Who Was Not A Great Fighter?

Harsh on Tszyu. Probably even harsher on Pryor.

It really depends on how you measure these things though but I have both guys top 10 all time at 140. It’s a pity they just didn’t quite crossover as what a fight that would have been.

 

In all honesty, would you prefer they didn't lose to the best fighters they fought? Should they lose to fighters who suck instead?

And, if you're going to lose, losing to the two best you fought ... both times due to injuries ... and you were leading in the fight against both at the time ... isn't so bad at all.

Wlad lost to the two best fighters he fought - Fury and Joshua - and Wlad lost to a total journeyman in Ross Puritty (who Vitali beat) and he lost to Corrie Sanders (who Vitali beat).

Vitali would've curb-stomped Wlad.

 

Sonny Liston

 

Pryor does have two wins over standout names but Cervantes was way past his best, and Arguello never did anything above 135 and their 1st fight has a serious asterisks over it because of the black bottle which is a bit of a turn off for me when rating Pryor.

Tszyu has very good achievements at 140 but he lacks a big win over a big a real standout name, and the loss to Vince Phillips in his prime hurts him as does quitting against Hatton somewhat even though he was older with a biased referee in favour of Hatton.

 

But Wlad also beat Byrd, who Vitali lost to.

 

I get it mate but holding the Philips loss over Tszyu is not really any different to holding the Douglas loss over Tyson or the Young loss over Foreman. It happens and sometimes you just can't avenge those losses due to lack of opportunity. But I am confident that all three losses in this case would have been easily avenged in rematches but that never happened.

As for the Hatton loss well Tszyu didn't quit, his corner stopped it and rightly so. Tszyu, who had an injury history was just cooked and ran into a premium Hatton who had everything go his way that night. And Tszyu did have massive wins against Judah who was undefeated and other very high level opponents (Hurtado, Mitchell x 2, Gonzales, Ruelas, Laporte, etc)....and as they say, you can only beat who is there and it isn't as though Tszyu ducked anybody. He literally cleaned out the division.

As for Pryor, well many say he's the best ever at 140 so I am not sure how he isn't an ATG, let alone just great.

But it is an interesting discussion.

 

How did you get that out of my post ? Their losses can't be brushed aside easily because their winning resumes don't compensate, so the losses look even worse.

The only injury Vitali had against Lewis was the one that Lewis carved upon Vitali's face. Calling genuine damage that was inflicted from a punch an ''injury'' is just an excuse, it was as legit as they come. Had the fight gone further, Vitali's face would have been permanently scarred, and then we'd have seen whether or not anyone would claim that Vitali lost due to an injury.

As for Byrd, the scorecard gap between him and Vitali is overstated. Byrd could very well have won the fight had it went the distance. Vitali himself quit because he knew he wasn't too ahead to be able to win 3 more rounds while injured. And he never rematched Byrd.

Yeah, except Wlad was 40 years old when he lost to them, while Vitali was in his prime for both Byrd and Lewis. Put a 40 year old Vitali against Fury and AJ and let's see what happens. Wlad may also have the worse losses of the 2, but his overall resume far outshines Vitali's. Vitali never beat guys as good as Povetkin and Chagaev, and failed to beat Byrd, unlike Wlad.

As for who would win between Wlad and Vitali, it's irrelevant. Wlad is far and away the greater and more proven fighter, and that's what matters.

 

Or, in the case of the Ali and Holmes fights, one more round.

Ken gets the nod in one round ahead of Ali in fight three, then gets one round instead of Larry and he suddenly has two out of three against the greatest and is the first man to beat Larry Holmes. He's a bona fide ATG then, as long as Larry regroups and does everything he did in the real world.

 

Absurd. Not only a great, but THE GREATEST middleweight. Consistent high level performance over a long period of time. It leaves little doubt.

 

You not been round here when anyone criticized Monzon for a while? It's become a bit of a thing - the vitriol from a group of posters towards anyone who questions Monzon is unparallelled. They're known as the Monzonistas.

I was just seeing if one of the non-believers would pop their head above the parapet.

I sort of am one of those non-believers. I see a slowish, upright boxer with little head movement who hangs his chin out. His punches appear to lack snap and yet he never appeared to not be controlling the moment, or at least not for long. And he did produce the goods for a long time so that, too, cannot be disputed.

I will keep on watching his fights and get educated. McGrain, I believe it was, did a thread recently where he broke down the style etc. I'll have a look.

 

I'm one of Lennox's biggest fans.

But cuts are injuries. (And I give Lennox full credit for causing them.)

Vitali was leading when he lost to Byrd and Lewis.

He wasn't demolished in two rounds like Wlad was against Sanders.

Vitali didn't put anyone on the deck who got up and stopped him, like Wlad had happen to him more than once.

Vitali was never behind on the cards in a fight.

And Wlad wasn't 40 when he got stopped by Ross Puritty, Lamon Brewster and Corrie Sanders.

Like I said, is it better to lose to a couple of the best fighters you fought ... due to injuries (while you're ahead in the fight) ... or is it better to lose to bad fighters you fought?

