His resume really isn't that good. It's actually very poor for all ATG. His best win was 38 year old Corrie Sanders and he had wins over unmotivated Sam Peter, 35 year old Larry Donald, and Chris Arreola who never amounted to anything and Derek Chisora. That's not a great resume or even a good resume. It's a poor, weak resume. He only picked up the one belt and was never undisputed champion and he didn't even defend that one belt for long. You cannot put anyone with this kind of resume into the top 10 heavyweight boxers of all time. He lost to Lewis at the end of the day. Losing on cuts is part of boxing. And I don't think anyone can argue against that stoppage based on Vitalis condition at the time ... And that was Lewis at his worst. The Byrd fight is controversial. I haven't seen it in a while but from memory, Byrd was starting to pick up some steam before Vitali resigned. Making someone miss can contribute to the injury Klitschko suffered. I have to watch that fight again but I think you have to give Byrd some credit for making him miss. I find it funny how he personally never avenged the Byrd loss but had his little brother beat him for him. Lol. I don't use H2H that highly when it comes to ATG ranking. Don't think it's fair to use when it comes to ranking actual careers. That's why I couldn't place someone like Mike Tyson, whom I consider the H2H king, over Joe Louis or Larry Holmes. I agree H2H Vitali ranks highly but he's not the best and I can see a prime Lewis beating him, Ali beating him, Tyson beating him, Holmes giving him problems etc. I'll give you that he's top 5 or so H2H. Also remember Vitali is a proven steroid user. This impacts his rating, ranking, and legacy. And I'm sure he fought for "human rights" ... I've seen plenty of these swines fight for "human rights" ... Just a bull**** fraud phrase they use to conceal their crimes ... Not saying Vitali is like those politicians but I need to see evidence of this claim.
I do not think you should be disparaging & put "human rights" in quotes when you rightly admit you know no evidence of corruption. I am speaking at what others describe about him, without any cause you should not describe "these swines" & call it a #%@^&*@t fraud phrase as if nobody can be heroic or even honest when assigned said moniker. Research this, I believe he opposes evil, illegal & oppressive nationalism & violence, & is a legitimate champion of Decency & Democracy. Now for the boxing: I do not say his boxing resume is so good. But it is better than commonly given credit for. Kevin Johnson & Sam Peters had almost perfect records when they fought, & not novices or nearly past it. Larry Donald had an excellent record, & so what if he was 35? Especially when he only had a single loss in many many fights before they clashed. If you do this with Vitali you can pick apart virtually ANY HW & make them look like they only fought "bums" & "Winos from the Ali". Certainly with Joe Lewis & his bum of the month club-itself a greatly overstated & one sided designation. It is harder say with '70's Ali, but at the extreme you can say describe Frazier still great as washed up, Foreman as fighting mostly bums... An objective analyses shows that who he fought & where they were in their career, combined with rarely losing rounds, puts him very high indeed. [url]https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/7033[/url] I did not dispute that Lewis gave him a legitimate stoppage, but fair point. Byrd's skills may be part of the injury cause, but it still was a rare event. I must see evidence he ducked a rematch before slamming vitali. You did not give reasons for saying those very few ATGs beat him, but we both agree he ranks very highly. I cannot see Tyson as #1 given his size & ability to be clinched & flummoxed, but he was way tougher in the '80's. But he is up there... I cannot see a reason why considering head to head ability as important is unfair, or why to weight it so minimally. As long as the evaluation is based upon real life accomplishments. If we upgrade or downgrade guys based upon competition, domination & circumstances, & want to know who are likely the best fighters, we should give this a significant look. In this case his size, work-rate, chin & defensive prowess, even via an awkward style, is important to consider. If you consider Ali as # 1 or 2 despite many technical flaws, some gift decisions, weak competition, more losses... I think you can see how Vitali can easily be considered tp 10. Although again i said if he is not far outside of it that is no outrage. But even with all the great HWs over so much time, it seems very distorted to place him say in the 20's all time. Or even near 20. Anyone who you have in the teens is unlikely to be better than him overall. And also factoring in head to head as I think we should to some degree, whatever "teen" you have...Likely is clearly worse.
He is a classic conundrum really in that he looks superb, gave Lennox Lewis one of his tougher fights, but did so little work at or near the top of the division that appraising him against ATG opposition is really difficult. Infamously, Adrian Broner was introduced to The Ring p4p rankings without having beaten anyone very special, basically because someone liked the look of him. Liking the look of a fighter is dangerous, and every poster on this forum knows that. Every poster on the forum has invested heavily in an active fighter only for that active fighter to be turned upside down by a world-class operator after which he was "never the same again." Or probably nothing like we thought he was in the first place... I don't understand some of what is written about Vitali that is negative - he certainly doesn't appear to be "robotic" to me, but rather a hands-low gunslinger who none of the limited fighters he did beat really seemed to extend at all. I agree there are certain questions over his heart, but the sight of him bellowing with anger when prevented from continuing to fight Lewis with his face falling apart in the doctor's hands is surely affecting in that regard? Overall, I think that he has the look of a very special fighter but that there will always be doubt about how he would do against great fighters because he only fought one and he lost it in weird circumstances - after that the ratings gap for him is pretty big, unusual even for a fighter of his quality. But he did meet a large number of ranked guys a bit further down the food chain. I'd pick him to beat Max Baer and Jack Sharkey, but what about someone like Tim Witherspoon? I think I would pick Vitali the day before that fight if it were to happen in the real world, all things being equal, but it wouldn't be a confident pick.
