Sonny Liston vs. Vitali Klitschko

I know Solis was ranked because I looked it up at the time of the fight. I'd wager you but you don't have the best integrity on these sorts of things.

 

1 ) What did Williamson do to earn a re-match. Wlad won every round, except the kD/slip, and came back strong when it happened.

2 ) Sanders vs Wlad the re-match was talked about but Sanders lost and retired.

This is a Vitali thread. He ducked no man. They ducked him

 

Ed,

You are reasonable and knowledgeable. McGrain can go way out there at times so in this thread I prefer to chat with you.

For openers, What's Jack Dempsey record vs the best two fighters he fought?

1-2. And he ducked Wills and did not fight Greb

How about Joe Louis record vs. the best two fighters he fought?

1-2, or 0-2 depending who you think is better between Scheming and Charles

I think you get the picture.

As stated before Vitali turned pro in Nov 1996. He's not fighting an all decade guy right out of the gate. Give him three years, and give me your best ten from 2000-2012. Keep in mind shot fighters really should not be listed if they did their best work prior to 2000.

Also the men you list need to be rated higher than those who Vitali fought. We can use Ring Magazine as the gold standard.

 

He smashed Schmeling in the rematch. Lost to charles who was a p4p all time great when he was 36 years old and coming out of retirement. He also beat Joe Walcott who probably eclipsed Schmeling as a better heavyweight, along with about 5 other past, present or future heavyweight champions and still holds the record for longest and most dominant title reign.



[/QUOTE]

 

After your last debacle I would not dignify your presence on this forum with a wager .

 

Mendoza


"2000 to 2012"

"The men you list need to be rated higher than the men Vitali fought"

"We can use the Ring Magazine as the gold standard."

I would like you to do your own list, but okay, I'll do one based on the criteria you gave, so I looked up the yearly Ring Ratings. I will start with the 1999 ratings, as that is put out in early 2000. I will list the top two heavyweights rated other than Vitali or Wladimir.

1999---Lewis, Holyfield

2000---Lewis, Tyson

2001---Lewis, Tyson

2002---Lewis, Byrd

2003---Lewis, Byrd

2004---Byrd, Ruiz

2005---Byrd, Rahman

2006---Maskaev, Peter

2007---Peter, Maskaev

2008---Chagaev, Povetkin

2009---Povetkin, Chambers

2010---Haye, Povetkin

2011---Povetkin, Adamek

2012---Povetkin, Haye


Appears to me Vitali fought four and defeated two (Peter and Adamek)

Wlad fought 7 and defeated all of them.

Corrie Sanders was rated #3 in 2003.


There are thirteen men on this list.

 

Patterson looked as good as ever in 1962 at age 26 against Liston. After the Liston fight, Patterson put up some of the better performances of his career against Machen in 64 and Chuvalo in 65. Patterson would continue to fight at a world class level all the way until 1971!

Patterson was in his prime against Liston. He looked great in the preceding fights against Johannson, and looked great post Liston.

 

I thought he looked a bit sloppy in the 2nd and 3rd fights with a somewhat less than 100% fit Ingo, but I agree he was in his prime,and his work after he lost his crown shows what a good fighter he was.

 

"What's Jack Dempsey's record"

"He ducked Wills and did not fight Greb."

Well, certainly the bottom line is he did not fight Wills and he definitely should have, and the middleweight champion Greb defeated quite a few of his contenders.

And that is why I have downgraded Dempsey out of my top ten at this point. Of the best men he fought (Tunney and Sharkey, he went 1-2, but in fairness was past his best days, partially because of going Hollywood and not fighting. He wasn't all that old.)

Louis--Louis is a different case. His losses to Marciano and Charles came when he was way past it. Schmeling is considered better than Baer and Sharkey merely because he upset Louis (deservedly), but considering him better on that basis is kind of a circular argument.

Your point, though, about generally losing to the best fighters is well taken.

lost to best heavyweight they fought

Corbett--(Jeffries)
Fitz--(Jeffries)
Burns--(Johnson)
Dempsey--(Tunney)
Sharkey--(Louis, Dempsey)
Baer--(Louis)
Carnera--(Louis, Baer)
Braddock--(Louis)
Walcott--(Louis, Marciano)
Patterson--(Ali, Liston)
Liston--(Ali)

Mixed

Willard---(Johnson, Dempsey)
Schmeling---(Louis)
Charles---(Louis, Marciano, but Louis past it)
Johansson---(Patterson)

Did not lose to best

Hart---(Johnson)
Johnson---(Jeffries, Langford)
Tunney---(Dempsey)
Marciano

So it is not unusual to lose to the best you fought, but several things have to be said about that.

Some lose because they are simply way past it (Johnson vs. Willard-Louis vs. Charles)

Some lose because they simply were not as good as the guy who beat them (Burns vs. Johnson-Carnera, Braddock, Sharkey, Baer vs. Louis)

Some lost to a second rater but beat better men (most prominently Johnson vs. Hart)

Some reverse the loss (Louis vs. Schmeling)

The problem with Vitali is

1--He was not past it.

2--He never beat better men than Byrd and Lewis,

3--He never reversed the losses.

4--"Some lose because they simply were not as good as the guy who beat them"---this is simply not acceptable for a fighter aiming at ATG rating like you claim for Vitali.

