Guys he beat who made The Ring annual in the year before he beat them are as follows: Mike De John, Nino, Machen, Foley, and Patterson x2. I dont see Williams in there until later. Six guys. Off the top of my head, the following guys were Ring rated when Vitali beat them: Sanders, Peter, Johnson, Arreola, Solis, Gomez, Adamek. Not sure about Chisora, who had just been ripped off against Helenius. That's 7 or 8. Povetkin has Perez, Chagaev, and Whyte. I think Chambers was in and Byrd was out.
Johnson and Solis were not in Ring's annual rankings the year before losing to Vitaly, as far as I can see. But as I said, demolishing a two time lineal champion twice is what sets them apart for me. I'll leave it at that.
They were in after the annual came out. This has been covered here. Vitali's title defenses and admirable effort against an ATG set him apart from Liston, who folded in his step(s) up. Beating Patterson at heavyweight is similar to beating Roy Jones at heavyweight, as far as I'm concerned. There's just no comparison between Patterson and the guys who sat on top of eras since.
Liston actually beat the better names at his time, though. Like, Liston beat the top 3 fighters prior to Ali coming along. We don't have to discuss who would H2H to realize Liston was clearly "greater".
I feel like that's a narrow way of looking at it. Vitali beat Gomez, who was a cruiser champ and 6'4 southpaw. Vitali beat Solis, who was an Olympic gold winner and 3x world am winner. Vitali beat Adamek, who was a light heavy and cruiser champ. Vitali beat Sanders, who was a 6'4 southpaw heavyweight champ with huge power and handspeed. Arreola, Peter, and Briggs were huge guys who could punch. Chisora is a big guy who applies pressure. Liston's best wins came against guys who were under around 200 or under. They were domestic except Nino. There were no credible southpaws or guys over 220. I dont see the same kind of depth there. And like I said earlier, he had two chances to prove himself against a guy who be first tier in any era and failed horribly.
Don't get me wrong, I get the size argument. I agree these guys were better H2H, but in terms of who was actually greater (ie who beat better opponents relative to their day), Liston is clearly greater than Vitali. Cleveland Williamson, Zora Folley, Floyd Patterson were all ranked higher than Vitali's highest ranked win. Vitali lost to the only top 3 rated opponents he fought, both by stoppage.
I disagree on what greatness means. Vitali beat Peter, who was number 2, Adamek, who was three excluding Vitali, and Sanders, who was number two excluding Vitali. I don’t know what you’re talking about. You also know why he lost those two fights. Liston’s losses were worse.
Peter was ranked at 8 when Vitali beat him (by The Ring), Sanders was ranked 10 and Adamek actually was rated as 4 as you said, that can count as a top 3 victory as Vitali was above him. Going by annual BoxRec ratings. Still, none of this matters as I don't know what greatness means to you. Does greatness really only mean head to head ability? Is Junior Fa really greater than Sullivan just because he would beat him?
The only Vlad I know is that impaler guy. Vlad The Impaler would beat Sonny comfortably. He has a record of 80,000 ( 80,000 KOs) -1-0…his only defeat resulted in his death, but still, that’s some win percentage! Yes his resumé was packed full of bums and peasants, but he also faced some fearsome soldiers with superb win records of their own. Liston would stand zero chance with this monster. His best chance of staying alive would be for him to take a dive in Round 1 and stay down! Not that Sonny would ever dream of doing such a thing…
I’m going off The Ring. Your numbers are incorrect. I think you’re using their rankings after Vitali had beaten them. Similarly, Byrd wasn’t ranked headed into the Vitali fight. I don’t care for boxrec rankings.
The Boston Garden had second thoughts because they smelled the bull**** from a mile away, and nobody besides Maine would touch the bout with a 10 foot pole. Again the evidence doesn't support this. Your own criteria (house numbers, articles) doesn't support this and you continue to contradict yourself and move the goal posts by your own admission. You're nothing but a clown and a troll as two others posters in just this thread have stated.
Again the evidence doesn't support this. Your own criteria (house numbers, articles) doesn't support this and you continue to contradict yourself and move the goal posts by your own admission. You're nothing but a clown and a troll as two others posters in just this thread have stated.[/QUOTE] I’m not a trees instead of the forest kind of guy.
I agree. An absolutely atrocious, agenda driver troll who changes goal posts whenever it suits him by his own admission.