Yeah, if anything he looked to be throwing away the textbook when he boxed, technically he did a lot of things 'incorrectly'. I'd imagine 'robotic' would refer to a fighter who does everything quite correct but rather predictable and deliberate, rather than the natural fighter than Vitali seemed to be. He looked ungainly and a bit oafish but he consistently put his fists in the other's guys' faces', and didn't take many incoming, so he was doing it right.
How does one rate a boxer with such an uninspiring resume? How does one class Vitali as a H2H monster, when he was defeated by his two best opponents (over which he had all the advantages)? His fans will rate Vitali by eye; point to his basic fundamentals, apparent physical prowess, as well as some stats here and there, to hammer home his dominance (save for the presence of his brother), and be very happy in doing so. It doesn't matter, it seems, that his numbers were amassed during one of the weakest eras in heavyweight history - made all the worse for some of Vitali's opponent selections. His comeback at an advanced age says more about the shallowness of the division than it does about Vitali Klitschko. Let's face it, if he was somehow able to 'wow' people with his performance against Briggs, then there needs to be an appreciation of just how bad that run was. So, it is difficult to rate him, generally. He was a major force in his time, fundamentally sound, but made to look better than he actually was - and I don't really consider him an ATG; not in so far as a position in the Top-20 of all time is concerned.
I agree. At the moment, I'd probably have Deontay Wilder in the same category as Vitali Klitschko ..... I don't rate them as "head 2 head monsters" but acknowledge that they were/are serious formidable contenders.
I'm not sure what you mean by this: "I cannot see a reason why considering head to head ability as important is unfair, or why to weight it so minimally. As long as the evaluation is based upon real life accomplishments" Can you clarify? For me, H2H doesn't work. How can you compare fighters from completely different eras in a H2H matchup? Let's use Louis v Vitali as an example. The ring canvas is different. The gloves are different. The fight distance is different. Refs stop fights more quickly nowadays. Joe does not have the benefit of fight film as Vitali did, to study opponents. Training conditions and methods are different. Joe did not have access to modern supplements and er, other stuff. Then you have to wonder how their skills would translate against each other. One could come up with an educated guess, but it's still a guess. Where is the middle ground, to reconcile all these differences? Who decides that? It's all subjective. Nobody could deliver anything more than a guess. It's fine on a forum-it's just banter-but I cannot take it seriously, unless the eras are very similar to each other. The 'eye test' is important, but taking fighters from very different eras and putting them H2H doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me when putting in an honest, concerted effort to rank fighters. It's far too subjective and open to interpretation and guesswork.
I've always been a big fan of Vitali. He was very unlucky in his career with injuries etc. He was far more formidable than his brother. And if he hadn't have had 4 years out through injury, before finally retiring earlier than his brother, again through injury, Wlad would never have had the career that he had. A fit and healthy Vitali would have ruled the division for over a decade like Wlad did. His resume isn't great, but he'd have beaten everybody who Wlad fought. Regarding his losses, I feel as though he was very unlucky. Byrd caused him problems with his movement, but he was way ahead on every card, and he had shoulder surgery the week after the fight. So for me, Byrd's win will always be on a technicality. It's a shame that they didn't rematch as some point, but it's never sat well with me when people say that Byrd beat him. If I'd have been a big fan of Byrd's, I could never have celebrated that as a legit win, even though it was an official win. I also feel similar regarding his loss to Lennox. Lennox won fair and square, but the referee didn't stop it because he was hurt or on the verge of being stopped etc. It was a doctor's stoppage, after again being up on the cards. He then desperately wanted a rematch, but Lennox wouldn't grant him one. So although Lennox won fairly, he didn't prove that he was the better fighter on the night. Under different circumstances, he could have had a reign that was equal to or better than Wlad's. Due to Wlad's vulnerabilities, I would honestly rank Vitali higher on a H2H basis, despite Wlad having had a much more successful career. I rate him very highly on a H2H basis.
He didn't fail. He was unlucky. He was up on the cards and was the better fighter on the night. He was pulled out by the doctor. Hardly a satisfactory win for Lennox. Before the fight, Lennox spoke of continuing his career, where he was open to another 3 fights or so. He wasn't considering retirement. Yet after he fought Vitali, he never fought again. That speaks volumes.
Even as a fan a big fan of his, I never liked how they tag teamed the opposition. And the fight contracts were bizarre, where some of their opponents had to sign contracts that stipulated that they had to fight the other brother if they lost. But regarding Byrd, I would guess that Vitali never saw Byrd as legitimately beating him. IMHO, Wlad wanting to fight him was never because Vitali feared losing to him again etc. I could never see it as a duck. Personally, I think that if Vitali had been beaten clear and not on a technicality, and/or Wlad would have lost to Byrd, that Vitali would definitely have rematched him at some point.
Theres plenty of fights throughout history that show guys in pain from sustaining injuries. At no point in the Byrd fight did Vitali look like he was suffering from any injury..he did look exhausted from all the misses and counter he took to the body. As for having surgery after the fight ,no evidence of it. There is evidence that he went back into training soon after as he fought Hoffamn 7 months later. If Vitali had took the rematch he had in contract and won ,you could say Byrd fluked it ,but Vitali blatantly dodged it in favour of a guy that was better suited to his style. Byrd said it best ,if you lost that way you would immediately want to run it back to prove it was a one off. Not taking the rematch suggests that Vitali did not want to deal with that style a second time. . Byrds win was far from a technicality. He adapted mid fight , fought back and made Vitali quit. Both the fight and the rematch.. Theres no lies here ,this is reality.
