Vitali's mythical poor resume pt 2

[JAB5239]

This is one of the best examples of the complete delusion of some fans. A 40 year old former champ and top fighter, now a shot veteran loses and because you can find examples of some heavyweights at 40 still being reasonably good, Wladimir beat a still excellent version because Mercer should have still been good at 40.

He wasn't, and you yourself imply that, but because he should have been, and maybe could have been if he'd lived a Hopkinsesque lifestyle, Wlad should get props for beating a top version?

It's Mercers fault that Wlad beat an old, shot version. Mercer should have been younger, better, still going strong at 40. After all, Vitali could still beat guys at 40. That means Mercer was still good.



I've seen it all now.

You're dealing with a nuthugging, delusional imbecile. Just have fin with it....

[crold1]

The sharkey era, right?

Yes, that one.

[crold1]

Jab: you can make a case the lowest single point was after Marciano's retirement. The space between he and the rise of Liston...there were some decent guys but the top tens for a year or two. It was rough.

[Boxing Goat]

Don't fall under a truck whilst riding your motorbike. You are a valued member here and we would all miss you terribly.

Hey man, thanks for your concern. Don't get poisoning drinking from the well you and your tribe share either.

[Boxing Goat]

I'm not saying Tunney would have won. But he was a great boxer. If he came to this time he may have put on weight. Maybe not.

He was taller than Mike Tyson and was tailoring his style on beating Jack Dempsey. (The Mike Tyson of his era.) He was a master technician with excellent D, able to slip punches and counter them (think of Hopkins). Would VK or WK's size be an advantage? You bet it would. Does it mean that they would have an easy time taking out Tunney. I don't think so.

Tunney was a very smart man. If he felt he had to beef up to 205 to be able to survive the clinches then he would have. But I wouldn't be surprised to see the rope-a-dope in action here (even if Tunney didn't have the advantage of seeing Ali-Foreman).

Again, I'm not saying that Tunney would win. I'm definitely not saying he's favored to win - only that it would not be an easy fight. Tunney was a master technician and should not be discounted.

Look, I'm a big supporter of Tunney even though I know for fact that Dempsey knocked him out. I just can't see any way he can outbox either Klitschko seeing as how neither has really been outboxed technically, and I sure can't see him withstanding even them throwing at half power being out weighed by 70 lbs. He stands less chance than Charr did against Vitali.

[Boxing Goat]

Nope, I was right. In the Oct. 99 issue of Ring, through the ratings period of 6/13/99, the Heavy top ten was:

Lewis
Holy
Ibeabuchi
Grant
Tyson
Tua
Golota
Rahman
Byrd
Briggs

Klitschko ko'd Hide two weeks into the next ratings period. Hide unrated (as he should have been. The WBO belt at heavy meant NOTHING at that point and Hide's big win after the Bowe loss was the ancient Tony Tucker.

Fast forward to the April 2004 issue of Ring, ratings period through 12/03/2003. The top ten was:

Byrd
Sanders
Jones
Vitali
Toney
Tua
Rahman
Wlad
Oquendo
Tyson

Johnson...not rated. Makes sense. After he lost to Ruiz, he did nada while Oquendo got a little jobbed against Byrd, Jones beat Ruiz, and Toney beat Holy.

The following month, for beating a Kirk Johnson who came in a big breasted 260 (17 lbs. over his previous fight), Ring elevated Vitali to #1. Then they sanctioned Vitali-Sanders as a 1-3 fight for their belt. It was, in a word, manufactured. As hell. He hopped Sanders, who actually HAD a win over a top ten fighter in their current ratings (Wlad). Even more funny, one week after Johnson, John Ruiz (who had been top ten before Jones) beats Rahman, Ring's #7, and would go on to beat the rated Oquendo by KO before Klit-Sanders went down. Ruiz beat Johnson when he was rated too.

Clearly, actually beating guys in Ring's ratings was irrelevant where Vitali was concerned. It was the sort of machine move Ring used to RAIL on sanctioning bodies for making.

Vitali was NEVER lineal champion and I wrote about it at a site called Hardcore Boxing at the time. It was absurd. Like most people who want to argue him one of the top ten all time, Ring's move was based more on what might be than what was. When Vitali got hurt and kept postponing Rahman, his Ring belt was ultimately the biggest example people pointed to of Ring not being an answer. Their own staff at the time will say in retrospect it was not good for their credibility that it looked like a guess and then he couldn't go later.

