Vitali's mythical poor resume pt 2

[LacedUp]

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.

OK well please give us an example of genuine top 10 contenders from the previous eras who are less skilled, not as strong and more out of shape than some of the genuine top 10 contenders from this era.

I mean, you must have done your research on this since you make such a bold claim, unless you were just spouting out ignorance to elevate the era of your favourite fighter?

I wonder..

[bklynboy]

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.

Probably correct. (that this is the best shape Arreola will ever be in)

Do you think that the shape he's in would allow him to last 15 rounds with Dempsey or Louis? Or do you think losing another 15-20 pounds making him quicker on his feet (good both for offense and defense) might be a good idea? Do you think greater endurance, more agility, better ability to slip punches would help or hurt? Do you think the extra fat helps his punching power?

It helps in the clinches. It will help to a modest degree in taking body shots but aside from that - he needs to lose some weight and get in better shape. (In my opinion of course)

[techliam]

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.

Interesting. I agree re: Vitali. For me, I was under the impression that lineages are there to not be disputed - this is the man who beat the man. When you have disputed lineages, as with Hernandez/Mayweather, it seems like some of it's shine is lost. I see the precedent of former champion vs no.1, but at the time of Ali/Holmes, was there a strong claim to the throne, like Pacquiao was to Mosley/Mayweather?

[Weltschmerz]

OK well please give us an example of genuine top 10 contenders from the previous eras who are less skilled, not as strong and more out of shape than some of the genuine top 10 contenders from this era.

I mean, you must have done your research on this since you make such a bold claim, unless you were just spouting out ignorance to elevate the era of your favourite fighter?

I wonder..

I said faster, stronger, more skilled.

I wasn't talking about BMI index. It's not decisive for whether you're a good hw anyway. Extra weight can be an advantage.

[crold1]

Interesting. I agree re: Vitali. For me, I was under the impression that lineages are there to not be disputed - this is the man who beat the man. When you have disputed lineages, as with Hernandez/Mayweather, it seems like some of it's shine is lost. I see the precedent of former champion vs no.1, but at the time of Ali/Holmes, was there a strong claim to the throne, like Pacquiao was to Mosley/Mayweather?

No. There was Mike Weaver who had lost to Holmes. That's a valid point. Pac made a good case for himself with the Cotto win and then Clottey. It wasn't better than Mosley's case for walking through the most consistent presence in the top ten for most of a decade, Margarito, after Tony's win over Cotto and previous win over Clottey.

In the case of Hernandez, I followed the 1-2 here at the time. Huck had a strong claim as part of the mix as well, but also had a very disputed win over Lebedev. Cunningham was a pretty firm 1 before the two scraps with Pablo; Hernandez got two wins over him, the second clean as a sheet (which is where I think the lineage starts). I have no issue recognizing him as the champ.

In the case of Vitali, I don't think he had a case to be even the number one contender until after Sanders. I don't know how you get to #1 without beating a top contender. Yes, he gave Lewis hell, but he lost. Yes he was leading over Byrd, but he lost. I think he needed one more win; many others agree. It ultimately doesn't matter because injury put him out before there could be resolution. If one wants to recognize that cup of coffee run before injury as lineal, it ain't shaking the Earth. He's still going to the Hall either way and most won't give it a second thought either way.

I just vehemently disagree given the totality of circumstances. Since you do too, copacetic.

I can talk this geeky stuff all day.

[BattlingNelson]

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.

In the may 2003 issue, Johnson was at no. 8 here:

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Th..._Ratings:_2002

In 2003 he had two fights. A win over Savarese and a loss to Klitschko.

So if he was unranked, then he must somehow vanish after the May issue even though there was no loss.

[BattlingNelson]

The only era I would rate weaker is the period between Tunney and Louis

Yeah pre Louis was bad. So was pre Tyson era. marciano's era wasn't terrific either.

And of course the era of today.

[bklynboy]

I said faster, stronger, more skilled.

I wasn't talking about BMI index. It's not decisive for whether you're a good hw anyway. Extra weight can be an advantage.

Extra fat doesn't make you stronger or faster or increase your endurance. It doesn't help your agility, nor help your ability to move your feet, shift your weight, stay balanced, keep the right distance nor much of anything.

It does help in the clinches and, to a minor degree, help you absorb body shots.

And BMI has nothing to do with this. Mike Tyson, in his best shape, is considered "obese" using the BMI standard. (I consider BMI to be an idiotic standard.)

5'10, 218 pounds= a BMI of 31.3. Anything 25-29 is overweight; anything over 30 is considered obese.

[crold1]

In the may 2003 issue, Johnson was at no. 8 here:

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Th..._Ratings:_2002

In 2003 he had two fights. A win over Savarese and a loss to Klitschko.

So if he was unranked, then he must somehow vanish after the May issue even though there was no loss.

It was a case of circumstances. While he beat some guys, they weren't more impressive than Sanders win over Wlad or Oquendo's disputed loss against Byrd. Both those men came in the ratings off that. That's two slots, plus the shaking down of Wlad. You could make a case he was JUST outside. He wasn't in though and, at 260, was hardly an impressive win to justify a 4 to 1 move...unless you REALLY wanted to crown a new champ.

I think Ring was making a down payment philosophically that Vitali would validate their move. He didn't. It hurt their credibility as many in the press (including myself and others) pointed to it as one (of several) of the flaws in what they were doing. The advisory ratings panel, which still exists with different members under the new editorial and its loosening of the rules to the point that Canelo-Trout, a 2-3 fight, could be recognized by the mag (uugh), largely grew out of those criticisms.

[LacedUp]

I said faster, stronger, more skilled.

I wasn't talking about BMI index. It's not decisive for whether you're a good hw anyway. Extra weight can be an advantage.

Yeah and which of the contenders are faster, stronger and more skilled than the previous contenders? I'm just wondering since I don't see it.