Jerry Quarry vs. Vitali Klitschko

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

Vitali’s career is not over yet. To date he has beaten a good, but not great collection of fighters in impressive fashion. Vitali was the last Ring Magazine champion which is the gold standard in the alphabet soup world of professional boxing. He owns the highest KO ratio in the history of the sport, has never been down on the cards after three rounds of action, and has never been knocked down as a professional. His two losses came under unusual circumstances because he was ahead in those fights. A torn shoulder injury or a bad cut can in theory derail just about anyone. The thing to focus on here is neither Byrd or Lewis accepted a re-match. I highly doubt Byrd would win the re-match. Lewis vs Vitali now is a blow out win for Vitali, but in 2004 it would have been a great night for boxing.

When a fighter’s career is over, historians often look for big name wins on a resume Presently Vitlai lack this, but Vitlai never choose to take advantage of past their prime names like Tyson, Holyfiled, or Moorer. Lennox Lewis was not accepted as a great fighter until he defeated Holyfield and Tyson. Smart boxing fans know that both Holyfield and Tyson were past their best when they meet a still prime version of Lewis.

If Vitlai defeats McCline next he fights the winner of Peter vs Maskev. The winner of Peter vs Maskaev will be the most accomplished heavyweight in the world besides Wlad. If Vitali wins back the WBC title, I think he will have won a big match. Not enough to completely snuff out the critics who are looking for that “ name “ win on a resume , but enough to satisfy the objective fans / historians. In truth, most great champions did not beat a hall of fame fighter in their prime years.

Who is Tyson’s best win? Who is Dempsey’s best win? Who is Liston’s best win? IMO, it’s not much better than the winner of Maskev or Peter.

My $.02

Nice job,

Agreed, Vitali has a good legacy, but needs a few more names.

[cross_trainer]

Originally Posted by The Kurgan

He's fought one "special" boxer: Lennox Lewis, who was (a) at the end of his career and (b) victorious.

Two--Byrd was one of the two or three best fighters of the early post-Lewis era.

[The Kurgan]

Originally Posted by KTFO

Vitlay did fight Louis. His chin was tested,his skills were tested,his heart was tested. He proved that he's no quitter, that he can fight best opposition, that he has some muddafuckin hard chin. What else do ya want?

Well, winning would be a start. That's what some opponent or other managed against nearly every all-time great at the end of their career.

Originally Posted by KTFO

Vitlay is back from retirement, to shut your asslickin mouth once and for all.

I think Vitaly will look awful and either lose or retire very quickly.

[The Kurgan]

Originally Posted by cross_trainer

Two--Byrd was one of the two or three best fighters of the early post-Lewis era.

Good point. Replace (a) with: one of the most negative and physically handicapped boxers of his generation.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

Vitali’s career is not over yet.

While this is true I expect that he will never recover his previous form. He will beat McCline and then what?

To date he has beaten a good, but not great collection of fighters in impressive fashion. Vitali was the last Ring Magazine champion which is the gold standard in the alphabet soup world of professional boxing. He owns the highest KO ratio in the history of the sport, has never been down on the cards after three rounds of action, and has never been knocked down as a professional. His two losses came under unusual circumstances because he was ahead in those fights. A torn shoulder injury or a bad cut can in theory derail just about anyone. The thing to focus on here is neither Byrd or Lewis accepted a re-match. I highly doubt Byrd would win the re-match. Lewis vs Vitali now is a blow out win for Vitali, but in 2004 it would have been a great night for boxing.

This is all verry true and I don't doubt that he could and perhaps should have been the heir to Lewis's throne.

I am approaching this from an angle of trying to justify his performence against other great fighters based on what he actualy achieved in the ring. The bottom line is that he left certain questions unanswered.

If Vitlai defeats McCline next he fights the winner of Peter vs Maskev. The winner of Peter vs Maskaev will be the most accomplished heavyweight in the world besides Wlad. If Vitali wins back the WBC title, I think he will have won a big match.

I agree. Depending on how this fight unfolds it will answer a lot of questions. We have to asume for the time being that he could theoreticaly loose.

Who is Tyson’s best win? Who is Dempsey’s best win? Who is Liston’s best win? IMO, it’s not much better than the winner of Maskev or Peter.

I have to disagree there.

The significance of a win over Peter/Maskaev would depend on how he wins. A dominant win would go a long way towards suporting the claims made by the pro Vitally camp. A controvertial win would leave him prety much where hi is now.

[Duodenum]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Correction: Mercer was the heavyweight olympic winner. i.e. sub 200lb. While Quarry is in this category, the better ones competed at Superheavyweight.
The superheavyweight olympic champion of 1988 was Lennox Lewis and the runner up was Riddick Bowe.

Shit, a superheavyweight division was created after I stopped following boxing? How many weight classes have been made up beyond the classic eight anyways? (What's next, a pintweight division? Midget boxing? Dwarf pugilists? Pregnant boxers? Sumo class?)

The point is that Levinsky pretty much was a journeyman. Any champion can dominate a journeyman over 20 rounds.

Wow, you've put it on the line the way I usually do with that claim, especially in the 12 round era. The reason the 20 round distance was eventually discarded in favor of 15 rounds is precisely because endurance performers with superior toughness and inferior skill were prevailing. (Granted, Jeffries/Corbett I and Johnson/Willard went beyond that, but I consider the losers in those matches to be superior to the winners by how they were faring after 15 rounds. In the case of Gans/Nelson I, and most matches that went beyond 15 rounds, the identity of the superior competitor was established by the end of 15.)