Here you go and read it carefully:

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

Experts > You.

Stop trying to rewrite history. Vitali was Ring champ. That's lineage since Lewis retired.

Learn it. Understand it. Accept it. Embrace it.

[Boxing Goat]

This is one of the best examples of the complete delusion of some fans. A 40 year old former champ and top fighter, now a shot veteran loses and because you can find examples of some heavyweights at 40 still being reasonably good, Wladimir beat a still excellent version because Mercer should have still been good at 40.

He wasn't, and you yourself imply that, but because he should have been, and maybe could have been if he'd lived a Hopkinsesque lifestyle, Wlad should get props for beating a top version?

It's Mercers fault that Wlad beat an old, shot version. Mercer should have been younger, better, still going strong at 40. After all, Vitali could still beat guys at 40. That means Mercer was still good.



I've seen it all now.

You have seen it all have you? Do Vitali Klitschko and George Foreman ring a bell dip****?

Or are you just willing to admit that they were an exception to the rule?

Or even, that the current title run Vitali is on at 42 years of age, is somewhat unprecedented?

That can't be can it, can it?

[crold1]

Here you go and read it carefully:

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

Experts > You.

Stop trying to rewrite history. Vitali was Ring champ. That's lineage since Lewis retired.

Learn it. Understand it. Accept it. Embrace it.

Lol I was on their panel for years later on. CBZ tracks lineage too. He ain't on it. Boxrec keeps a comprehensive list in their encyclopedia. He ain't on that either. The facts of how that vacancy were filled are what they are. They're not really disputable. They're a few posts back.

Even note the copy on the ESPN link. It says many concluded lineage reestablished. Who was many? Many was basically Ring. Most agreed Vitali looked like the best in class. One win over a top ten guy was a start, not a coronation.

And Ring has not been, since they started handing out titles again in the early 2000s, strictly lineage with many pointing that out. I was one of the louder. It took over a decade for them to catch up to their arrogant refusal to recognize lines that were never broken. Feather ultimately ended up as it should have been early on. Flyweight remains unbroken going back to the mid-70s and they would not recognize it for years. It was pedantic garbage. Said it might confuse people or some crap. Lineage is lineage.

It's reestablishment is sometimes not universal and takes time to become so. Vitali's claim was NEVER universally recognized and I don't care what ESPN has on a page.

When it comes to things like lineages, who fought who, etc., the equation you're looking for is:

Experts = Me. I'm not THE expert.

I ain't bad either.

I have plenty of weaknesses as a writer and analyst. That really isn't one.

[Boxing Goat]

Lol I was on their panel for years. CBZ tracks lineage too. He ain't on it. Boxrec keeps a comprehensive list in their encyclopedia. He ain't on that either. The facts of how that vacancy were filled are what they are. Even note the copy on the link. It says many concluded lineage reestablished. Many was basically Ring.

Now I see you are a liar and can't read in addition to knowing you were already ******.

ESPN would never hire somebody so ignorantly bias.

I will leave you alone but not before you see this link since you prefer the site.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:730091

Read carefully now. And if that didn't do it, maybe this will..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Ring_world_champions#Heavyweight

Just look at the rules 1st and then #28 under the Ring heavyweight champion section.

If that doesn't do it for you, I guess we have failed you as a society.

[crold1]

Now I see you are a liar and can't read in addition to knowing you were already ******.

ESPN would never hire somebody so ignorantly bias.

I will leave you alone but not before you see this link since you prefer the site.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:730091

Read carefully now. And if that didn't do it, maybe this will..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Ring_world_champions#Heavyweight

Just look at the rules 1st and then #28 under the Ring heavyweight champion section.

If that doesn't do it for you, I guess we have failed you as a society.

I was on RING's panel for years. ESPN doesn't have a panel.

Here's the BoxRec list of LINEAL Heavyweight Champions...who's missing:

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Wo...eight_Champion

Here's CBZ's, still the best histoical website for boxing online:

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/achamp.htm

I don't need you to give me a link to Ring champs. That is, again, a fact. It is also a fact that Ring has not always been a good source for lineage since they started handing out belts again. I would argue, as many have and did, that they were wrong to go with a 1-3 fight in that case, especially when 1 had never beaten a single fighter rated in their top ten at the time he beat them.

Vitali was never the lineal champ. Ring just wanted him to be.