Vitali's mythical poor resume pt 2

[LacedUp]

Also, many of the past fighters you claim to be 'hw's were cruisers or lhw by today's standards. Fighters were simply smaller in the past, in shape or not.

Also not true. And now you are just piggybacking of someone else's statements, because you couldn't even mention 3 light fighters pre 2000 that were below 200 pounds.

Today though, you have Haye, Byrd, Chambers, Cunningham, Huck, Mormeck, Adamek, Gomes etc etc who have all moved up or down from lower weight classes.

Just shows once again, how little you know.

[Weltschmerz]

Also not true. And now you are just piggybacking of someone else's statements, because you couldn't even mention 3 light fighters pre 2000 that were below 200 pounds.

Today though, you have Haye, Byrd, Chambers, Cunningham, Huck, Mormeck, Adamek, Gomes etc etc who have all moved up or down from lower weight classes.

Just shows once again, how little you know.

eh what...?

Not even sure what you're on about in this post. Must be some good 'shrooms.

[techliam]

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.

Can't you argue similarly for Pablo Hernandez? That surely wasn't a 1 v 2 fight yet Boxingscene still claims a lineage for this guy

Same for Floyd at 147 - even the RING didn't appreciate that fight with Mosley

[bklynboy]

Well of course it is. 'Who beat who', right? It's all about rankings, as if anyone gives a **** about rankings. You can't throw a comparison up like that and claim it to be factual basis for your wicked argument that past eras were so superior. Today's technology and sports science has improved fighters and will continue to do so. Athletes are faster, stronger, and more skilled today.

Are they? Or are we simply valuing this exercise more and looking for, and paying people to compete? Do you think there weren't good Kenyan marathoners 100 years ago? There were. Do you not think there weren't unknown Usain Bolts 100 years ago. Do you realize that Cassius Clay might never have made it to the Olympics due to lack of sponsorship?

Does modern training help in an endeavor like sprinting? Yes. We're focusing on running on a flat, even track with starting blocks and somone going ready, set, go.

Fighting has been going on forever. Boxing has changed from the MMA like London Prize Rules to gloves and wraps. The way judges and refs score a fight has also changed. A Harry Greb would be disqualified so fast in today's world. Andrew Golata might not have been disqualified in 1920.

Humans are not necessarily stronger or faster or have more endurance. We train for a particular activity and fads change. I guarantee you heavyweights of yesteryear had much more endurance than Haye or Arreola. If I'm not mistaken a very big heavyweight, only a few years ago, punched himself out against a lesser opponent and was then himself KOed. When he came into the ring WK looked to be in great shape but obviously his endurance was not up to standard in that fight as Brewster knocked him out in the 5th round when Wlad could barely stand.

If what you say is correct then pose yourself this question: who would win between the best MMA and the best Spartans (or gladiators, or samurais).

Let's say we *knew* who the best 128 MMA professionals were and ranked them. Then we *knew* who the best 128 Spartan warriors were. Then we magically had them fight each other (give the Spartans 180 days to learn MMA rules). Who would win? According to you the MMA professionals would dominate as humans have evolved, are stronger, faster, smarter, better endurance, better x,y,z.

I think the Spartans, the gladiators, the samurais, the whatever from way-back-when would more than hold their own. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the FINAL 16 were all Spartans.

[bklynboy]

Which fighters exactly are we talking about here? Who are faster,stronger and more skilled? Are the Klitschko's faster or more skilled than Mike Tyson, Larry Holmes or Muhammad Ali? No. Are the Chris Arreola's, Chagaev's, Chambers', Povetkins', Haye's, faster,stronger more skilled than the Frazier's, Foreman's, Norton', Lyle's, Shavers's etc? No.

So stop talking nonsense. You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

This is a 70's fighter without your sports nutrition and technology



This is a current fighter with all the sports nutrition and technology:

Thank you. Imagine how much better Areolla would be if he came in at the same body fat and conditioning as Ken Norton.

