Vitali v Lewis. Iyo without the cut.....

This is kind of the chicken-and-the-egg theory, though. Had Lewis fought and beaten Vitali in a rematch, then it's quite possible that Vitali never goes on to enjoy any of the success he had. He's left with two losses over a heavyweight who prior to these fights would still be best known for quitting on his stool against Chris Byrd, having accomplished little to nothing at all in between

As for the second part of your post... you're not serious, right? You're just fishing with that one.

 

Maybe if you started following heavyweight boxing in 2002. Lewis' had done plenty. Well over a decade of big fights and big wins. Obviously I wanted to see Lewis/Vitali II. Who didn't? I can't hold it against him.

 

I think it turned out as well as it could have. I think both men's reps and legacies are enhanced by that fight taking place - it was a seamless transition between eras. If only Vitali had had somebody to fight in the 8 years since.

 

You're making a rather large assumption that Vitali would've been ruined in the rematch and would not have gone on to see the successes that he has seen.

That certainly is the worst-case scenario. Best case-scenario for Lewis; he gets a convincing victory over the guy who would go on to rule the division for the next 10 years and we fans could put this to rest.

 

Nope, not an assumption and please don't put words in my mouth. Here's what you need to think about:

Lewis agreeing to a rematch and winning, means that Vitali loses two straight and has to get back in line in order to contend for a title.

What you forget is that the eight-month break between Lewis-Vitali and Lewis' retirement provided Vitali ample opportunity to properly ride the wave of momentum thrown his way. He had HBO's full support, looked dominant in knocking out Johnson and earned the right to fight for the vacant title.

A rematch loss to Lewis, and it's quite possible that Vitali isn't afforded the same opportunities, certainly not as quickly.

The only way the path stays the same is if Corrie Sanders never vacates the belt he won from Wlad, and HBO has interest in a Sanders-Vitali fight even with Vitali having lost two straight, which makes it unlikely that he challenges for any title without first winning an eliminator.

The more likely scenario is that Lewis vacates and retires, and Corrie Sanders faces Kirk Johnson for the vacant title. Maybe Vitali wins an eliminator and gets a crack at the winner - but how much interest there is in continuing to showcase Vitali depends on the severity of the second Lewis loss.

The point being, though, that the picture most certainly changes had Lewis rematched and once again beaten Vitali.

 

You stated:

Calling this an 'assumption' is not putting words into your mouth.

When did two losses in a row ever knock someone out of the heavyweight picture? Shannon Briggs just got a shot at the title. How many shots have Golota and Peter had now? You really think that 2 losses to Lennox Lewis would've force Vitali to the back of the line? Especially in a scenario where Lewis retires afterwards?

 

Yes it is - you stated that I claimed Vitali would be ruined by a second Lewis loss. That part is an assumption because I never said that. What I said was that it would take him longer to get back in line.

Who was Andrew Golota's promoter when he kept getting all of those title shots? How did Sam Peter, Hasim Rahman and John Ruiz all remain in the title picture? Why does Kali Meehan and Ray Austin keep rising to the top of the alphabet rankings?

Think about that and then tell me how easy it would have been for Vitali to jump back in line after two losses and still refusing to business with that same promoter.

Vitali had leverage after the Lewis fight. That leverage goes away if Lewis wins well enough to where it would have enhanced his all-time status, which is what you stated earlier to kick off this mini debate.

Hope you're able to follow the bouncing ball because I'm not going to say it a third time.

 

And yet people around here worship you even though you act like a super douche from your little pedestal.

The funny thing about your whole post is that this has actually all played out already with Wlad. Wlad, who also does not work with King, was bounced by Corrie Sanders. He then fights two softies, comes back to HBO, and gets bounced again by Lamon Brewster. Six months later in his very next fight he comes back against Williamson and is falling all over the ring before the fight gets stopped early. Two fights later he is again fighting for the title.

So yeah, excuse me if I am not buying into your "back to the end of line" scenario for Vitali simply because he isn't with King.

 

I don't think anyone here worships Jake, he's just a likeable guy who knows boxing, num sen?

 

HBO was always interested in Wlad, at least until freezing out the division as a whole last year, until a Haye-v-Klitschko matchup fell into their inbox.

HBO was never interested in Vitali from Byrd until Lewis. His showing against Lewis is what helped HBO fall in love again. A second straight loss to Lewis erases that momentum and lowers his asking price, not to mention pushing back the timeline of his success.

If we're forced to believe that he goes on to be just as dominant, then we also have to factor in that he missed nearly four years to injury. A second Lewis fight pushes the starting point of the rest of Vitali's career to mid 2004 at the earliest. His last fight was December 2004 before returning in October 2008.

