Not exactly. Bruno has a WAY better jab, better uppercut, better defense, better body shots. Better combination puncher. Vitali was actually a rather straightforward and robotic fighter (simple but effective). Power-Bruno Hand speed-Bruno Footwork-Bruno Defense-Bruno Chin-Vitali Stamina-Vitali Technique-Even Ring IQ-Vitali I wouldn't say Vitali was "a lot" better than Bruno in boxing ability, Bruno is clearly more talented but Vitali has better intangibles. Bruno is a much more complete fighter being able to box behind the jab at long range, mid range, or slug. Vitali is painfully repetitive but it works because he's so huge and durable with a huge gas tank.
Some people act as if Vitali won every round and was effortlessly schooling Byrd with his eyes closed. They forget we have footage of the fight.
Shot to bits Golota did better against Byrd than Viltali did against Byrd on a weeks notice https://media.tenor.com/PqQERlLPBNAAAAAC/true-romance-dennis-hopper.gif
This is the problem when comparing boxers. Someone can be a more well rounded fighter not a as good fighter. For example Deontay Wilder and Luis Ortiz. Ortiz would have the edge in more categories, but Wilder is the better fighter do to his insane power. Same here as Bruno may be better in more categories but Vitali has the extreme chin, workrate and durability while Bruno is poor in workrate and chin so it negates a lot of his advantages
I understand how that works. Bruno is more well rounded, but Vitali is more likely to win due to styles and what he brings to the table (durability and work rate). I still wouldn't say Vitali wins for sure, anything can happen. I would only slightly favor Vitali 55:45 over prime Bruno. My point was that your statement that Vitali was "a lot" better than Bruno is an exaggeration. If you are only talking about who had the better career, you're right, but not boxing ability. Hell no. As I said, Bruno would flatline the majority of Vitali's opponents if they switched places and he is more talented than Vitali in several categories.
Like...who? Bruno wasn't that durable, but there aren't that many Vitali opponents he'd be in danger of losing by KO to other than Peter, Briggs, Arreola, and Sanders. Peter is a 60:40 fight in favor of Bruno. Peter had power, but he was a horrible finisher and a sloppy puncher in general. Even if Bruno got hurt, he was very good at holding on and surviving. Briggs was an old, wheezing has been when he fought Vitali. That would be a massacre. Bruno jabs his head off and puts him out of his misery within 8-9 rounds at most. Arreola would get schooled by Bruno, he would only have a slight puncher's chance. The Sanders Vitali fought was fat, old, and had a limited gas tank. If Bruno makes it past the 5th round, he likely wins a relatively easy decision or stops Sanders late.
If a prime Riddick Bowe gets cut like Vitali, then his chances of winning are drastically lower. He might do it because he hits harder than Vitali and could get Lennox out of there before it's stopped on the cut. But that doesn't mean he's better. I get it, TKO6. But we all know that cut wins aren't the same as other wins. Vitali was still in that fight. Even when they say Lennox was taking over, I didn't see that. He started doing BETTER, but Vitali was still landing and was very much in the fight.
With three rounds to go ... Vitali was up SEVEN points on one card and FIVE points on the other two official cards. Meaning Byrd couldn't win the fight on points unless Byrd won all three of the final rounds and scored at least one knockdown in each of the last three rounds. That would make up the five points he was down + 1, giving Byrd the edge by one point on two cards. And, even then, Vitali would've won on the card where he was seven points ahead. He should've continued. He didn't. That's on him. Because there was virtually no chance Byrd could win other than Vitali quitting.
You're correct, but I think the cards of that one were pretty wide, and not indicative of how competitive the fight actually was. But it happens. In my opinion at least, the Marquez-Barrera fight comes to mind. All of the rounds were close, but I thought Marquez was pretty clearly edging almost all of them (notwithstanding the fact JMM got what I believe was a favorable 3 point swing in that one round). Back to Vitali-Byrd, I think a lot of fans (perhaps many viewing BoxRec who haven't actually seen the fight) use that as justification that Vitali was dominating Byrd in a masterclass, and that wasn't the case at all as I recall. But yeah, Byrd was hopellessly behind on the cards, and Vitali did not want to continue because of the injury. Byrd often had a way of causing arm area injuries on his opponent.
I always thought Byrd did that to Evander and Vitali because Byrd, out of the southpaw stance, would hold his right palm up and he kept his glove open and caught their jab and would move it to the side. If you throw a left jab and have someone catch it and push your left out away from your body, you could tear a shoulder pretty easily. Most referees tell fighters they have to maintain a fist, but Byrd used his open gloves all the time to catch punches. George Foreman would do that, too. Regardless, I think the nitpicking of Vitali's career gets to be a little much, sometimes. He was a pretty dominant fighter his entire career. Frank Bruno, who I liked, is getting a lot of coverage in this thread. How many times he did avenge a loss? Never. Did he demand rematches with Bonecrusher Smith and Tim Witherspoon and Lennox Lewis? No. Vitali certainly tried to rematch Lennox. Anyway. I don't think he's overrated. Sounds like he's underrated by some of the people in this thread.
That's fine. Just do the same thing when evaluating other top all-timers. Did George Foreman try to overturn his losses to anyone? Jimmy Young, Muhammad Ali, Tommy Morrison, Evander Holyfield? Briggs? No. Five losses. Never attempted to avenge any of them. Is not avenging or not even trying to avenge five losses worse than not avenging two? Did Holmes insist on rematches with guys like Mike Tyson? Evander Holyfield? Oliver McCall? Did Joe Louis "run it back" with Ezzard Charles and Rocky Marciano? If you're going to run down one person for something ... just use the same criteria for all of them. Some boxers do. Many don't.
Foreman, Holmes, and Louis were older than dinosaur fossils for several of the losses you're criticizing them for not avenging. Vitali was in his prime when he lost to Byrd and wouldn't rematch him. Context does matter. If Vitali was over 40 and washed up, I don't think anyone would be angry he didn't relentlessly pursue a rematch with Byrd.
I'm not criticizing anyone for not avenging anything. I said if you're going to criticize one person for something, use the same criteria for everyone else. George Foreman wasn't older than a dinosaur when he lost to Ali or Jimmy Young. He was in his 20s. When George Foreman knocked out Michael Moorer, he didn't make his first defense against Tommy Morrison, who beat him in the fight before Moorer, or Holyfield. I'm sure they would've accepted. He never made the effort whether he was in his 20s or 40s. Personally, I don't even consider it when rating Foreman. So I'm not going to do it with Vitali, either. (I might hold it against him that he quit in the first place. But I tend to do that with everyone.)
