Tweet
On paper Vitali's resume is very bad and i'm saying that with this guy being basically my idol and all time favourite. However, look past the 'paper' and you realise Vitali basically ended everyone's careers who he fought. No one was the same after their fight with him - be it any of the undefeated (at the time) guys like K. Johnson, Arreola, Charr etc to guys like Sanders, Kirk Johnson, Williams who he beat down and out.
Had he got the wins he deserved v Lewis and Byrd, his resume would have looked alot better, and minus the injuries and bad luck it could have been him being the dominant force rather than Wlad, with many better names and fights possible in his hiatus.
Vitali is a guy that looks like an ATG if you just glance at stats without delving into them - KO ratio, never been down, round win % , multiple time world champion and all that.
Sadly, Vitali was an unfulfilled potential in terms of truly achieving the things he was capable of, and I also would much prefer a champ like Vitali to have been a long time king, rather than Wlad. But that's how it turned out, and Vitali must be respected for basically sacrificing his greatness in order to let Wlad have most of it instead.
However, as I understand HOF admission is not strictly based on resume, Vitali is more than deserving for his contribution to the sport as an ambassador, as a warrior and entertaining champion, and a guy that was statistically 'great', even those these stats aren't always as transparent as they seem.
Side note - had Tyson not lost to Williams, Vitali would have probably fought and beat him with relative ease. Would that really have made a difference to his resume by having an ATG on it, technically? And if not, why the double standards?
Had he got the wins he deserved v Lewis and Byrd, his resume would have looked alot better, and minus the injuries and bad luck it could have been him being the dominant force rather than Wlad, with many better names and fights possible in his hiatus.
Vitali is a guy that looks like an ATG if you just glance at stats without delving into them - KO ratio, never been down, round win % , multiple time world champion and all that.
Sadly, Vitali was an unfulfilled potential in terms of truly achieving the things he was capable of, and I also would much prefer a champ like Vitali to have been a long time king, rather than Wlad. But that's how it turned out, and Vitali must be respected for basically sacrificing his greatness in order to let Wlad have most of it instead.
However, as I understand HOF admission is not strictly based on resume, Vitali is more than deserving for his contribution to the sport as an ambassador, as a warrior and entertaining champion, and a guy that was statistically 'great', even those these stats aren't always as transparent as they seem.
Side note - had Tyson not lost to Williams, Vitali would have probably fought and beat him with relative ease. Would that really have made a difference to his resume by having an ATG on it, technically? And if not, why the double standards?
Comment