If Lewis/Vitaly fight wasn't stopped. Who would have won ?

I don't think it bodes well for a fighter they arrived at less than 100% mentally for the biggest fight of their career.

I also would consider Klitschko more stabilised & focused, mentally, than to be in such a position with an opportunity like Lewis in front of him. It's virtually an intangible point, completely free of being proven or disproven. A little too abstract for me. You could feasibly apply this anytime, anywhere, to suit your argument.

 

which is the entire reason it is being offered in the first place

 

Mental preparedness can only rise to the level of experience the fighter already has.

He was as mentally prepared as somebody could be for the unknown.

Lewis was a step up.

By the time the evening was over, Klitschko had a new horizon that he could tune himself into from then on.

I fail to see why this is such a difficult point to grasp.

It's like saying "I brought my A game on the night I lost my virginity". Makes no difference. Next time is going to be better, and you know this, maaaaaaaaaaan.

There is such a thing as a baptism of fire. Once you go through it, if you come out any way healthy on the other side, you are far better for it.

 

When I give thought to something and you accuse me of pulling it out of my ass, you have no idea what I'm thinking and then accuse me of something that's bullshit. Seems like a bitch move to me.

Lewis obviously hasn't rolled with every big shot he's ever taken, but the majority of the time he can see the incoming or knows it's coming and not get totally surprised by it. I'm not saying he has a bad chin or a china chin, but he's no Rocky Marciano in the chin department.

 

With his face gashed to pieces, I'm gonna vote that Lewis would have won.

 

Consider the following: a man is halfway up Everest for the first time. Fatigue sets in. What can he do? He can only call on the experience he has of climbing other mountains

But if he has successfully scaled Everest before.......and fatigue sets in.....he has a point of reference which he can safely rely on to get him to the top.

Klitschko had never had those cuts, against that caliber of opponent on that caliber o of occasion. He may have gone into the Lewis fight as focused as he could.....but he would have gone into a rematch better prepared again.

I fail to see what the big deal with this is. Experience is a hard master. First she gives the test, then she gives the lesson.

 

Great fighters step up on the night. Lesser fighters do not, & lose. It doesn't detract from Klitschko that he lost to even a shoddily-conditioned Lewis, but he loses to any great fighter he meets. Luckily for him, there's been only one, in all his career.

 

George Foreman fought some decent opposition prior to meeting Joe Frazier, but absolutely, comprehensively no one near as good as Frazier himself. He still got the job done. Ditto with Ali & Liston. Moving away from the HW's, look at the first Mosley-De La Hoya skirmish...& so many more. Great fighters step up on the night. If you're not good enough, you're not good enough --- & unfortunately for Klitschko, he just isn't as good as Lewis. The way their fight went was the absolute best scenario Klitschko could've hoped for. It'd only been worse if they fought another nine times.

It's all just really an excuse for Klitschko. He wasn't good enough at Lewis' weakest point (at that stage of his career). The odds were never going to get better in a return fight, because Lewis would've been greater improved from their fight than Klitschko.

 

Whilst I'm of the opinion Lewis would have won regardless of the cut eventually, it doesn't take away from the fact it was a freak occurance and can't really be held against Vitali. I certainly don't agree with the notion that any great fighter beats Vitali either, because he lost on a cut in a fight he was ahead in against an all time great heavyweight? Silliness.

It isn't his fault that there isn't anyone around good enough to test him. Guys like Azumah Nelson and Hopkins failed their first big tests, but it isn't held against them.

 

Cuts are a big, significant part of boxing. Taking away the cut is no different to taking away a heavy KO punch in a fight.

 

This is true, but it was a freak punch which caused it. Lewis would never have replicated it IMO. Also, whilst cuts are a big significant part of boxing, it is very different to a big KO punch and hardly as satisfying, lets not pretend otherwise.

 

George Foreman had fought some decent oppostion prior to meeting Muhammad Ali in Zaire but nowhere near as good as Ali himself and he comprehensively didn't get the job done, preferring to realize all too late that his relative lack of experience left him hopelessly exposed once the fight had gone a certain distance and he had failed to secure the expected KO.

Foreman was lucky that Ali was past his blindingly fast best. Or was he.....Ali's wars with Frazier had given him perspective, not to mention some rare conditioning. The Ali that had been blinded by the liniment on Listons shoulder and been forced to run for his life...the Ali who had been banned for three years....the Ali that had been left-hooked to defeat by Frazier had been places that the young Foreman had not. And it showed that night in Zaire.

