Tyson cleaned out 80s left overs, some of who had problems with Drugs. He didn't;t face Witherspoon or Holyfield in the 1980's. 10 easy question for you. A yes or no will do. Try to limit excuses and spins. 1 ) Do you think Holyfield beat Ruiz in the first fight? I say Holy should be 0-2-1...vs Ruiz. 2 ) Do think PED's had anything to do with his trasformation in body tyes from 190 to 210-220? 3 ) Do you agree Holyfield performed worse vs common opponents that Vitali fought? 4 ) Holyfield is 1-4 vs Lewis and Bowe on fair cards. Don't you think Vitali could at least do this well? 5 ) How past it was Mike Tyson? The 1980's version vs. the 1996 version Holyfield beat? 6 ) Can you admit the draw with Lennox Lewis was absolute bogus? 7 ) How much does getting Ko'd by a 5'10" non punching blown up middleweight at age 40 factor into this debate? Toney was in his mid 30's and fat. 8 ) Where would you rank Moorer, in the top 50 if he's even there. He's 1-1 vs Holyfield. 9 ) Do you agree that Holyfield was a dirty fighter? 10 ) Do you agree that Holyfield had trouble with bigger men in shape with skills?
Classic Dino. Vitali nearly pitched a shutout on Gomez and Dino thinks he "looked silly at times" Gomez holds like a limpet after being KD by Klitschko and actually pulls Vitali over to the floor and Dino thinks Vitali "held a lot".
Common opponents - Solis lost twice to Thompson.. . Ortiz split Thomson in half. Peter lost to Chambers. . Gerry Washington beat Chambers by shutout Arroela lost to Stiverne twice. . Stiverne lost to Wilder twice.
Just because you say so? He was facing a slick boxer type. Gomez won the first round, that's it. Vitali adjusted, hurt Gomez and cut him. It was another dominating victory vs a top ten opponent, who was far better than Cooper or Bean, which Holyfield Struggles with or Czyz. Put Holyfield at the same age vs. Gomez and he's looking at a loss.
The footage says so. . His skills are raw an unpolished. His footwork is clunky. He has no upperbody movement at all. He slaps his jab and has no punch variation.
You actually do not know what the Dunning–Kruger effect means. If anybody is displaying Dunning–Kruger effect , its you..
Agree. I think Gomez would have given Holy a lot more problems than he gave Vitali. The only thing I can agree with Dino on is that Vitali looked ungainly. But then, he ALWAYS looked ungainly. Vitali doesn't look like he should be as effective as he was. It's when guys got into the ring and fought him, that they realised that ya don't have to look slick to be brutally, unarguably, effective.
Guys win and lose, but in Vitali case he beat most faster than anyone before him. Understand? That's impressive. Vitali beat better versions of the opponents you mentioned. Did Thompson stop Solis in 1 round as Vitali did? NO it was a split decision loss! Did Peter lost every round and get Ko'd. NO, it was a close MD loss. Vitlai won via stoppage. Arreola was washed up and older or those fights, yet he might be Wilder's 3rd best win? Dino, you can't make a clean point because you see something and act like that's it, without using any reason. Slow down grasshopper.
Dino, my guess if you had to look it up and the description fits you to a " T ". If defeat is more instructive than victory, you're a real anomaly. Hang in there, even the blind squirrel get a nut.
It was a fluke loss, a bit like Moorer getting ko'd by a 50yo sumo wrestler Vyrchis and Sam were European champions, if you followed European boxing at that time you'd know them. Moorer's second best win is over a European champion in Schulz. It's the same level.
Calm down with your insults you sad insecure little man. Do feel your under attack here? Its only a sport. What are you trying to defend? The point is Peter wasn't good enough to beat Eddie Chambers. . Peter existed in the right time. In the 90's he would have been another Franz Botha , Burt Cooper , Samson Pu'ha type guy.
I think I know too much about him! One day he'll be right or make an insightful point and that day can be tomorrow...or 10 years from now.