King Levinski wasn't exactly a journeyman at his best. He recorded wins over Slattery, Loughran and Uzcudun shortly before meeting Baer, and at just 21 years of age had over 60 matches with much quality experience behind him, was yet to lose by stoppage, would go on to post a decision verdict over Jack Sharkey, and go on a tear between mid 1934 and mid 1935 (when Louis destroyed him). His performance in an exhibition against Dempsey convinced Jack not to pursue a comeback, so he had some skill and abilities. While a champion in the 15 round era might be able to dominate a tough opponent over 20 rounds, I have reservations about any champion from the 12 round era being able to do that. (Rosario is my poster boy on that score, as he originally became a champion exclusively because of the abolition of the 15 round distance.) To claim that any champion can dominate a journeyman over 20 rounds is the sort of irrationally sweeping statement I'm supposed to make, not you!

[janitor]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

The point is that Levinsky pretty much was a journeyman. Any champion can dominate a journeyman over 20 rounds.

Levinsky was a top 4 contender over a period of years. By no stretch of the english language could he be called a journeyman.

[Duodenum]

Originally Posted by janitor

Levinsky was a top 4 contender over a period of years. By no stretch of the english language could he be called a journeyman.

I should just sit back, relax, and let you take over the case for Quarry. You're more concise, articulate and well modulated than I over this issue. (Becides, going back and forth with good ole CP is wearing me out .)

[Cojimar 1945]

Vitali has not beaten much highly ranked oppossition. It would be interesting to look at the rankings of the guys he beat. Sanders was ranked quite high by some when Vitali beat him but Johnson, Danny Williams and others were lower in the rankings.

[Vantage_West]

Originally Posted by KTFO

Vitlay has a weight advantage of 50lbs and a hight advantage of 7". Plus he has some pretty good tactics. Anyone who sees Quarry winning this one must be a fucked up drug addict.

yeh mon

but really joe louis beat max baer
ruslan chagaev beat valuev


actually no point naming them all the big guys small guy is a myth if yo can fight small very well you can win any fight at any wieght sam langford shown that qawi showed that even underachievers like kelvin davis was a fight you stayed well away from

[Cojimar 1945]

The Tyson fight does not help Lewis's legacy much. Lewis's failure to face prime versions of Holyfield and Tyson hurts his stature a bit but Holyfield is still a good win because Holyfield was still rated highly when Lewis beat him.

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by Duodenum

Wow, you've put it on the line the way I usually do with that claim, especially in the 12 round era. The reason the 20 round distance was eventually discarded in favor of 15 rounds is precisely because endurance performers with superior toughness and inferior skill were prevailing. (Granted, Jeffries/Corbett I and Johnson/Willard went beyond that, but I consider the losers in those matches to be superior to the winners by how they were faring after 15 rounds. In the case of Gans/Nelson I, and most matches that went beyond 15 rounds, the identity of the superior competitor was established by the end of 15.)

King Levinski wasn't exactly a journeyman at his best. He recorded wins over Slattery, Loughran and Uzcudun shortly before meeting Baer, and at just 21 years of age had over 60 matches with much quality experience behind him, was yet to lose by stoppage, would go on to post a decision verdict over Jack Sharkey, and go on a tear between mid 1934 and mid 1935 (when Louis destroyed him). His performance in an exhibition against Dempsey convinced Jack not to pursue a comeback, so he had some skill and abilities. While a champion in the 15 round era might be able to dominate a tough opponent over 20 rounds, I have reservations about any champion from the 12 round era being able to do that. (Rosario is my poster boy on that score, as he originally became a champion exclusively because of the abolition of the 15 round distance.) To claim that any champion can dominate a journeyman over 20 rounds is the sort of irrationally sweeping statement I'm supposed to make, not you!

Levinsky had a few good wins but he also had tons and tons of losses.

Anyway, i don't really see the relevance of going 20 rounds when we're discussing Vitali vs Quarry in a 12 or 15 rounder. Vitali was an extremely hard wear-you-down puncher so i really wonder whether 15 rounds would favor Quarry. Especially with his tradition of getting cut.

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by Duodenum

I should just sit back, relax, and let you take over the case for Quarry. You're more concise, articulate and well modulated than I over this issue. (Becides, going back and forth with good ole CP is wearing me out .)

Not a 15 round poster huh.

[Vantage_West]

Originally Posted by KTFO

Vitlay did fight Louis. His chin was tested,his skills were tested,his heart was tested. He proved that he's no quitter, that he can fight best opposition, that he has some muddafuckin hard chin. What else do ya want? Vitlay is back from retirement, to shut your asslickin mouth once and for all.

his chin is not as good as people say, he was bodypopping in the ring when a british bum landed a weak right ahnd on his feeble chops...

i think he just was luckjy to not fight a big puncher in the primes lewis could of koed him a few years before,tua could of had a good mash up on him in his prime.even bowe would of been a good fight in 99

[Duodenum]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Not a 15 round poster huh.

Well, it's been a long absence from the sport, and I'm kind of rusty and punchy . (And to my eternal shame and embarrassment, it would seem I'm not capable of going the distance at this time. )