This thread is not about who would have won had they fought in their primes. It's about different perceptions of them from public. Chisora is considered widely as fringe contender while Botha is considered as s solid lower top 10 contender. However, if you look at their respective resumes, Derek Chisora has MUCH better list of wins compared to Botha. Both in depth and quality of defeated opposition. Just look at it: Botha's best win (best by far) is a split decision victory over fringe contender Mike Hunter that should have probably be a loss really. His second and third best victories are David Bostice and Timo Hoffman in whatever order you put them. None of them was ever a top 30 opponent and Bostice was coming to the fight fresh of one-round destruction from ancient Tim Witherspoon who annihilated him three and half months before he went the distance with Botha in pretty competitive fight. Other than that, Botha's best win is who exactly? 17- 6 James Stanton who had 3 wins over opponents with winning records in his whole career? Or Lee Gilbert who had 0 (zero) wins over opponents with winning records in his career? While Chisora in comparison had beaten top 10 opponent in Carlos Takam, two former top 10 guys in Joe Joyce and Kubrat Pulev, and bunch of current/former fringe contenders and solid journeymen in Malik Scott, Otto Wallin, Kevin Johnson, David Price, Arthur Szpilka, Edmund Gerber, Pala, Washington. His list of wins is SO MUCH BETTER than Botha's one. Of course, Botha probably deserved a win over Briggs, but you can also argue Chisora deserved to win against Helenius, Whyte (1st fight) and Parker (1st fight). As for Botha losing his first 5 fights to HOF opponents only (Moorer, Tyson, Lewis, Wlad and Holyfield) - so what? He still got beaten decisively by each of them, and winning few rounds against guys like Moorer and 1999 version of Tyson isn't any more impressive than winning few rounds against Vitali or Usyk. And please, don't mention here Axel Schulz fight. Because of two reasons: a) Schulz was blatantly robbed in that fight: b) even had Botha won deservedly it still wouldn't count since he was caught using steroids in that fight
I doubt Botha was better than Chisora, Chisora has a couple of good wins and has put in much better performances than Botha...
It’s simple: Botha belonged to an era which many boxing fans boost, which is also more favoured by the American/Western boxing media. By elevating Botha you indirectly elevate Lewis, Tyson, Moorer and Holyfield. Chisora may well have a far better record and be a much better fighter. He’s probably Vitali’s toughest opponent beaten (prime Chisora likely grinds down an ageing fat Sanders), he certainly gave him his 3rd most competitive fight including his defeats. If Chisora is better than Botha then it elevates the last two eras as many beat him or gave him close fights. Briggs is another example of this tendency. His record is pretty abysmal when examined. He even got a gift against Botha. But he is commonly touted as a “top 3” Vitali win when he likely isn’t a top 10 Vitali win in reality. He was a punching bag with zero ambition beyond survival in that fight. Even Kevin Johnson, who Chisora dominated, was a much more challenging Vitali opponent than an old Briggs.
That was laughable.Briggs was probably outside the top 15 at heavyweight at the time.I have to say though it was the fight that proved Vitali wasn’t a devastating puncher.A prime Briggs couldn’t handle Lewis’ punches but a washed up Briggs could take anything Vitali hit him with.
It would be correct to say it was ANOTHER fight in which Vitali has proven once again he wasn't a big puncher. It was evident even back in 1999 when young Vitali (not 40 y.o. that battered Briggs) pummeled Obed Sullivan like a drum for 9 rounds and couldn't put him down. Sullivan wasn't the most durable guy, got knocked down plenty of times and got brutally KTFOed not only by David Tua but also by non-puncher Fres Oquendo making Fres look like prime George Foreman in terms of power
I'd say both were fringe contenders. I don't think anyone ever saw Botha as a top contender which means he was a fringe contender right? Or is there another class of contender I am unaware of, I have only ever heard of top contenders and fringe contenders. As to who was better, yeah clearly Chisora is better as Chisora was willing to fight anyone while if you look at Botha's resume he fought a bunch of nobodies, would step up and lose and then face a bunch of nobodies again until he got another big fight.
The 41 knockouts in 47 heavyweight fights is an incredibly misleading statistic.Albert Sosnowski lasted 10 rounds with a prime Klitschko.Imagine what would’ve happened to an out of shape Lennox Lewis if Vitali could punch like Wladimir.
If Vitali had Wlad's punching power and landed that punch in round 2, he'd have KO'd Lennox right there
In retrospect. It’s pretty obvious that Botha threw the fight against Tyson, it’s pretty obvious that. If a prime Botha wasn’t told to throw a fight against Chisora, well he’d probably remove a rib and suck his own ****.
"Who is Vitali's best win? Sanders. Peter. Briggs." - Len Harvey These were two responses that came up on the first page of a "Vitali briggs best win" search.
Wlad with Vitali’s chin would be challenging Ali for #1 ATG most likely. unsure about Vitali with Wlad’s power.