So basically, he's left with 6-8 months to rebound from two straight losses and make it back to the title picture, one that wouldn't include a vacant belt, but instead winning an eliminator or two before getting to the Sanders-Johnson winner.

WBA - locked up by King/Ruiz.
IBF - Byrd, with Wlad eventually working his way towards the title.
WBO - Wlad tries and fails, belt belongs to Brewster/King.

A lot changes without that wave of momentum he rode from valiant-in-defeat against Lewis.

 

My boy Jake is too polite, so I'll say it. Fuck you Damien, you cunt.

 

Ha. But I was going to say, I had to laugh at his comment towards me considering that he's every bit as argumentative as I am, if not more so.

I respect the glass house I live in.

 

Dude is talking about assumptions, then asking why Lewis did some TV work. ::

 

Oh Lewis was a great HW for sure, not trying to debate that at all. I'm just being a selfish fan who would have loved to see part 2.

 

My problem with this thread is how a cut legitimately caused by a power punch is so easily dismissed. In fact, the entire theme of the thread about "what if the cut didn't happen" is liking asking what would have happened if Rahman didn't land the big shot in the first fight with Lewis.

Something has to give. In any scenario, when Lewis lands that huge right hand on Vitali's left eye, something will always happen. Either the punch hurts Vitali or it cuts him or it swells his eye. Something has to give. Lewis had that kind of power.

It's not like Vitali walked into the ring already cut and disadvantaged. It was a result of being hit by a huge puncher. The win is legitimate 'icing on the cake' of what was a remarkable career. Period.

 

It's been a long time since I've watched the fight, but wasn't part of the debate whether or not the laces/tape on Lewis' glove helped rip open the cut, more so than it being caused solely by a punch?

That was the issue I had, but like I said it's been a while since I've seen the fight and it's very possible that I have that part wrong

 

I wanted to see it too, man.

 

Well, I've honestly never heard that. But if that was the case then my stance would be completely different.

I remember Vitali blaming it on a headbutt but I hadn't heard the laces theory.

I always remembered it as a big right hand follow by a short chopping right hand and then blood gushing.

 

im with reed
those cuts were started cause lewis started landing some bombs in those later rounds

unless lewis himself gassed i think he would have won

 

If Vitali didn't have the cut, if Lennox didn't open his face, yada yada yada.

The difference between this and Hagler-Hearns is that Hagler knew it could be stopped, went out, and decided the matter with his skills. Vitali couldn't do that when he started getting busted up.

To me, this is more like Hagler-Minter than Hagler-Hearns. Hagler won fair and square by cutting up Minter's face with wicked punches.

Maybe people would be happier if Lennox punched an eyeball out of Klitschko's skull? It wasn't just one cut, the eyelid was half-off and there was a pretty big gash under Vitali's eye as well. All that damage was caused by Lennox's right hand.

If someone punches your face in, you may show heart in the process but the other person's ability triumphed over yours---or else you would have used yours to win instead of getting your face mashed in.

It's like saying: if Terry Norris had Mike McCallum's chin, he could have outpointed Julian Jackson. Maybe, maybe not---who the fuck knows? Doing anything other than going by the facts is just an exercise in trying to give Klitschko credit for something he couldn't do---beat Lennox when he fought him.

 

People are also forgetting this was a long-reigning champion who had pride. Vitali had 6 rounds to get it done, and he couldn't when he was at his freshest. Lennox wasn't going to lay down for him, and even though Lennox did sit down heavily, he could have just as easily stood up and continued doing what he was doing---landing heavy, ripping punches that would continue to cut up Vitali. This is not Bruce Seldon against Vitali. Lennox would keep going until he got stopped.

Vitali hasn't been known for getting his face torn off before or since. There's a reason for that, and it's not because he's wrapping his son's diapers around his head.

 

And Lennox didn't? People dogged him throughout his career. He didn't want to go out on a loss---particularly against a guy who quit against Chris Byrd.

This isn't Billy Backus against Jose Napoles. Lennox was a longtime champ for a number of reasons. People say it isn't Vitali's fault that he got cut. I agree to an extent. Lennox did the damage and got him out of there.

At the same time, Vitali was the one eating the shots that got him cut. He couldn't get out of the way, and he couldn't drop Lennox. He lost by attrition: Vitali's chin held up as did Lennox's, but Lennox's skin held up and Vitali's didn't. Who would have picked Lennox to win a shootout?:dunno:

 

It's easy to do the "hold-me-back" routine when the fight was over, but he didn't show that kind of energy when his head was getting snapped back by Lennox.

Oh, and while it is not certain Lennox could have continued to take that amount of punishment, Vitali's face showed that he couldn't.

 

...and is completely, utterly redundant and overdone.

Vitali lost cleanly in a brave showing. I don't understand why this is so hard to accept.