Joe Louis vs. Vitali Klitschko

I already stated that Holmes was not undisputed. He did compensate by having a long reign, and was widely regarded as the world's best heavyweight during that reign. He did beat many fighters who later claimed a portion of the title.

In an era of giants? C'mon Seamus...Vitali is the giant, usually fighting smaller men. I really don't know why you said that.
Bigger, stronger opponents? Maybe. But they're also slower and fatter. It's all relative to the times anyway.
Having barely lost a round and with an excellent KO/stoppage record is great, but would you bestowe greatness on him for these statistics?

Believe it or not, I've come down quite hard on Larry for many of these 'gimme' defences. He should have fought the likes of Page and Thomas, no doubt. It's a knock on his tenure.
To reiterate though, he did have a lengthly spell at the top and was widely considered the best heavyweight in the world. So far, Vitali can claim neither for himself.

 

Vitali Klitschko lost to an old, out-of-shape Lennox Lewis, in the Lion's last fight. And he's going to beat Joe Louis?

This puts Vitali in perspective.

He lost to an old great, in his prime, title challenge. A fight for the title is when we normally see the best in an all-time great. He is hungry, primed, wrests the title from an old champion and reigns supreme. In this case, the old champion beat back Vitali, retired and then Vitali reigned supreme.

Imagine Clay losing to Liston, Liston retiring, and then Clay reigning supreme.
Or Holmes to Norton, Norton retiring, and then Holmes reigning supreme.
Or Tyson to Berbick, Berbick retiring, and then Tyson reigning supreme.

Vitali is the best now, but he lost in his showdown with greatness, even though gray.

 

On the contrary, Holmes gets plenty of scrutiny over the quality of many of his challengers. BUT he kept on defending his portion of the title for something like 20 defenses, and there was no single fighter out there at the time who was rivalling him enough to undermine him for long.

The Vitali case is completely different. Until June 2003 he was just another contender, Lennox Lewis was the champion and a fairly impressive one (save the six-month loan of the title to Rahman). Then June 2003 Vitali lost to Lennox Lewis. In February 2004 Lewis announced his retirement, Vitali beat Corrie Sanders, his first real claim to a serious title. A win over Danny Williams followed, then a 4-year break !
He's won 3 fights since he came back, and in his time away and since he's been back, his younger brother Wladimir has earned the mantle of number 1 heavyweight in the world, and the RING magazine's championship.

In total that's 5 title fight wins in 6 years, 3 of those 5 wins in the shadow of an established rival.
Not a single win over an ATG and questionable quality of (the best of) his opposition.

How on earth people are comparing him to Holmes, Louis etc. I just dont understand.

 

Good post, well made points!

 

I think there are several differences:

-The average V. Klitschko title defence opponent has been somewhat better than the average Holmes' title opponent - but not by that much.

-Vitali did not drop his belt to avoid the mandatory (Holmes-Page), has not avoided rematches (Holmes-Norton, Witherspoon & Williams) and in general has not avoided anyone except for his brother.

-Vitali completely dominated and destroyed said mediocre opposition, whereas Holmes struggled badly against Weaver, Witherspoon and Williams, not to mention an aging Norton, though he was a very good fighter for this particular matchup against Holmes.

-Despite these struggles, Holmes never lost until he ran into Spinks, but in my opinion he avenged this defeat. Vitali lost to Lewis and Byrd, albeit in favorable circumstances, he still lost.

 

Correct. As we know neither Lewis or Byrd wanted to re-match. They were both lucky, especially Byrd.

This undisputed champion point a while back was much easier for old timers. If Joe Louis was around in the alphabet soup era, he might only be WBO champion, and lack the promotional ties with the other champions to become unified champion.

Vitali is seeking a title unification fight with Valuev, but Valuev doesn't
t want it.

 

I would dispute that. But it's a ridiculous debate to get into. The average ability of Sanders, Williams, Peter, Gomez and Arreola isn't up to much.
And I'm sure the best of Holmes' title fight opposition is better than the best Vitali has faced.

