Is Vitali really an H2H monster?

A tremendous performance from Lewis coming back from the most adversity he had ever faced in my opinion.

 

The stuff of legends.

 

The fight was about even. The cut was caused by a punch. no controversy.

 

Viatli started fast and strong ... he got cut bad in tghe third and it became a different fight ... Lewis hit him some monster shots flush and he did take them but that cut became horrendous and he couldn't see .. Lewis seemed o be coming on for sure but he was also older and a bit heavy so who really knows ... he's what we do know ... Lennox retired other than have a huge dollar rematch so clearly Lennox felt at that age it was the better move ..

 

Lewis was smart. No need to fight if you don't think you still got it. Retiring after stopping what turned out to be the second best HW of the next era is something special.

 

Never suggested there was any controversy. I remember Vitali being well ahead though, albeit it was only 6 rounds...something the cards at stoppage reflected?

 

I think he was ahead on the official cards 4-2 rounds. But to see it 3-3 rounds was no a stretch.

 

I'll have to watch it again, its been a minute...

 

I think what is always forgotten about this fight is that it was Lewis who was coming off his best round of the fight not the other way around.

Lewis was the one that almost knocked Vitali's head into orbit in the 6th round with an uppercut.

And for everyone saying that Lewis was starting to gas why couldn't he of got a 2nd wind ? Like he did in the Mercer fight to finish that fight strongly.

 

All good points but somewhat moot as Vitali looked like he'd met Mack the Knife in an alley behind the Vegas casino...Its perhaps another discussion but had the cut not happened this is one of the great 'could been' fights, a stonewall barn burner rock em sock em robots rammie....

 

H2h is the same as a fantasy fight. It's not real and never can be. It's a fun exercise that can claim anything and or base it on anything. People want to claim it's based on facts, but will ignore other facts that go against their agenda. The fact is Vits never beat a really good fighter let alone a great one. Nothing can change this and make him greater for it.

 

Just very unikely.
He looked more tired than Vitali, Mercer seemed more tired than Lewis, who was somewhat lighter & was in much better shape.
You have to be in good enough cardio shape to draw on that 2nd wind-certainly in a fight that intense & men that size.

I just think he had less left.

 

If he was, he didn't prove it by beating the best he fought.

 

He beat 45 of the 47 guys he fought. Went 15-2 in title fights. The 2 guys he lost to were clearly controversial stoppages due to injuries.

If he fought Byrd in a trilogy - who do you honestly think would have won? How about LL?

 

Allow me to challenge you on several questions.

1) Since it is all speculative & a form of fantasy fights of course it is subjective.

And it still is based upon facts, & some people on all sides ignore facts that do not suit their beliefs.
Still, some folks do *not* ignore facts-they may be right or wrong & the answer is still subjective, but I am one of many that diligently try to address *all* claims & facts.

2) Vitali never beating a great fighter is a very reasonable argument.
But it is not near airtight; how well he did against many who were "really good" is a solid argument for him too.
Since there is no dispute that he rarely lost rounds, faced many styles, we can see his assets such as size/strength, awkwardness, granite chin, endurance, high work rate (very valuable asset), had a great KO%, etc...

I will make an analogy here & then fill in the blanks for what you are undoubtably mentally contesting.
If there is a strike shortened season, but say it is 1998/1999 for the NBA & they have played most of the season, 50 games, it is enough evidence that if you want to fairly apply statistics to credit athletes with the performance they likely would have had, nearly 2/3 of the season is enough of a sample size to assume & credit what was likely.
Unlike the longest playoff series possible in major sports 7 games-where it is recognized by statisticians that it is very possible the best team might not win: because random factors, streaks, luck plays more into it.

In fact, over 7 TIMES more likely. 7 X 7 = only 49 games.

3) So you do not think Vitali beat anyone who was very good.
I strongly disagree.

First we must acknowledge that all even great fighters face many that are just Good-down to terrible early in their career.
AND most agree that most fighters who are considered Great-rarely face someone in their prime, let alone peak.
Even Frazier faced an Ali who was somewhat slower of foot & reflexes-& still rusty, was better in the 3 years that followed/needed more tune-up fights, & the FOTC is the ultimate example of 2 Truly Great HWs (both undefeated) & very well motivated.

Next I note that symmetrical to his great record in rounds, is that the record of his opponents, especially during his title runs, was about the best you can find.
You want to examine who THEY fought you can always find relative "bums"~> but you can go down that rabbit hole with any fighter.

4) Vitali fought 18 (top 10) ranked fighters.
You should adjust for those 2 losses-but they were not situations that are at all common in boxing or for him.
Such as he & fighters in general-with few exceptions-have fights lost on cuts (& any sort of similar injury as against Byrd who he was ahead on even with that injury), a very small % of the time.

I ask you to look at who he fought at what point in their careers, many with Top Notch or undefeated records.
This could be a separate thread, but do you really think that some of these guys Vitali fought, especially after Lewis, were not "really good"?!?
The # of fighters who ever reach the top 10 & logic mitigate against that assertion.
Especially when there are not extenuating factors such as they were HWs at a time when guys were routinely CW or rehydrated LHW sizes!
https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/007033

5) Amateur & kickboxing record.
I think we can fairly use his savvy & success in so many other fights as evidence of his likelihood of beating other & great fighters.

****************************************************************************************

6) I think it best we recognize a middle ground here.

It is a very reasonable position to not rank him a one of the very best in history based on not facing some of the very best around.

It is also extremely reasonable to both weigh his considerable physical & fisticuff assets, all fighting experience, including those in the top 10, & agree with most on this thread & poll:

That it is plenty enough to logically argue that he could well be, or likely was, at least top 10 ever.
That is quite enough to be a "monster".
Although it is possible he would be top 5.

Lastly, most know that some who were greater relative to their times-&/or more celebrated-would not be good candidates for top 10 ever in a round robin tournament.
Mainly because they were no more than fighting in the 180's, which is a rehydrated LHW, or a very small CW.

I welcome other opinions on this matter!
Especially if it is fair to look at my box rec link (https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/007033), consider those ranked in the top 10, usually with stellar records....& say that Vitali did not fight a bunch of "very good" fighters.