 

We could be comparing apples with oranges here. In my ratings, head to head or whom I think beats whom in a round robin fashion matters a lot. In yours they do not seem to matter nearly as much.

Leaving boxing out of the debate for the moment, is there another sport where athletes of 40 or 60 years ago would be able to defeat modern teams, or individual opponents on best of 3 basis?

Not in Football, Basketball, Soccer ( Futbol ), Tennis, Golf, Hockey, Track and Field....you get the picture. I could name just about every sport that demands physical activity.

Modern people are bigger / faster / stronger / etc... Those are the facts.

Boxing gets a pass because there are weight divisions where bigger and stronger is contained, but the heavyweight division has drastically changed. Modern heavies are 2 to 4 weight classes above these 165-195 pound guys you feel were better. Loughran, Maxim, Conn...those types would not be able to compete and get ranked at heavyweight today. They would be cannon fodder vs. the ranked.

It seems you give old timers higher rankings than modern just because the won and lost to each often. That is not very scientific.

The old timers that are the elite and did not lose very often can be compared in a statical sense to modern day boxers who are the same.


As for Vitali, he took both fights on less than two weeks notice and was in the lead. Had the Byrd fight been later in his career for higher stakes, or had Vitali been aware of how the UK / North American press would view the result, he might have finished it. But he said the arm went numb, and being a sports doctor feared for his career.

If this were Tennis and Novak Djokovic withdrew due to injury up two sets and leading in the third. Does anyone credit the guy who won under those circumstances or hold it against Novak Djokovic? Certainly not. The Byrd fight deserves an *, and is not the same as 99% of the other losses.

Losses on cuts happen, but seldom do when one fighter was in the lead. I would have liked to see the 7th as Lewis was tired, but the ring doc called it off. Okay, Vitali was winning. Lewis did not want the re-match. You could say Vitali retired Lewis then rose #1.

No other ATG has these type of losses. Not all losses are the same. You could argue being in the lead in both fights ( Shoulder team and bad cut ) shows how good he really was.

Ponder for a moment if Schemling didn’t give Louis a re-match, or Lennox Lewis was avoided by Rhaman. Or if Frazier never gave Ali a re-match. See my point. Vitlai did not get this chance. He would have beaten Byrd for sure. Lewis? I think he wins. And Lewis retired because the re-match was ordered.

Why should Vitali be in the top 15 of all time?

#1. He can out box anyone. No one was as good on the scorecards. Not even Ali or Holmes at their best vs. similar levels of opposition.

#2 He was an ATG puncher and had an ATG chin. He could stop anyone, but no one could even floor him with a punch in 40+ fights.

#3 He lost some of his best years due to personal interests outside the ring, and had to over come multiple surgeries

#4. His record vs. top ten rated opponents is very good. He is 15-2 in world title matches.

#5 His comeback was very impressive. Out of the ring for 5 years, he won back his belt with no warm ups in dominating fashion.

#6. His longevity is impressive. Few are champion past their 40th birthday.

#7 Size matters.

#8 Activity matters. Few threw more punches.

#9. He fought very few fighters under .500, and the better fighters he beat were not has beens, or guys coming off a loss.

#10. He did not have a great trainer.

To rate him #26 as you do is not correct.

 

Outside the ring ?

 

On a bacterial level too.

 

You can make a case. Who out boxed Lewis? Very few. Vitali did. Did anyone ever out jab Vitalii? No. Did anyone win more than 3 consensus rounds vs him in all of his fights? No. Were Donald, and Byrd good boxers? Yes. They won few rounds.

Ali and Holmes lost way too many rounds to guys in some cases would not even be ranked today. You are underestimating the advantages a good boxer has when he clear edge in height, power, reach and weight.

We are talking about a super heavyweight with skills here. Small fries don't out box them McGrain. Want proof?

Lewis, Bowe, and both Klitschko's have 202 fights between them! I just counted.

How many decision losses do they have as a group? Just one and it was a razor thin loss on points with some controversy! Less than 1% Being out boxed has a lot to due with Size, and power, McGrain. I just showed it to you.

In addition to super size, height, reach, and weight, Vitali is a punch stat king. Very active....

Let's explore with known givens.

Peter was clearly rocked early by Vitali. It took a while for Wlad to have that type of effect.

Byrd said Vitali hit harder. If you think he's truthful, there you have it.

Ross Purrity took everything Wlad had! Vitali jacked him up.

There are three examples. How about one more?

Universum trainers who had them both said Vitlai hit harder. Why would they lie?

I think they have different types of power. Wlad has better technique and speed that produces more artistic type of stoppages. Vitali has a bit more raw power / heavy hands.

Unfair. ***Vitali fought Chirosa with an injury. ** Briggs was badly punished. The ref should have stopped it. Briggs corner should have stopped it. He had that sad glazed look of death. I was a little upset Vital decided to punish Briggs in the 12th to be honest as I feared a black eye for the sport or worse.

Briggs had broken facial bones and collapsed into a coma after the fight. It was touch and go for a while. The doctors could not wake him up. In addition Vitali was in his late 30's for these matches. Did Foreman hit harder in the 60'70's or 90's? Easy pick.