[Weltschmerz]

Are they? Or are we simply valuing this exercise more and looking for, and paying people to compete? Do you think there weren't good Kenyan marathoners 100 years ago? There were. Do you not think there weren't unknown Usain Bolts 100 years ago. Do you realize that Cassius Clay might never have made it to the Olympics due to lack of sponsorship?

Does modern training help in an endeavor like sprinting? Yes. We're focusing on running on a flat, even track with starting blocks and somone going ready, set, go.

Fighting has been going on forever. Boxing has changed from the MMA like London Prize Rules to gloves and wraps. The way judges and refs score a fight has also changed. A Harry Greb would be disqualified so fast in today's world. Andrew Golata might not have been disqualified in 1920.

Humans are not necessarily stronger or faster or have more endurance. We train for a particular activity and fads change. I guarantee you heavyweights of yesteryear had much more endurance than Haye or Arreola. If I'm not mistaken a very big heavyweight, only a few years ago, punched himself out against a lesser opponent and was then himself KOed. When he came into the ring WK looked to be in great shape but obviously his endurance was not up to standard in that fight as Brewster knocked him out in the 5th round when Wlad could barely stand.

If what you say is correct then pose yourself this question: who would win between the best MMA and the best Spartans (or gladiators, or samurais).

Let's say we *knew* who the best 128 MMA professionals were and ranked them. Then we *knew* who the best 128 Spartan warriors were. Then we magically had them fight each other (give the Spartans 180 days to learn MMA rules). Who would win? According to you the MMA professionals would dominate as humans have evolved, are stronger, faster, smarter, better endurance, better x,y,z.

I think the Spartans, the gladiators, the samurais, the whatever from way-back-when would more than hold their own. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the FINAL 16 were all Spartans.

If the Spartan guys brought their spears and horses and helmets, they might come out victorious.

[crold1]

Can't you argue similarly for Pablo Hernandez? That surely wasn't a 1 v 2 fight yet Boxingscene still claims a lineage for this guy

Same for Floyd at 147 - even the RING didn't appreciate that fight with Mosley

I don't recognize it because of Ring. I had them 1-2 going into that fight in the site ratings. Mosley was rated 1 here and faced the last unbeaten lineal champ and lost. That was enough IMO to resume reign. both of those lineages can be disputed. I think they are both better cases than Vitali moving from 4 to 1 off beating an unrated fighter. That was manipulated IMO.

There is historical precedence for something akin to May-Mosley recognition here. Most historians who follow this stuff mark the beginning of the lineal reign of Larry Holmes at his fight with Ali. He was the number one guy fighting the out-of-retirement last lineal champ of the class (who had retired with the title). If Ali had won, despite being on the shelf for a couple years, he would have resumed the champion's space.

CBZ recognizes the lineage as starting at Mosley-Margarito given that, with Williams off to 154, that process of elimination between Cotto, Marg, and Mosley was a pretty strong case. I simply felt beating Margarito kept Mosley #1 until the Floyd fight.

Had Vitali followed his win over Sanders with a revenge win over Byrd, there would be no dispute on his case for lineage. Instead, you had a guy with NO wins over Ring rated fighters against a guy with one (Sanders) in a division with guys who faced consistently tougher comp than either and more wins over rated guys. Do I think any of the guys in the top ten of 2003 beat Vitali?

Nope.

That's not the same as actually beating them.

[Weltschmerz]

Thank you. Imagine how much better Areolla would be if he came in at the same body fat and conditioning as Ken Norton.

Arreola is obviously a terrible example. He doesn't have the genetics to look like an Adonis in the first place. He was actually 'in shape' for his last fight with Mitchell



This as good looking physique you'll get with Cristobal.

[bklynboy]

If the Spartan guys brought their spears and horses and helmets, they might come out victorious.

OK. I think guys training to fight to the death since childhood; being battle-tested just might do a little better than you think.

[LacedUp]

eh what...?

Not even sure what you're on about in this post. Must be some good 'shrooms.

You claimed that many of the fighters in previous eras were lighter than the heavyweight limit - which is not true. A few of them were, just as a few of the current era, like the ones I mentioned also have fought below the heavyweight limit of 200 pounds.

So what makes it different from previous eras?