Vitali vs Foreman: Who had the better technique?

That's fine. I'd favor Lewis too. But this really has nothing to do with Vitali, who is at least a level or two below Lewis as a fighter.

 

maybe. maybe not

 

No, they actually fought. When Lewis was old. And wasn't active. The heaviest weight of his career.

And Vitali had holes punched all over his face. Couldn't even make it past the halfway point of the fight.

 

off topic...but I'd favour Lewis over Foreman too.

Lewis was a very very difficult man to stop...when he perceived his opponent as a knockout threat. This is important. McCall and Rahman (first time round) weren't take seriously and Lewis fought sloppily. When necessary, Lewis knew how to use his height and be cagey..and punish any little mistake.

Lewis would use this approach with George and take him into deep waters (late rounds) and drown him. Also Lewis is too big and strong himself for George to just bully..the way he manhandled Frazier and Norton.

 

The fight, although it was a legit victory for Lewis, did not prove that he would beat Vitali every time. You must admit that the fight could have easily gone the other way (as Vitali clearly hurt Lewis) and that the injury Vitali received was an unlucky one (since the bad cut was opened by a missed punch).

And even if Lewis does beat Vitali every time out, it doesn't necessarily make Vitali much worse. Joe Frazier's career was not as much worse as Foreman's as you'd think about their fights.

The thing is, there is no clear proof that Vitali was a great fighter but there is no clear proof of the opposite either, since Vitali's record does not tell much. If you take the stance that nobody is good until proven otherwise and thus Vitali is not good, that I can understand and accept. However if your stance is that Vitali can't be good because he looks weird and he is a Russian commie faggy pussy fairy robot, then I don't agree

 

This really can't be stressed enough. The only, only, time Vitali had been asked to fight a great fighter (albeit one who had seen much better days)... this is what happened to him.


His face couldn't hold up. There's no other sample.

 

One thing's for sure - this would be the stillest, scariest staredown in boxing history. Terrifying.

 

That's how I see it, and that's only part of it. People refer to Foreman's ability to walk people down......when Lewis took a step back, he covered 1/3 of the ring. People look at Lewis when he fought Rahman the first time and act as if it's all so easy to stop the guy. Once he has any sniff of danger from Foreman, and we assume he would, he would clam up on the aggressiveness and fight smart. He was naturally bigger than Foreman and naturally harder hitting. I don't care what anyone says. Lewis hit harder than Foreman. If his KO percentage is lower, so what, he wasn't hitting 200lb men. He was hitting 230lb men, and stopping plenty of them.

Lewis was an incredibly raw-boned guy with a lot of amateur savvy, a tonne of power and pretty decent speed and a good jab. If Ron Lyles could get George going then Lewis will too.

 

Come on Ugo, I only look at what goes on in the ring. I don't care where any of these guys are from.

When you consider that Vitali was busted up by a clearly past peak Lewis, I fail to see how he'd do any better when LL was in his prime.

 

Please post the pics of what happened to Larry Holmes when he fought the only great fighters (that were not shot) of his record

 

You make good points Steve Dave..but this is a little unfair. Anyone..ANYONE...can be the victim of a bad cut. And a bad cut can alter a fight. Marvin Hagler was cut badly against Hearns and that fight was almost stopped as a result too.

I don't think the Vitali-Lewis fight tells the complete story about who beats who in that matchup everytime..s UGO said. Until teh cut..Vitali showed that he was a threat to Lewis. The bad cut changed the trajectory of the fight...I mean Vitali's eyeball was hanging out of head head for heaven sakes...who could fight at their best in that position?

 

But look at his face Sly... there's much more than just the one cut. Lewis was busting him up badly. And Vitali was ready to go at the end of the 6th.

 

Once again, this argument fails to take account of the fact that Vitali himself came out of the fight a better fighter.

If Lewis was past his best, then Vitali was yet to reach his best, and I won't budge on that.

Lewis himself oozed quality once he had finally gotten past Holyfield.

 

Suffering a freak injury (and yes, a cut of that magnitude is a freak occurrence, its the type you see once a decade, at most, in superfights and you couldn't plan for it like a KO) in a fight your winning is hardly conclusive proof that you're worse than anybody.

I happen to agree with your general position - I think lewis was a better fight and would win 9/10, but lets not pretend we learned anything decisive in that fight.

 

What do you base that on? Who has Vitali been in there with since to prove he's a better fighter than when he fought Lewis?

I really don't care if you budge on anything.

