poll: Vitali is top 3 H2H HW in the HISTORY of boxing. Agree?

Vitali is cleaning out the entire heavyweight division!!!!!!!

 

The TS failed on this one..LMFAO

 

Literally I don't think theres a more annoying member of ESB than you. I admire your trolling skills but honestly if you believe this you DKSAB

 

Location: England^

 

70% of this forum can actually gauge boxing.

 

Top 3 is pushing it...

Unless your top 3 H2H is:

1. Old Lewis

2. Chris Byrd

3. Vitali


However, Wlad needs to be well above Byrd, so it wouldn't work. :bart

 

qt

 

Top 10 yes but Ali, Lewis, Holmes, Holyfield, Joe Louis and a Prime Tyson all come first

 

Quitali isn't even the best fighter in his own family. Let's stop with these ludicrous statements. Putting up a good effort before losing vs a shot to pieces Lennox Lewis does NOT make you some sort of H2H monster. Prime Tyson and prime Holyfield would not have lost vs that Lewis. Vitali"s resume is abysmal and his recent opponents have been a joke. The era is weak and Vitali still doesn't fight the best out there.

 

Barring a cut or injury, I don't see anyone beating Vitali.

 

The only way to prove that Vitali deserves to be in there is for him to fight and beat his brother...

Wladimir is the only top class heavyweight out there for him to prove himself against, and until he does, he hasn't beaten anyone that suggests he would last with a prime Foreman, Ali, Tyson etc no matter how good a chin he has.

 

...something Mavrovic did as well, and lasted twice as long!! (with a much fresher Lennox!) :deal Zeljko > Vitali, h2h.

 

'style kills Vitali' LOL

what the ****ing christ does that even mean? it means nothing!

how does a lucky punch rip off half someone face? LOL.


idiot thread by an idiot.

 

I don't understand the obsession with this 'H2H' nonsense. It's always the same fighters who get listed, purely because they hit hard and have a good chin. The last time I checked, they were just two of the qualities which make a difference in an actual fight yet when it comes to H2H match-ups, they're all important. It's a strange one. I don't know why fans try to differentiate between "best" and "head to head best". They're the same thing and yet in one, you get skilled boxers and in the other, you get tough lumps who can punch hard and become mythical monsters.

This obsession with "H2H" is bollocks because there is far too much obsession with a chin and punching power. It's a primitive way of understanding a very complicated sport.

The best head to head fighters in heavyweight history are Joe Louis, Lennox Lewis, George Foreman, Muhammad Ali etc., and not Vitali Klitschko, David Tua, Ron Lyle and Ike Ibeabuchi.

"H2H great" is a euphemism for "tough brawler who didn't have the skill to fulfill his physical potential".

 

Technical remark - while comparing two fighters H2H is relatively easy, I'm not sure how it should work in case of larger number of boxers.

In case of fighter A beating B, B beating C, and C beating A (for example, Foreman, Norton and Ali)... who of them would be the best (no1 H2H)?