Ali had some skills and attributes that were better than his opponents. It wouldn't say he had the worst fundamentals. His footwork was among the best. If two guys are similar to each other in style , the guy with the better fundamentals would likely win. Tucker was a better pure boxer than Vitali , but Vitali had much greater commitment and work ethic.
Tucker had the longer reach so that gives Tucker another advantage cos Vitali could only box from range.
This is mostly true, but Dempsey was 187 in his prime, & built like at best a MW. Maybe one before they had same day weigh ins & come into the ring heavier-those guys for the last few decades are bigger. He would absolutely not have the strength to not be outmuscled ina clinch.
Holyfield KOs Wlad and big brother coming to avenge the family. This sounds like one of them monster movies. Good Match. Hard to pick. I can see an Avenue for either guy. Dont see a knockout. If pinned I would lean Vitali.
I see it very similar. I wouldn’t bet a dime on either guy even w/good odds. If forced to pick I would go Vitali, but see this as a real 50/50 type of fight.
I really think Holyfield struggles here. He has to fight a perfect fight. The only way I see him winning is by beating Vitali to the jab and then getting inside where he's guaranteed to win every exchange. But can he win that jab battle first? Just as easy as I can see Holyfield winning the jab I can see Holyfield stuck on the end of the jab, all night and taking a beating. I don't know. I hesitantly give Holyfield the edge as he proved himself at a higher level.
I'm going to go w Evander .. I happewmn to be a fan of Vitali but even the Evander that fought and lost to an incredible Bowe the first time beats any Vitali .. decision not KO but Evander was serious ..
He was winning that fight until he got cut. Plus it's just one fight. Please name 10 HW's that you believe are better than him. As far as I'm concerned, both him and his brother are top 10.
Absolutely. It is irrational to assume that everyone is a drug cheat. That there is zero effective deterrence or fear of being caught. That nobody has an guiding more principles. This is just as bad & wrong-in both senses of the word-as assuming nobody cheats (maybe they were all framed or hyman error, lol), or that nobody ever successfully cheats! Recad my comments throuughout this thread on the issue. There is no good argument opposing such poweful, irrational stigmatization.