His brother is THE CHAMPION, the guy to beat.
Vitali came out of retirement to face Sam Peter, a man who was considered firmly behind Wlad, had been beaten comprehensively by Wlad and hadn't improved since then, a man who's claim to the championship was weak.
Wlad's been establishing himself throughout the 4 years Vitali has been away. It's ridiculous to skirt over such a glaring ommission and then to make Holmes ducking Page a major issue (and in no way am I in favour of downplaying Holmes' ducking, I'm even-handed). The brothers are BLATANTLY avoiding each other. So be it, let's call Wladimir the real champion then, Vitali is just second-fiddle. But we know both are ducking each other, so Vitali loses out.
Vitali never dropped his belt, but he DID retire for 4 years with injury. He just hasn't got the body of work. Two fights maximum as "The Man", that's the truth.

I dont think Holmes avoided a rematch with Norton.

Look at some of the fights you mention. Holmes took on Norton with an injured arm and Weaver with a flu-like virus.
Vitali Klitschko pulled out of fighting Hasim Rahman about three or four times and retired for FOUR years, pulled out of a planned comeback against Jameel McCline, due to injuries.
Holmes was fighting title fights on a frequent schedule when he faced Witherspoon and Williams, both fights occured just 2 months after he'd last defended.
Vitali's body would have probably fell apart if he fought Holmes's title reign schedule for 7 years. And I'm not just making that up. This is based on the actual FACTS of his career.

I think Vitali Klitschko is a very good fighter. But people are losing perspective about his actual achievements.

 

No one cares about Valuev.
And there's no way Klitschko lacks the promotional ties to fight Klitschko.

 

I'm not clear on this Byrd didn't want a rematch with VITLAY point either, as I remember it he fought WALDO instead, had a hell of a beating and still came back to rematch him years later when everyone knew he'd get the same treatment again. I struggle with the concept of him not wanting a rematch against VITLAY. Still most of the Klit-ites still accuse Lewis of ducking Byrd and Ruiz so it's about par for the course around here I suppose :nut

It never fails to amuse me when I hear Lewis was 'lucky' against VITLAY too - if anything he was unlucky that VITLAYS face didn't hold out for the inevitable KO that was coming in the next couple of rounds.

 

At least you should get the chronology of the facts correct.

WALDO beat Peter and earned himself a mandatory shot at the IBF title, which was held by Byrd at the time. Byrd didn't choose to rematch WALDO, he was forced to fight the mandatory challenger, otherwise he would have been stripped by the IBF.

 

Byrd did call out Vitali a few times.

Ike: Tell us about your fight with Vitali Klitschko, do you see yourself fighting him again to determine who is the true heavyweight champion of the world?

Byrd: I beat him before I have tried to make him fight me so we can know who the true heavyweight champion is but I don't think he wants to fight me but I'm willing to fight anybody. I'm no worried about Klitschko anymore if he says he's the true champion lets put it on again I beat before so lets do it again "Vitali". We spoke to Don King many times about fighting Vitali Klitschko so if it happens it happens, my focus is on Jameel McCline now.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=2210&more=1

 

Vitali was lucky they stopped the fight then so his mother can still recognize him.
There's nothing worth losing your face for.

 

:rofl Yeah, but you know what isn't a fact. That he's fighting better opposition. The opposite surely would be.

Would Chris Arreola really have won a round against Holmes? I think not :smoke

 

To be fair though, I wouldn't want to fight my brother either. I don't hold it against the Klitschkos...

 

I do. I agree with you and it's not huge but it doesn't help their legacy that there isn't a unified or rightly determined "best" of the era. And I don't see why history can't hold this against them. Expecting someone to fight their brother is pretty unreasonable, though. But it's fair when determine their legacies and place in heavyweight greatness. I don't hold it against them in the sense that I think they should have to fight each other or that it's a valid criticism, but it's a valid thing to hold against them historically.