The significance of Lewis vs Vitaly will increase in time

the significance of this fight is overwhelming - especially considering that Vitali is proving to be the best heavyweight to emerge post-Lennox.... certainly the most difficult to defeat imo.

the more Vitali proves this to be the truth, the more significant his fight with Lennox becomes.

It's just a real shame there wasn't a rematch

 

:atu:

 

I don't think there has ever been a champ with a higher KO percentage. Of course that doesn't make him the best in any other sense but it is not a bad credit

 

It sounds good. But it's just a stat. Just focusing on how he did against his opposition without considering the quality of his opposition doesn't give the true picture of the fighter.

MIKE's comment reminds me of when Kid D claimed that Michael Spinks was one of the most resilient heavys ever when Tyson KOed him. His back up for that statement was that Spinks hadn't been KOed prior to facing Tyson. Which sounds good when you don't think about it, but it that statement fails to consider that Spinks hadn't exactly fought demanding opposition at heavy prior to Tyson.

When I see someone focusing on a fighter's stats rather than the quality of opposition...that tells me that the person discussing the stats knows that the quality of opposition isn't exactly the greatest.

Another example...Virgil Hill made more Light-Heavyweight title defenses than Bob Foster or Michael Spinks. Does that mean that Hill was a greater fighter or a better fighter than these fighters? I don't know of anyone who would mention Hill in the same sentence as Foster and Spinks. But there he is with more defenses than either. And I guess that means that in some way, he is the best Light-Heavy ever. Even though I don't know anyone who would put him in their all time top 10 or maybe even 20 at that weight.

 

Sounds pretty convincing to me.

 

I hear what you are saying and I do agree that stats don't mean too much
but I think the point here is that Vitali does have some very impressive achievements which he seldom gets noted for. For example in his 40 fights (several at the top level) he has lost fever rounds than pretty much anybody fromthe history. And of course that too depends much about the oppositon but he is a world titlist anyway. Yet he never gets credit for having good skills, instead too many still think that he would be easy meat for all ex-champions because he looks so weird. So even though mikE made a bit of an overstatement there, there is no reason to look down on Vitali either

 

The 80's heavy era as a group did have a good sized bunch of underachievers and folks that didn't train as hard as they could have, but I don't think most of Tyson's title opposition would fall into the fat and lazy category. They may have had other flaws, but I don't know if fat and lazy is the right description for most of these fighters when they faced Tyson.

Berbick - no (tough but limited)
Thomas - no (ruined from drug abuse)
Biggs - no (just not that good)
Spinks - no (Great lightheavy, average heavy)
Tubbs - yes (yes, very fat and lazy)
Williams - no (no chin)
Tucker - no (not so much lazy as not aggressive enough - I don't recall ever seeing him out of shape in the 80's)
Holmes - no (old and should have stayed retired)
Smith - no (big and strong, but not very skilled)
Bruno - no (had stamina issues...but I wouldn't call him fat or lazy)

Douglas fit into that category, but he somehow managed to shake it for the Tyson fight.

Tubbs, Page & Dokes were the poster boys for the undermotivated heavies of that time.

 

Vitali is dominant for sure but we have to be realistic here; The heavyweight division is a monstrous piece of :shit: !!!!! It's the worst era for the heavyweight division since the 1800s. No athletes coming up, just a bunch of brain damaged retirees and fat f*cks.
The truly best and most athletic fighters in the world are in the NFL or the NBA, as Larry Merchant has said.
The heavyweight division is dead, Boxing as a whole......soon to follow.

 

I'm not looking down on him. I actually think Vitali is a good fighter. I wasn't mocking Vitali so much as mocking MIKE's attempt to make a place for him among the best of the best heavies. I think it is a major reach to try to rank him among the best ever. And to be fair...the blame rests with Vitali. He could have fought more often, actually fought Rahman and generally just made more of a mark in the division than he did.

 

::

 

This is why I said just 'lazy', not 'fat and lazy':: Others did it with drugs, others just didn't train but both ways hint to lack of motivation. Weren't guys like Berbick, Tucker, Witherspoon also on drugs?

 

I could attempt to do this, but I haven't, (in this thread) yet.
I said in some ways...
Best KO%.
Best defense as far as ability not to get hit.
Best % of winning rounds against the same level of competition of anyone.
Never been hurt.
Objectively, that's a pretty good start.

Subjectively, I see him doing just fine against the top 10 heavies of all time.

Yeah, his resume is too weak to expect a consensus and he could have done far more, but pointing to Hasim Rahman as an example of someone who could have helped his status is far more ridiculous than anything you think I might have meant.

 

dsimon writes:

I was thinking the same exact thing on this point. Though Broadway hit the nail on the head otherwise.

Thing is that when you look at the whole picture a pattern emerges. I often get lumped into the group of Klitscko haters and I guess i deserve it because imo these guys seem to avoid dangerous opposition when they can. Vitali and Vlad like the path of least resistance though
Vitali took on Lewis and that was splendid. I actually agree with the rainman (rainmaker)... that was an epic battle while it lasted.

 

I never thought or meant that Rahman was any sort of a make or break legacy fight for Vitali, but Vitali's seeming reluctance to fight Rahman did nothing to make him look better. If anything, Rahman's lack of status works against Vitali. If Rahman wasn't that big of a threat, then why didn't Vitali seem to want to fight him?

 

I never heard of Berbick having drug issues prior to the Tyson fight. I know he had issues later on. I could be wrong, but I don't remember him being a drug abuser at that time.

And I thought Thomas' drug issues were before he started his pro career and then later on when he had fallen to opponent status and then retirement. I remember Thomas being praised for getting past his issues and going on to become a champ. But the previous years of drug abuse seemed to shorten his prime because he went from a top notch heavy in 1984 to a mediocre heavy by 1986. It is possible that Thomas' rapid decline was due to getting back on drugs...but I don't know for sure.

As for Witherspoon, he's another one that I don't recall having drug problems during his time as a top contender and champ. And since Tyson didn't fight him...it's all moot anyway.::

 

Because Vitali kept getting hurt in training.

 

dsimon writes:

Witherspoon was my favorite! He had Don King issues! And he wasn't the first, nor the last too!