We all know them. Which has the better record? Povetkin Byrd, Chagaev, Rahmen, Huck, Whyte, Chambers, Perez, Takam, Wach, Hammer, Duhaupas, Hugh Fury, Price, Charr Losses to Wladdy and Joshua Vitali Sanders, Peter, Briggs, Hyde, Gomez, Adamek, Johnson, Charr, Chisora, Norris, Williams, Solis Losses to Lewis, Byrd By the way, BOXREC has Vitali at #12 of all time, and Povetkin at #20. Vitali was a WBO champ and two-time WBC, Povetkin was WBA "regular" champ and now WBC "provisional" or however they call it.
Both successful in there 40s.. I think Vitali was generally more dominant over his opposition. AP has been hurt numerous times.. Sanders & Peter are his two best wins imo. Povs are probably Whyte & Chagaev. Povetkin won a close one with RG & was dropped twice versus Whyte before stopping him, whereas Vitali stopped both Peter & Sanders & wasn't really ever hurt. I also think Vitali would beat Povetkin as he does obviously struggle with the big fellas .. So overall I'd edge Vitali. Even though he gets **** for the quit job & Povetkins longevity is remarkable.
Vitali was rightfully considered the best heavyweight on the planet for a little while, and equally rightfully the second best heavyweight on the planet at worst, for an even longer while, after a retirement of years. Povetkin never got there, throughout all the past and present bemoaning of the eras he fought in. He was never good enough to arguably be the best, even arguably, if it couldn't be on paper, which it also wasn't. Impressive career though, of course.
To keep the thread alive, I would just argue that Vitali's best days were when the division was at its worst ever. By the time Povetkin hit his stride, it had repaired itself somewhat.
I feel you, but Povetkin's career is weird and he seemed to have hit his stride a few times. Despite normally being a winning fighter, he was hot and cold in those wins, whereas Vitali was just normally on and not losing a round or giving the appearance of someone who could take an L to the same guys on a different night easily enough. Vitali, I feel was at his best days arguably at the time the division was still great with Lennox and immediately after Lennox's retirement. And that the look of the lull of the division came from its two best fighters dominating everyone else and not fighting each other, more than due to being poor in the sense of quality. But there's rating a division on quality, rating it on entertainment, and rating it on relevance and rating it on which fights are being made. How good was the era of two champions back to back taking three years off to sit on the title and having a colour line? That could've been the worst ever, in its way. This is just a scattershot reply and I may mean none of this and it may be factually incorrect. It's never mattered, really. The forum is owned by Americans, I think, so I'm not sure it would matter at this point.
Vitali by a very wide margin. He was the #1 HW on Earth. Sure, he doesn’t have great wins. But he would beat the **** out of Povetkin and happened to lose to Byrd due to injury in a fight he was winning. Losing to Lewis is nothing to laugh at and he probably would have won a rematch.
A lot of probables, maybes, would have... Not saying that you are wrong. Just that there are a lot of assumptions there. Thanks for the contribution, though.
Povetkin is probably the better p4p fighter considering he is undersized for HW. Vitali would probably beat him though.
I think it's pretty close. If you look at their losses, Vitali was leading vs Lennox after six rounds and was stopped on bad cuts. He retired for the night against Byrd with a shoulder injury while leading on the cards with a few rounds to go. Povetkin lost widely on the cards to Wlad and was stopped by Joshua. Has a draw with Hunter. Advantage Vitali imo. I think Povetkin's body of work regarding wins possibly look better than Vitali's though. Pov's three best wins could be Byrd, Chagaev and Whyte, Vitali's possibly Sanders, Peter and Hide (or Adamek). I'd probably give Povetkin's resume the edge in entertainment value if you look at KO/TKO wins over Perez, Takam, Rahman, Wach, Price. He's a smaller man beating often bigger men and often in exciting fashion. Vitali was a bigger man with physical advantages and was more dominating in his title wins. He didn't lose many rounds. H2H I would have picked Vitali over Povetkin. All in all, it's pretty close in quality of wins, and with two losses each and in longevity. Vitali was more dominant as a recognized champion, Alexander imo more entertaining as a fighter.
Easily Povetkin. Vitali's record is laughable - he ducked most of the best fighters, leaving them to Vlad. Povetkin beat Chris Byrd, who rope-a-doped Vitali until he said "no mas". Chambers and Whyte would also have beaten Vitali, because Vitali couldn't deal with fighters who have even the slightest defensive capabilities.
Povetkin's best wins are top ranked guys in their prime. Chagaev , Whyte , Chambers , Takam , Huck. Vitali's best wins are against a way past prime / inactive Sanders and a washed up overweight Sam Peter. Povetkin easily goes through Vitali's winning record undefeated. The reverse is also true for Vitali. .. There isn't much between them but i go with Povetkin since he beat top guys when they were at their best.
