Rank ATG Usyk, Wlad, and Vitali

Ok
So it's fluke when it suits and context when it doesn't?
Hide was the favourite
I recall the article titled nowhere to Hide

If you don't mind me asking but how old were you honestly in 1999?

 

Don't know what you mean about the context. If you want to give much credit to Vitali for the Puritty win, you should give even more credit to Eliecer Castillo then, as he was the one that beat Puritty first, after he beat Wlad.

Hide might have been the favorite, but it doesn't negate anything that was said - that he was an European level fighter.

 

I don't know if you're implying this or not so correct me if i'm wrong. But i don't quite get why you are saying Briggs was 25 years old like it's a huge accomplishment getting a gift decision against a 48 year old.

Foreman hadn't lost since beating Moorer because he didn't fight any top 10 ranked fighters. He also got a huge gift decision against Schulz a fight i scored 8-4 for Schutz and a fight that many thought Foreman lost.

Also Briggs's "win" over Foreman no one believes he actually won it legitimately.

So the missing context here is that Briggs's highly controversial decision against a 48 year old Foreman, isn't as impressive as you just listing it as "Briggs lineal champion".

Also a big missing context is that Briggs beat Foreman in 1997 and Vitali fought Briggs in 2010. Briggs also hadn't been relevant at world level since his one sided points loss to Sultan Ibragimov in 2007.

As for Moorer the proper context would be Moorer beat a very under par Holyfield. That was suffering from health issues in what was arguably one of Holyfield's worst performances of the decade. And even then Moorer only won because a judge made a huge scoring error scoring the 2nd round 10-10, a round in which Holyfield knocked down Moorer in which cost him a draw on the judges scorecards.

Hide was a dangerous fighter and as i said i give Vitali credit for the win, but again the WBO title at that time was considered a fringe belt. And the manner in which Hide won the vacant WBO title was hardly impressive. Beating a shot 40 year old Tony Tucker who was 2-3 in his last 5 fights.

 

You first sentence is absurd. They were absolutely not.

 

Yes, they were. The definition of fringe contedners (barely made Ring Top 10). Who did they beat at HW? Virchis, Barrett and Austin?

 

Yes. Virchis as a title eliminator. As for Solis he was some sort of a minor WBC champ. Both were highly ranked.

 

ATG?
Wlad
Usyk
Vitali

Heavyweight?
Wlad
Vitali
Usyk

H2H
Vitali
Usyk
Wlad

 

Wlad never fought Vitali.

 

They weren't. Gomez was rated as a contender number 10 by The Ring and Solis wasn't even ranked when Vitali faced him.

 

Cause Vitali wouldn't face him. Kinda hard to take on your own brother you know.

 

1) The Ring doesn't mean anything.
2) Contender #10 is a top ten contender
3) You know in your hear that the credentials these men brought and the victories that they had were better than a lot of Wlad's opponents.

 

1. The Ring is the best ranking outlet out there.
2. Sorry, he was rated number 9. Still, a fringe contender with nothing to show for to stand out from the pack.
3. No they weren't. The year Vitali fought Gomez Wlad fought Chagaev. The year Vitali fought Solis Wlad fought Haye. Both were the best available opponents - way better, higher rated and more accomplished.