; and still others such as Hopkins use guile to extend their career even further

Mercer was a gate-keeper when he fought WK. He was no longer a contender to the heavyweight crown.

The post that started this was in comparing the contenders during the 1990s with the contenders today - not 2004 or whenever WK and Mercer fought. (Just checked boxrec it was 2002).

WK has good wins. I'm not knocking him. But - the thread is about how good VKs resume is.

[LacedUp]

Okay then, I didn't know you were the authority on when a fighter was prime. That means Lennox Lewis almost lost to a past prime Mercer. Glad you agree.

Back to reality, Mercer was 40 but still a good fighter and was on a good winning streak when Wladimir pummelled him to be the 1st to ever stop the gold medalist.

Your plight is weak like you are.

Dude, don't even try and challenge me on Ray Mercer, I know you weren't around to watch him.

Yes, LL had a war with a Mercer, who many at the time, actually thought was getting older. He wasn't as old as he was vs Wlad of course, but not as good as he was when he faced Holmes in '92.

And I know you are just looking at his record because you probably wasn't born at the time, but after fighting Lennox he went on the biggest journeyman run since Rid**** Bowe won the title. Beaten those guys did nothing for him when he fought Wladimir.

[Boxing Goat]

I've given him props in this thread for that. I had him easily ahead in that fight before it was stopped. Props for taking LL to the limit. I think VK would have won that fight if not for the cut. (But the cut did happen.) I think that VK would be favored in the rematch. (But the rematch didn't happen.)

Now what? We know from both the Byrd and LL fight that VK had talent; and was competitive at the top level. But.... unfortunately his resume doesn't push him into ATG status.

That's fine, if one is only considered an ATG based on resume's, there are tons of them who simply don't measure up I'm afraid.

My point is not that he has the best resume', it what the thread is about saying that he doesn't have a weak resume, by any stretch.

He's fought and beaten mostly top ten ranked opposition in his title reigns.

That's all he can do.

That's all I've said in here. That's the point in a nutshell.

[LacedUp]

That's fine, if one is only considered an ATG based on resume's, there are tons of them who simply don't measure up I'm afraid.

My point is not that he has the best resume', it what the thread is about saying that he doesn't have a weak resume, by any stretch.

He's fought and beaten mostly top ten ranked opposition in his title reigns.

That's all he can do.

That's all I've said in here. That's the point in a nutshell.

If 6 out of 47 fights is beaten mostly top ten ranked opponents then you're right.

[Guest]

I don't doubt that Derek Chisora was an established top 10 fighter, even though he only had 16 fights or so with two losses against nobodies (at the time, Helenius still), if you SAW it.

I'm no major Chisel fan, but it's widely accepted his ranking improved as a direct result of the Helenius loss (who had been on a KO run of decent comp for a low level, including Sam Peter, who I admit is crap but went in with both Klits) which many said he robbed over.

To put the Helenius fight down as a "loss" is harsh.... also, he had **** when he fought Tyson Fury.

[Boxing Goat]

The belt means nothing when the champ doesn't hold it. That's the beauty of lineage, it ignores politics and follows the actual champion until he loses/moves up or retires.

The IBO belt at heavyweight currently means more than the WBC belt as to win the IBO you'd have to beat Wlad who is currently the number 1 ranked heavyweight, if not champion in some people's eyes. After he beats Povetkin, there will be no dispute, Wlad will be the heavyweight champ, he could relinquish all of his belts, everyone would still know who the heavyweight champion is.

At super middleweight Sakio Bika holds the WBC belt, but is he considered to be the man to beat at 168? Or is it still Andre Ward?

That would make sense but you are ignoring the fact that Vitali was the one who would technically carry lineage.

He beat Corrie Sanders to win the lineal right to the title and never lost it in the ring. He returned in 2008 and Wladimir only won the Ring belt when he beat Chagaev in 2009.

Vitali technically should have got the belt back when he returned.

Therefore= Vitali is really the lineal champ whether you like it or ****ing not.

Want proof? Here ya go......

http://espn.go.com/sports/boxing/fea...onship-lineage

[Grimmer]

Did I say that?

No. You however, said that Vitali was never 'the man' and never a 'true' champion. You wont say that anymore right?

I will. Sanders hadn't fought in over a year and was unranked when Vitali beat him. Which doesn't marry up with the 1 v 2 rule to create a lineage. Byrd and Jones Jr were active and both had a claim to the number two spot.

I agree though that it's a hard consensus to adhere to. But it's the only method that's not corruptible.

With Wlad v Povetkin you clearly has the two best ranked heavyweights going head to head.

We will have a champion once again. (Chagaev and Haye weren't ranked number two)

[LacedUp]

I'm no major Chisel fan, but it's widely accepted his ranking improved as a direct result of the Helenius loss (who had been on a KO run of decent comp for a low level, including Sam Peter, who I admit is crap but went in with both Klits) which many said he robbed over.

To put the Helenius fight down as a "loss" is harsh.... also, he had **** when he fought Tyson Fury.

I completely agree that he was robbed against Helenius. That doesn't change the fact that he was NOT ranked in the top 10 by ring magazine at the time of the fight which I showed in the link I sent a couple of posts ago.

Vitali has beaten 6 top 10 fighters in his 47 career.