a very small perhaps, If they fought at the tail end of Vito's 154lb career he might have a chance, Maurice hope did this, with Vito fighting the scales, also cuts may be a factor, but if Vito is right and good to go, then he takes what the Baby Bull has to offer, maintains a Pace that Alaya would not like, and grinds him down, if Cyclone Hart, Matt Hilton ( another baby Bull ) or Bad Bebbie Briscoe couldnt dent a Right Vito, then Alaya will not either.
Good fight. Both guys can really fight, and were very well schooled in how they fought, in how they maximized their advantages. I lean towards Vito...but something to consider is that Ayala would be going down stairs on Vito and he has considerable more power...might be the difference(?)
Vito was of coarse more proven. The thing about Tony is we really do not know how he would have fared against the Hagler,Hearns,Duran,Leonard, Benitez level. With those guys you cannot have defensive weaknesses or you don't win. Against Vito who was not the elite level, he was very very good and just too experienced for Tony. A great fight would have been Tony Ayala vs.Juan Roldan. Wow what a war..
Vito was better than a lot of reporters would give him credit for. It spread to some fans. For some reason he was never liked in media, mostly the few writers at time who had most pull in boxing--Michael Katz, Schylur of the associated press, and a couple of others. Vito was in top 10 for a few years before he got a title shot. He fought about every top fighter around. He also was not sore loser, when Hope bout was stopped, he said it was correct stoppage. How often do we hear that ?
To think I actually asked this question. Even if it was almost five years ago. Vito's tendency to cut and Ayala's superior firepower play heavily into this one. A war to remember, but Tony definitely comes out on top, for the aforementioned reasons.