There are different primes: you have an athleticism prime, a technical prime, an experience prime and so on and your overall prime is when the best collection of attributes align with each other. At HW, experience is more important and modern SHW's have longer lifespans. So it is plausible that Wlad and Lewis were at their absolute primes in their mid-late 30's and a HW who has mainly beaten lower quality fighters is still pre-prime in his late 20's or early 30's (Vitali, Wilder). On ability, the current HW top 5 is Fury, Wilder, AJ, Joyce, Usyk, average age 34.5.
"Vitali vs Lewis - Did this fight prove Vitali's quality?" Vitali after the fight: https://boxrec.com/media/images//4/48/Klitschko_After_Lewis.jpg I certainly give a lot of weight to that performance in evaluating Vitali's quality as a heavyweight boxer, yes.
Basically they will say a fighter is in their prime when it fits their agenda and they will say a fighter is past it when it also fits their agenda.
Vitali performance vs Lewis does not matter much for Vitali because bum Lewis had retired after this " great win ".
Hmm.. this is true. Fury could have 2 stoppage losses. He was out vs Wilder and had a huge cut vs Wallin
Pretty much. A lot of people , who say that Lewis was old at 37, say that Wlad was prime when he was 40. Lewis was past it a bit, but not old and shot. Same as Wlad in Pulev fight.
An absolute prime can exist but it may be hard to determine. For example, 26/27 year old Fury seemed to be at his athletic prime against Hammer and Klitschko: back then he was faster, more agile and better co-ordinated. However, the 31.5 year old Fury against Wilder in the rematch was heavier, stronger, more experienced, likely even more confident, craftier and had a more versatile skillset, while still possessing very good speed, agility, co-ordination etc. I would back an elite 37 year old SHW to beat the same version of himself at 25, despite the 25 year old version being more athletic. Ofc people have their agendas but those who evaluate the situation more objectively will be able to make better predictions.
I think that the fight proved a lot for both men. It proved that they both had a ton of grit and guts when it came down to it, and that they were willing to leave it all in the ring when it counted most. Vitali's face was virtually falling off and he clearly couldn't see squat out of his eye but he wanted to go on. Lewis was breathing so hard it looked like he was about to die of a heart attack, but he came back after taking a clobbering in the early rounds to maul Vitali for the stoppage. I think that the fight proved that both were on the level and champion material.
I'm a big fan of both these fighters, so I say yes Vitali fought better and was ahead on the scorecards at the time, but the fight was stopped and Lewis deserved the win by tko and rightfully. It was a horrific cut, but rather than detract from either fighter, I give them both credit.
Couldnt agree more,Lewis was having problems with Vitalis Determination, something they cant teach, but overall Lewis was the better allronder boxer.In fact I would go on to say that both Vitali & Lennox were UNDERRATED. Tow absolute top men, Lewis was not fully accepted in UK because he won Gold for Canada & Big Frank was the UK honeyboy, Vitali ,as many still do ,suffered from EE fighters predejice...Good thread VB interesting...
So he's bad cause he sustained a bad cut? Please. Cuts are a shitty part of boxing that ruins fights. Losing via cuts is not in the same stratosphere as getting KO'd or even getting outpointed.
