But actually, if the Kessler/Calzaghe fight had been stopped at the same point as Vitali/Lewis there would be many people arguing that Kessler was possibly winning. Yet we all know how it turned out in the end. It just goes to prove that this winning on the cards nonsense is just that, nonsense. It means little in the grand scheme of things except that Vitali fought well on the night, but ultimately lost. You can't assume he's a great fighter based on that, the burden of proof is on him to prove he's a great fighter not for us to disprove that based on him winning by a couple of rounds in a fight in which he has a 'L' next to his name. Like I said, he's not a great fighter because he beat a shed load of B grade opposition easily and looked impressive. That means he's a very good fighter, but as yet he hasn't taken it a step further, which isn't really his fault but its the way it is. It also doesn't mean he's a H2H beast just because he looks great, its not as easy to look great against better fighters.
When I see the thread title on the front page, it never fails to burn my eyes. These klitties sorely need a history lesson in boxing.
Sooner or later he can prove he is a great, even against B level opposition. I proved that logically in this thread. http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=173697&highlight=rubbish Whether he does enough against the B level opposition overall is another question.
Vitali missed the Olympics because of it, Toney lost the WBA Heavyweight Championship of the World. And he got caught after that!
Sam Peter had just KO'd Oleg & beat Toney on points twice. Gomez is a very good boxer with size & decent speed. Quit the hatin'
Your 'logic' is water tight, but ultimately people know what they are seeing in the ring. Juan Gomez, Sam Peter and Cris Arreola are not very good in a historical context and they are some of his best wins. It ain't happening. They are not even borderline passable for a great fighters ledger, they are the type of wins that should be there making up the numbers not the actual entirety of the case being presented. I know there are a few other names, but they are of a similar or lower standard. It's not as if he's an undisputed champion that dominated an era, cleaning everything up, he hasn't even got that to fall back on, he can't fall back on achievement. Like I said, its like beating Andrade, Beyer and Mundine and claiming to be a great just because it was done impressively. It doesn't work.
Which is why Vitali is top 5 head to head. His combination of awkward style, combos, accuracy, power in both hands, excellent stamina, incredible workrate, stellar chin & bully attitude are a tough match for anyone.
I'm glad you like my logic. The only question is whether he does enough against enough B level fighters to be considered great. With a 4-year break in his career it makes it hard for him to do that. It's not like he had a bum-of-the month fight; he had nothing. If he goes on to fight for another 4 years, and has 3 fights a year, I'd like to think that he can pretty much convince everyone that based on the weight of numbers he has earned his spot. Right now it is all subjective. I rank him between 20th-15th ATG heavy based on what I have seen, not on accomplishments. But other people will see differently, or not be confident to rank him so highly until he does more. Which is fair enough. BTW, I also rank Kessler highly based on what I have seen. Not high in the historical context, but high as in "clearly best in the SMW division right now". People will say that Froch has a better resume. That could be argued. But the gulf in ability is clearly apparent to me.
atschatschatschatsch Now you've been exposed is a Klit lover. He's no were near a top 5 H2H for any sensible knowledgeable boxing poster. And I know your knowledge is limited when you make comments like "I hear Rocky fought some old guys." Stick to the general.