Foreman, on the other hand, showed a far more even keel upon his return to the game in 1991. Young Foreman, the pre-Ali Foreman, might well have lost as badly to Moorer as he did to Ali himself. Instead, Foreman, now physically past his best but psychologically vastly improved, sucked it up, and kept working at a steady pace. His left hook to the body to force Moorer into his big right hand was not a testament to his conditioning, his balls, his punching power or anything else OTHER than his experience and perspective gained from fights such as the Ali fight.

I think it is telling that a man could be so far removed from his physical peak and still remain a far more dangerous fighter than he had been in the full flush of his youth. Perspective, experience, psychological conditioning...all are vital. And all come with the tests of character that Foreman had not experienced at that early stage.


The Foreman of 1974 would have lost to Moorer the same way he had Ali and the same way he had Ali.

Time, and those losses, gave Foreman great experience and great perspective.

It is therefore pure speculation to even attempt to claim that the same formula could not be applied to Vitali Klitschko vis a vis Lewis.

The history of the heavyweight division suggests my model carries as much water as yours. After two fights with Charles, consensus opinion was that Walcott could never beat him. This line of thinking was duly shattered. The notion that a man who was ahead on the cards at the time of the stoppage could not do a bit better the next time out with the benefit of the experience behind him, and now bereft of some serious cuts, is preposterous.

The experience makes it possible. Vitali was moving into his prime. Lewis was moving out of it, and would have been 1 year further removed by the time of any prospective mooted rematch. It's quite ridiculous to, on one hand claim that Lewis was out of shape,....but would have been in better shape 12 months later, when he was 12 months older. Classic having-of and eating-of cake.

And 2nd time around....the Big V would have had the experience of the first fight to rely on.

On the other hand you want to take your ball and go home screaming about how Vitali would never ever have beaten Lewis, and that Lewis was old and tired and blah blah blah then fine.

 

And would Vitali have started the next fight with cuts? No. But he would have started the next fight with the experience of the 6 rounds he had with Lewis.

 

Why is there such an obcession with this fight? There's literally half a dozen of fighters who managed to acquit themselves much better against Lennox that Vitaly did.
Mercer, Holy, Maccol, Rahman......
And the version of the Lennox they fought sure wasn't a 40 years old Lennox....
Why are some people so obsessed with a fight, where Lennox brutalized his opponent to such a degree that the guy wasn't even able to continue past the 6th round?

 

allowed

 

:scratcher: Rules of boxing clearly stipulate that a referee and a ringside physician should determine whether a fighter is able to continue the bout.
They determined that the damage, inflicted by Lennox was such, that Vitaly was unable to continue the fight.
Why are we even discussing this? This is common knowledge, not some obscure historical fact that occured 2000 years ago.

 

He was able to keep fighting. They didn't allow him by deciding that he was unable.

Obscure facts are still facts. Facto.

 

Not according to the officials whose job was to determine whether he was able to keep fighting.

 

Look brother you could have driven a Nodwell into that cut and parked it for the evening and probably raised a family. This fight seems to haunt the last boxing era and I don't see any controversy short of Vitali's eye falling out.

 

::

 

I don't disagree per se with the fight being stopped.

What I disagree with are the outlandish claims made that Lewis would just clean him out 2nd time around with no effort, made as they are in the absence of any consideration of points to the contrary.

 

Was one of the worst cuts I've ever seen. Didn't he actually have two other cuts besides the eyelid one? No issue with that stoppage whatsoever.

 

The only caveat I would insert is they could have given him 3 minutes. It was a title fight, he was ahead on the cards, give him the next round.

 

this works both ways...

Lewis, the vastly more accomplished fighter that he was, would have LEARNED MORE ABOUT KLITSCHKO

 

I guess. That being said they could have stopped that fight earlier then they did. I thought he was given enough leeway on the cut.

 

It may not be satisfying, but it is every bit as legitimate.

 

"George Foreman had fought some decent oppostion prior to meeting Muhammad Ali in Zaire but nowhere near as good as Ali himself and he comprehensively didn't get the job done, preferring to realize all too late that his relative lack of experience left him hopelessly exposed once the fight had gone a certain distance and he had failed to secure the expected KO."

I think Frazier & Norton beating, & being competitive in losing to Ali in & around that same period disprove the notion Foreman hadn't fought anyone close to Ali's level.

"Foreman was lucky that Ali was past his blindingly fast best. Or was he.....Ali's wars with Frazier had given him perspective, not to mention some rare conditioning. The Ali that had been blinded by the liniment on Listons shoulder and been forced to run for his life...the Ali who had been banned for three years....the Ali that had been left-hooked to defeat by Frazier had been places that the young Foreman had not. And it showed that night in Zaire."

That's a fair comment.

