Reevaluation of Vitali vs Wlad resume in light of Fury

I saw people mention it on individual posts in the forum immediately after the loss, and I figured someone would make a thread about this, but, while I haven't always kept a close eye on the forum, I don't think anyone ever did which is somewhat surprising. Part of it I guess is just this forum is weirdly hostile to Vitali's resume as compared to boxing ****ysts, historians and fans in general.

Look, losses count on a resume. So do the best wins, even when they aren't ATGs. Wlad has 4 losses. One decision, and three ko's. Vitali only lost twice, in much more controversial fashion. Wlad's fights in general were (somewhat) more competitive than Vitali's. Despite more power, he had a lower ko ratio. His best wins (Byrd, Peter, Povetkin) were about the same level as Vitali's best wins (Sanders and Peter), but were done much less impressively than Vitali did them. Wlad beat more general top contenders than Vitali, but that gets overstated. Its safe to say Vitali beat about 60% the numbers of top 10 and top 20 opposition that Wlad did. That's not an unmeaningful advantage for Wlad, but it's not the ONLY factor that matters. Vitali's dominance in his wins, performance in his losses, having half as many losses as his brother, account for making up for that advantage.

I really like Wlad. I was rooting for him to unify the belts and break Louis's consecutive championship mark and strike a claim as being a top 3 ATG. But he didn't do that, and it means there is legitimate debate about who the better brother was for the era, not just h2h, but in overall resume and impact. They are both fringe top 10 ATG hw's, but I'd give the slight edge to Vitali.

 

Thanks for the troll statement. Haye ducked Vitali to fight Chisora and would have only been VK's third best win.

 

Come on, MVC, I remember you made a good thread one time about how Vitali had the record, in all weight classes, for rounds won in a career. You really think that has no bearing on resume? Or little enough to let a longer, but less dominant career be "easily" ahead? It just doesn't make sense, its part of the bs conventional wisdom this forum generates sometimes that doesn't stand up to scrutiny but that people never acknowledge.

 

You should know about things that never happened, mister Haye better than Vitali:rofl Yeah, reality clearly isn't a strong subject for you.

 

Is that at all germane to this topic, or indicative that Haye is remotely on level of VK? No. Haye's title was cruiserweight, not HW. VK had legitimate titles for over 6 years, most of which he was the dominant hw

 

Your lying. Or stupid. Haye never had the "actual" hw title.