What did he say that wasn't true. He has lost to the best two fighters he's face. He is awful to watch. He does have a terrible resume, For his size he has no explosive power. As for him being good, we really no have idea. He won't fight the best in the division. Keith
Tell me why Vitali is better than Chuvalo, without talking about wins and losses because I don't want to read another poster glance at BoxRec and build an entire argument from it.
I think he would be a solid top10 contender in the 70's but 15 rounds wouldnt favour him. He might briefly hold a title in the 90's if cleverly matched. In both era's he would have far more losses & after facing better & bigger punchers would probably have been knocked down if not knocked out.
:rofl Hysterical comedy routine. Explain why Ali is better than Razor Ruddock without talking about little things like wins and losses, that only boxrec warriors mention.
Ali is better than Ruddock for several reasons. 1) Had faster hands 2) Had better defense 3) Had a better chin 4) Had better stamina 5) Had a wider array of punches he threw 6) Fought better competition, thus was more proven 7) Career laster longer 8) Controlled the ring better Do you want more? Not one mention of wins and losses. Keith
In the 70s Tough Journeyman with lots of scar tissue who was stopped more than once and forgotten about as time passed. Now. A great who would have killed Ali Tyson and Lewis in their prime go figure.
How can you prove these things? Who did he beat? Without telling me about who Ali beat and who Ruddock lost to, I don't know. I'm skeptical, Keith. I can't see your arguments without a winss and losses list from boxrec. Who could? It makes no sense. Without boxrec, I have no eyes. I can't even read what you're saying. I hope I'm hitting the right keys on the keyboard.
atsch The status quo spewing trend followers are out I see . :yep These rose colored glasses lalalal .:hey
I don't believe the boxers from bygone era's were that much better than today's, I truly don't! It's like chess...in the 1800's you had guys like Paul Morphy who beat his contemporaries wherever he went! Nowadays, when you take a closer look at the games he played, there were numerous occasions where todays grandmasters would beat him if he would've played that same way. Sports evolves, science evolves, progress.... You can only make your mark in one part of the timeline..., to say that Einstein is less of a genius than Galilei, because the discovery's he made are not that old and therefore not so widely accepted....?! I believe that any heavyweight from whatever era would have troubles with Vitali Klitschko! Although I do think a prime 66' Ali would solve those troubles fast. But not based on the opposition they fought, but simply because of style. I think Vitali would hold his own against most HW greats.
Because he was faster, had better movement, could put punches together better, had a superior chin... Do you want me to go on?
Morphy was an instinctive genius & Kasparov is a huge fan. Making comparisons between chess, science & boxing in this instance are ridiculous. A fair point to make but a terrible arguement.
Vitali would hold his own and could (if briefly) win a Championship in any era. However, it is true he has lost to the two best opponents he faced, the Byrd one you can make of it what you like. However, a relatively out of shape 38 year old Lewis stopped him, and would stop Wlad even quicker. Lewis is a true ATG and H2H monster, he is better than the Klitschkos in practically every aspect.
Alot say things like *he'd not stand a chance against the legendary fighters of years gone by*, but those fighters never faced someoen as big AND skilled as Vitali is. He'd be competitive, at the very least, in ANY era.