"Foreman, on the other hand, showed a far more even keel upon his return to the game in 1991. Young Foreman, the pre-Ali Foreman, might well have lost as badly to Moorer as he did to Ali himself. Instead, Foreman, now physically past his best but psychologically vastly improved, sucked it up, and kept working at a steady pace. His left hook to the body to force Moorer into his big right hand was not a testament to his conditioning, his balls, his punching power or anything else OTHER than his experience and perspective gained from fights such as the Ali fight."

In the respect you mentioned, Foreman came back better, yes. Would you bank on him to beat the 74 Ali, though? Your mind cannot win a fight alone. You need the tools. Foreman didn't have them in 1991 to beat the Ali who knocked him out, & neither did Klitschko against Lewis.

"I think it is telling that a man could be so far removed from his physical peak and still remain a far more dangerous fighter than he had been in the full flush of his youth. Perspective, experience, psychological conditioning...all are vital. And all come with the tests of character that Foreman had not experienced at that early stage."

No disagreements. Just that Klitschko isn't a fraction the fighter Foreman was --- physically, or mentally. He'll never reach that stratosphere. How many do?

"The Foreman of 1974 would have lost to Moorer the same way he had Ali and the same way he had Ali.

Time, and those losses, gave Foreman great experience and great perspective."

The second sentence is bang-on. The first, IMO, wouldn't play out in a thousand meetings between that Foreman & Moorer. The peak Foreman crushes him, 1,000 out of 1,000.

"It is therefore pure speculation to even attempt to claim that the same formula could not be applied to Vitali Klitschko vis a vis Lewis."

It's all speculation period, to the degree we use speculation to judge Klitschko's credentials as a fighter. That's why some people view a fighter as greater, or lesser, than another.

"The history of the heavyweight division suggests my model carries as much water as yours. After two fights with Charles, consensus opinion was that Walcott could never beat him. This line of thinking was duly shattered. The notion that a man who was ahead on the cards at the time of the stoppage could not do a bit better the next time out with the benefit of the experience behind him, and now bereft of some serious cuts, is preposterous."

I'm not arguing Klitschko couldn't ever beat Lewis. Just that he wasn't on the same level as a fighter, & would need a good dose of luck to do so. He got it in their actual fight, in the form of Lewis' decidedly poor conditioning, though it's fair to say it was cancelled out by an unfortunate (but legitimate) cut.

"The experience makes it possible. Vitali was moving into his prime. Lewis was moving out of it, and would have been 1 year further removed by the time of any prospective mooted rematch. It's quite ridiculous to, on one hand claim that Lewis was out of shape,....but would have been in better shape 12 months later, when he was 12 months older. Classic having-of and eating-of cake."

Anything's possible. Why is it ridiculous to claim Lewis would be in better shape? Once you pass a certain age, you're no longer able to fall in & out of peak condition? I never read that one in Physiology circles.

"And 2nd time around....the Big V would have had the experience of the first fight to rely on."

Aid him, yes. Rely on? No. A fighter relies on their abilities, first & foremost.

"On the other hand you want to take your ball and go home screaming about how Vitali would never ever have beaten Lewis, and that Lewis was old and tired and blah blah blah then fine."

Take it easy there, Irish. No one is screaming anything :Thumbs:

 

A couple of quick questions: 1) What in your opinion proves that Foreman was mentally better fighter than Klitschko 2) Which physical attributes of George are in different stratosphere from Klitschko.

I am asking because IMHO young Foreman had obvious problems with his mental side which Klitschkos have never shown apart from Vitali-Byrd, and because Foreman's techniques were also pretty original

 

Irish, I love your face mate, but this is right up there with the craziest of the craziest things Ive ever heard in 11 years on boxing message boards. This is on a 'Tito lost because of the spongy ring', 'I'd beat Felix Trinidad in a 3 rounder' level of lunacy.:::TLC:

Like Ramonza says, 1000 times out a 1000.

 

Apart from Byrd-Vitaly? The fight where the German fighter quit like a dog, claiming injury? In case you're not aware, Big George never quit, never surrendered in his career, while facing some of the greatest fighters that ever lived. But I'll satisfy your curiosity "apart" from Byrd-Vitaly debacle.
Vitaly absolutely refused to fight the best opposition available, after he got TKOed by Lennox. He fought guys like Sanders and other junk, while refusing to even get in the ring with the likes of Rahman (he claimed a string of no less than 4 injuries, before he finally admitted he was terrified of The Rock) and Ruiz (who openly and rightfully said that to the German fighter that he should fight him, instead of attempting to fight his leftovers, such as Rahman).
These are the facts, my friend. They might not be pleasant, but they remain to be facts.