I know which I'd choose.

Vitali Klitschko was one of the most dominant heavyweight champions who ever stepped in the ring. Period.

 

Andre Ward
Miguel Cotto
Canelo Alvarez

 

Boxing is not figure skating or gymnastics. Participants are not judged on form, though form does, many times, figure in the equation for success. But some make awkward work. And when you go undefeated for 81 bouts over 13 years with 14 title defenses, and avenge every early loss you incurred. Well, then, you are doing something very few have ever done, no matter how much snap they appeared to have on their punches.

When watching Monzon, you watch his judgement and control of distance (somewhat like Vitali would do decades later), the gears he runs through in terms of speed and pacing... pawing jab, pawing jab, quick jab/right hand behind it. He changes up the speed on his punches like a baseball pitcher. And the punch selection is always there. Hooks, uppercuts, right hand, jabs, he was always changing the pattern.

 

I agree, Norton is a borderline great imo. Not glass but needed a bit better chin.

Just curious though, IF Norton had been awarded the official decision in the Ali rubber, would that have been enough to push him into the realm of GREAT in YOUR eyes?

Personally, in rating Ken, I account for him as actually having clearly won the rubber.

I also account for Norton’s performance against Holmes as a razor thin, either way fight or a draw.

If Norton had been officially acknowledged as the winner in the Ali rubber, since I already allow for that as a”win”, I’d still rate Ken as borderline.

In fact, if Norton had squeezed in even more fights with Ali, with some more wins, I don’t know that I’d move him too much higher for that, if at all - since it would still be the one deemed great he engaged and prevailed over - without increasing the breadth of his superiority.

No, he didn’t officially beat Holmes but it was so close imo, it could’ve gone either way or a draw, at least as I see it, Ken beat one GREAT twice and barely lost to another GREAT when Norton was past his best.

In respect of just beating a great vs just losing to a great - there seems to be a disproportionate disparity between credit gained or lost respectively - if that makes sense.

But then again, being GREAT really can only be sourced from a mosaic.

True GREATS can sometimes struggle with the good, the bad and the ugly - but still, always or almost always prevail.

Lennox Lewis said it’s much harder to hang on to the title than it is to win in it in the first place. Simply expressed but perfectly true for ALL title holders imo.

Everyone is trying to knock off the Champ - often brining their A game and even then some for their chance at the title - posting challenges that can belie their resumes otherwise.

It’s no mean feat to maintain yourself and repeatedly turn away acutely motivated challenges like that, as Louis and Ali did - even if one wants to scrutinise the proven quality of each and every challenger to the nth degree.

As much as I like Norton, if he’d won the title in Yankee Stadium (though he was already about 33 yo himself at that stage) I don’t know that he could’ve held on to it for too long.

A lesser fighter might’ve unequivocally taken him out - and in overall terms, that did later happen against Shavers in ‘79 - though Ken was about 36 yo, 3 years older by then.

Still, as at ‘76, if granted a chance against the “hypothesised” Champ Norton, I think Earnie still might’ve taken Ken out as he later actually did - (Shavers was exceptionally impressive against Henry Clark on the Ali-Norton III undercard) and then Earnie himself would’ve likely had a short lived time as the King of the HWs -

Holmes was fated and proved himself to be the actual GREAT during that time line for an acceptably long period and # of defences - the all conquering mosaic.

Ironically, longer reigning Champs can often be picked apart more for certain troughs in performance during their reign - even if they still ultimately won each and every time out.

The troughs are natural over longer periods of time and increasing breadth of competition - for stunning yet shorter reigning Champs, it can be a case of applying an “Only The Good Die Young” perspective - at least as I like to interpret that saying - if you die metaphorically “Old” in boxing, you will **** up more and be more easily picked apart for same.

 

I've already addressed the losses. His losses to Puritty, Sanders and Brewster are worse than the losses to Lewis and Byrd, but Wlad's actual wins more than compensate for that. It's not even a contest.

Puritty, Sanders and Brewster are not Wlad's best opponents. Byrd, Povetkin, Chagaev and Haye were far superior, and he beat all of them. So Wlad managed to prove time and time again that he was way more than just those 3 losses. Vitali on the other hand never proved he was actually above Byrd and Lewis, and did not beat guys anywhere near that good, despite them being available.

You want to talk dominance ? How about :

1. Wlad's 23 overall title defences, most of them with multiple belts on the line, compared to Vitali's overall 12 defences of a single alphabet strap at a time ?

2. Wlad having about as many wins against top 3 ranked fighters as Vitali has against top 10 ranked fighters ? Wlad has more than twice the amount of wins over top 10 ranked men that Vitali does, period.

3. Wlad actually beating the man Vitali failed to beat, twice ?

4. Wlad's longest reign lasting 9 years compared to Vitali's longest, which lasted 4 ? And let's not ignore that Wlad lasted that much longer despite facing superior competition.

The only thing Vitali has over Wlad is the lack of losses, and literally nothing else. It's hilarious that you're picking Vitali above Wlad based on dominance of all things.