The heavyweight division is bad, period. But why is that Vitali's fault? He will fight whoever they put in front of him, and right now, I don't think there is anyone in the division that really stands a chance.
Peter is probably the best win on Vitali's resume. Turns out, Peter isn't very good. Therefore Vitali's "best win", isn't particualrly great after all. I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption. In the same way we now understand that Calzaghe's win over Lacy wasn't quite as good as we thought it was at first...
If he beats Haye, then his resume will be better. The fact that Peter turned out to be not very good, has damged Vitali's already feeble resume. In the same way, when Lacy turned out to be not very good also, Calzaghe's win over him wasn't rated quite as highly. It should be the same for all fighters, I don't think this position is unreaonsable.
it is true that peter turned out to be a bag of crap but he did his job against him and exposed him real well i wouldnt go as far as saying his resume is crap but it is not very good for someone people regard as being one of the top heavyweight all time that he is not
He has a 4 year lay off to come back at age 37 and then not only beats the reigning WBC champ in Peter, but dominates him in winning every single round and stopping him for the first time in his career. How the hell can that look "pathetic" ? Tell me how many heavyweight contenders had a 4 year lay off in and came back on the long side of 30 to do that? The only one i can think of is Foreman.... and no i'm not saying Vitali is as great as Foreman [sigh], but it does show you that calling that win "pathetic" is rather pathetic.
This always happens in this situation. The haters claim the loss means the win was never that good, while the fans say their man ruined the loser when they fought.