Wladimir or Vitali - Who was the best

You completely discount that Sam Peter was then highly ranked and undefeated. Wlad won on the cards easy, then scored a TKO in the rematch. So when you say Wlad wasn't good enough to outbox Sam Peter, you come off looking like an uninformed person who did not watch the fights!

Wlad often fought top ten opponents. So did Vitali. To compare their title defenses to Wilder, who has not fought tone top ten ring magazine opponent yet is a joke, but hey I get it, you're an ignorant hater type.

 

Nah , i saw them , unfortunately.
The rematch was ugly and riddled with illegal clinching , so bad it caused the German audience to start booing. The German never boo their home town boxer , so that gives you an insight into how bad Wlads performance was.

http://www.boxingnews24.com/2010/09/steward-was-telling-wladimir-to-stop-clinching-peter/

He would have lost by DQ under normal circumstances , so thats why i felt he couldn't out box Peter. I never saw Peter give anybody the same amount of trouble as he gave Wlad.

 

The best at what, exactly? Specificity matters here, a lot.

 

Vitali H2H and raw talent wise

Wlad career and legacy

 

Vitaly imo is better . I understand wlads accomplishments and domination for a decade , but vitaly had injuries .

Vitaly is better

 

Wlad is the superior boxer, of that I've no doubt.

 

Why? Vitali never lost more than three consensus rounds in any of his fights and was much better on the counter, and during trades.

 

Wladimir's fundamentals were impeccable, Vitali's weren't.

 

I left off two common opponents, Byrd and Purity.

Byrd was getting routed just as badly against Vitali as he was against Wlad, until Vitali injured his shoulder.

(If a tennis player, up two sets to zip, goes over on his ankle and has to withdraw, that's hardly a defeat, even if it is on paper.

And that's what happened in Vitali/Byrd, unless you subscribe to the theories of the wide-eyed Vitali-haters that somehow, Byrd manoeuvred Vitali into throwing out his shoulder.)

I also left out Purity, with much less reason, just to even things out a bit. Wlad had him beaten until he ran out of steam, something he should have controlled better.

So if you look at all four common opponents, Vitali still comes out well ahead 3-1.

Yes, and if I was comparing SRL and Duran, should I count the third fight ?

Peter was finished as a big-league guy after Vitali, who beat him around the ring like a rag doll. The Peter of Wlad(2) was a shadow of his former self, and is not instructive regarding Vitali and Wlad's relative h2h merits.
Both beat Sam. Vitali just beat a better version, much more comprehensively.

That's a pretty vacuous sentence, Janitor.
It says absolutely nothing !

Let me restate your point:

When something happens, there's a reason that it happened, and that means the happening doesn't tell us very much.

That's TWO bottom lines, now Janitor.

At least this one says something, even if that something is obviously wrong.

Of course there was overlap between their primes.

Both were at prime 2002 to 2004, at a minimum.

And during that time, the most direct comparison of opponent took place. One was KO'd by Corrie Sanders and the other KO'd him.

 

Just because a fighter has better fundamentals doesn't always mean they are the better fighter. Fundamentals are the building blocks which a good boxer can be built on but there are other skills which have a greater importance when assessing a fighter.

Sure Wlad is text book in so many ways, his compact left hook is superb and his right hand is a thing of beauty, thrown from the shoulder not telegraphed at all, so hard to read. But Wlad isn't a good counter puncher, he doesn't move his head enough even for a tall fighter and his lateral movement isn't that good. Vitali is better in all these departments.

Vitali maybe less orthodox with a less aesthetically pleasing style for boxing purists like myself that like technical fighters but that unorthodox style brings advantages. He's much harder to predict because he is more versatile and will do things a more text book fighter wouldn't throwing shots at unexpected angles and times.

Look at Fury vs Wlad, Wlad clearly has better fundamentals as well as being the better athlete, but Fury's style gave Wlad all kinds of problems, it wasn't all just age. When Fury boxes to a plan even with all his technical flaws he's hard to beat. The movement, the versatility, the unpredictability all gave Wlad problems, all things Vitali excelled in.

 

Skillwise Wlad had the better jab, lead hook and right cross. Vitali overall had a more varied offensive skillset. Wlad is the quicker, more explosive athlete. Stamina is about equal but Vitali fought loose and relaxed so he generally didn't tire as quick. Vitali had the more efficient, economical footwork imo. Wlad tended to burn energy quick when he'd be on the backfoot for any extended time and could make some unnecessary movements.

The big x factor is the chins. Vitali had an ATG chin and Wlads chin is about average. Edge goes to Vitali there.

 

Yes...and if you trace the conversation back, I never said "better fighter". I very carefully and intentionally worded it "superior boxer".

 

Vitali was better at ducking David Haye, than Wladimir is at ducking Anthony Joshua.

Wladimir was better at being humbled by Tyson Fury, than Vitali was at being humiliated by Lennox Lewis.

 

I still think Vitali was the better boxer as well as fighter. A big part of being a good boxer from range is being an effective counter puncher which Wlad isn't.