Winning double the amount of rounds of your opponent is outclassing especially if you can’t see Very good. Byrd was not a close fight.
I wasn't ruling out Peter stopping Bruno, just saying I wouldn't bet on it because of how sloppy he was and that Bruno could cling onto people like a vice grip. For all his power, Peter has a relatively low KO% because he wasn't a very good finisher. That's all I was trying to say. Bruno did get hurt early and did in fact make it difficult for Tyson to finish him off with his ugly clinching and mauling tactics making it hard to follow up with more than one shot. I was wrong in saying that Bruno was good at surviving, but the Tyson fight is an isolated incident where he had the sense to at least block and grab to remain conscious. It showed an improvement in his overall defense, albeit a very crude improvement.
It was not even remotely comparable to Charles Martin holding the belt. Whatever you think of them, Ramhan, Maskaev, and Peter all had to beat one of the best heavyweights in the division to get the belt. I do not need to rely on Boxrec, because I lived through this period, and have a very good memory. It is true that I didn't rate the heavyweights of that era, very highly at the time, and still don't. However you might want to look at Peters prior showing against Wlad, than watch Vitaly's showing against him, then consider that Vitally had been out of the ring for four years. The period when Peter held a belt was a bit of a low point for the division, and I saw it as such at the time. To be honest though, you could argue that there is no such thing as a wreak era. There are always punchers, there are always clever fighter, and there are always overachievers. Age and activity are variables that are punished severely in any era.
Charles Martin was beating a decent prime up and comer before he blew his knee out which seems to have ended his career. Rahman was a 90s era contender and well past his best when he lost to Oleg after getting a draw against Tony. Toney pasted Rahman in the rematch. These were all very weak examples of a title changing hands. Bermane Stiverne become WBC Champ and gets Rated #2 by Ring by beating a still prime Chris Arreola. Wilder then beating BS is no different than Vitali beating Peter.
Bottom line. If teh title changes hands via a fight between two of the top men of the ea., then it has an element of credibility, whether you respect the era or not.
Vitali's a unique case in boxing history because so much of his reputation and legacy is tied up in the brave losing effort he put in against Lennox Lewis. It's kinda weird because, on paper, he's a very successful fighter and a dominant champion in his own right, yet the Lewis fight looms so large that it overshadows everything else he ever did as a boxer. He also has the problem that his brother dominated their division to an even greater degree than he did, so his career is also overshadowed by the most successful Klitschko. Thus, when it comes to his legacy, his resume look thin and weak in comparison to Wladimir and his head-to-head standing is always graded on the Lewis fight, where he put in a good showing but ultimately tasted defeat. I suppose, then, it depends on where he's rated. If Vitali is rated amongst the top ten heavyweight's of all time then I dont think that's warrented, because he does not have the career to back it up and failed to prove it when he had the chance against Lewis, but, you know, top 20's could be justifiable based on head-to-head ability and longevity.
It's a silly point ... it starts with how do you rate him ? Lennox Lewis was the greatest super heavyweight that ever lived and I do agree he was gaining momentum in their bout based on the horrible cuts and Lewis was older but if you take Lennox out of it Vitali has to be a top H2H heavyweight based on his size, brains, strength, conditioning and power ( which I agree is solid but not as great as his record appears ) .. he was very smart, very tricky, changed his game as he got older and came back from injuries and knew how to use his size ... I don't know how he matches up with the Bowe of Holyfield 1 but let's face it, that was a one time only performance for Riddick ... there is , to me, a big difference rating heavyweights P4P or H2H ..
Vitali is a very good heavyweight H2H. But he has no inside game, poor footwork, can be hit by right hands repeatedly and not great power. I don't know where this thing comes from that hes this H2H monster. Probably his record which is inflated by beating weaker opposition.
Lewis was still a great fighter. Klitschko was a very good fighter despite his subpar resume. His win over Saunders was particularly impressive, that guy was a murderous puncher and a southpaw but Vitali stopped him. Him comeback win over Peter was also very impressive. Its hard to say how good he actually was at his peak, but I think he would be a hard night's work for any heavy in history.
Yes. I agree that Vitali is overrated, although many consider him a H2H monster, and a nightmare. I just don't know based on which factors? Does Vitali have one career win over an ATG opponent? It would help me a lot to know... ...what is Vitaly's best career win? Vitaly's career is strange, and why the break in boxing in 2004-2008.?