 

Freak or not, we don't have anything else to go on.

That's my point. He's been in there with the best once, and that's what happened. Anything else, on either side of the argument, is pure speculation.

 

I agree with you Steve....Vitali is the same fighter post-Lewis as he was pre-Lewis. There is ZERO evidence to suggest otherwise..

 

Yes, it is pure speculation to think that Vitali could not KO a midget called Joe Frazier that had been put in hospital for 6 weeks after his last fight. Yes. It is pure speculation that a 6'8" guy with a great chin and very very good power could do anything with that chinny midget Frazier. For fucks sake.

 

I think his confidence has grown since and that has made him a more relaxed and more effective fighter. Earlier he retreated quickly from his opponents even such as Obed Sullivan and Chris Byrd, thus missing opportunities to land counter shots. Since the Lewis fight he has stood his ground more and countered more effectively

 

What isn't speculation is Frazier's very real (as in it actually happened) win over Ali.

Talk to me when Vitali beats a great fighter. Then we can start comparing him to fighters with great wins, like Joe Frazier.

 

Which great wins did Larry Holmes achieve? I see you ducking this question. How about Holyfield?

 

Leave Holyfield out of this. He doesn't help your case. Evander beat Bowe and Tyson...both great wins.

 

When was I asked this question before?

At the time, the Bowe rematch and the Tyson fights were great wins for Evander.

Holmes, I have a harder time rating, because I agree with you he didn't have to beat a truly great fighter in his prime. But off the top of my head, Ken Norton, Tim Witherspoon and Gerry Cooney were all better fighters than anyone Vitali has defeated.

 

Yeah, really.

 

Tyson at that point was not in his prime in the eyes of most. And Bowe was not a great fighter to begin with. I am just saying that if you want to set this kind of standards, you need to set them to everyone.

If you want to look at Holyfield's career critically, he was

0-2 against Lewis (the only great prime fighter he fought)
1-2 against Bowe a good heavyweight
1-1 against Moorer
2-0 against past Tyson

and that's it

 

UGO...you've made a few good points in this thread, don't mess it up by this silly critique of Evander Holyfield.

Tyson was post-jail, sure...but he had only been previously beaten ONCE..and that seen as a fluke by most..and had regained two versions of teh heavyweight crown by the time evander fought him....one of them achieve by knocking out Bruno who had beaten MCCall who had knocked out Lewis. Make no mistake...Tyson was seen by most as the top man in the division when Evander upset him.

Riddick bowe had been undefeated when Evander got to him..and many were already calling Bowe an ATG talent.

Trust me...give this one up...it's not helping you.

 

You misinterpret me. The point is that with certain suitable standards you can make anybody look or sound bad, even a clearly great fighter such as Holyfield. I am not saying Vitali is anywhere near him in achievements

 

The thing is though Hut, and I'm addressing this point to you because you are capable of rational analysis, unlike certain others ::, is that cuts are NOT a freak injury in boxing. They happen a lot when people are not good enough to get out of the way of punches.

If the cuts had been caused by a headbutt or similar, then fair enough, but they were not. They were caused because a verge-of-retirement Lennox Lewis drew Vitali into a firefight in which Vitali got hit. A lot. If Vitali was as good as many would like us to believe he is, why was he NOT good enough to get out of the way of the punches which caused the injury?

As I said earlier in this thread- the ONLY time Vitali has faced an elite level fighter (albeit one who was literally days from retirement) who was not terrified of him, dwarfed by him or incapable of actually hitting him, he got himself mangled. There was not one cut but SEVERAL cuts: each of them horrifically deep and serious. They were all caused by punches. To call them 'once a decade, freakish injuries' is to ignore the fact that Vitali had at least two from the same fight. How then can they be so freakish?

I'm not saying Vitali is a bad fighter, because he clearly isn't. He's actually a very good fighter IMHO. But his one foray into elite level shows what happens when he gets there.

He loses.

MTF

 

This is probably the most conveniently forgotten about fight on this board.

Frazier against Foreman? Oh yeah, EVERYONE remembers that one and uses it with a stick to beat Frazier with. Put Frazier in a MM against any decent HW and I've yet to see the consensus pick him.

Yet there it is, a CLEAR, UNCONTROVERSIAL win (including a KD) against one of the best fighters who ever lived in possibly the biggest fight in the history of the sport.

Of course, Frazier has no chance of beating friggin Vitali Klitschko, though...

MTF :notallthere: :shit:

 

Excellent post.