150-6!

37% of Vitali's opponents were .500 or below.

For comparison, 24% of Joe Frazier's opponents were .500 or below.

Did you do any research at all before making that assumption? I am not expecting a yes.

 

33% of George Foreman's were .500 or below.

I just chose 2 at random. Both had a lower percentage of opponents with losing records than Vitali. I don't feel like doing any more, but I think that it will actually be harder to find heavyweight champs with a WORSE percentage than Vitali.

 

Sugar Ray Robinson and Carmen Basilio fought on relatively equal terms for 30 rounds. Under the European rules Vitali fights under, with no sustained inside fighting nor body punching allowed and the fighters ordered to break immediately if Vitali (or Wlad) puts on some sort of half-assed clinch, the shorter man is forced to fight on the periphery with the only contest the contest of jabs. The tall man has almost an insurmountable advantage. I think Robinson would have gone 30-0 in rounds against Basilio under these rules.

I will also give my opinion about Ali having trouble with Jones, Cooper, Mildenberger, and Folley. While Ali was big for his era, and Vitali is for his, the men Ali was fighting men were in the 180 to 200 lb class and were complete fighters. They could move, box, put together combinations and had stamina to carry the fight into the late rounds at a fast pace. Other than to some extent Lewis and Byrd, who beat Vitali, none of Vitali's opponents meet these criteria. That in a nutshell is the problem with the current heavyweight division. Perhaps the big guys would be too big for the littler guys of earlier eras, but that does not make them complete or anywhere close to complete fighters.

 

Excellent points, as usual.

 

Hey, I'll play for a bit.

Let's have a look...

Larry Holmes - 15%
Lennox Lewis - 9%
Mike Tyson - 9%
Evander Holyfield - 4%

 

You are using winning rounds or not losing rounds as the criteria for boxing ability, but this depends on how much skill the other man actually has. My point is that the huge modern heavyweights might be favored over the smaller men of the past because size alone would win them fights, as it did Carnera or does Valuev, but that does not make them particularly skilled or well-rounded boxers.

Let's take, for example, Sanders. You say he only won two rounds against Vitali. Okay, but Sanders is basically a two or three round fighter. After that, he slows noticably. How many rounds could he have won if he fought at the same pace for 12 rounds as he did for 3? How many could he have won if he could have maintained his pace for even 8 rounds. Off what he did for 3 rounds, he would have had a good chance of winning 5 out of 8 or of even taking the decision in 12. As it was he quickly slowed into a punching bag.

Sanders was not a particularly big man for his era. A Sanders of the 1960's would have weighed about 190 or less. A fighter in that era who started running out of gas in the early rounds would have gotten nowhere at all, regardless of his other talents. By the way, even the Sanders of reality, at 220 plus, would not, I think, have been able to cut it. The better fighters simply would have outlasted him. I think he loses to Ali, Liston, Frazier, Chuvalo, and Bugner for certain, and probably also to people like Mildenberger, Patterson, Quarry, and even old Machen.

A Vitali of the 1960's who was as big compared to the men of that era as Vitali is to his (about 6'4 and slightly over 200) and has the skills Vitali possesses would have won a great many fights and I think would have indeed been a dangerous opponent for Ali. The problem is your rounds argument is too much of an abstraction, in my judgement. Joe Bugner was big and talented, possibly bigger than Vitali in comparision to the other fighters of his era. I saw his fight in 1971 with Cooper. Most thought he lost. Cooper, even at 37, could move, box, throw combinations, and he could do it for 15 rounds. Until and unless Vitali fights several people like that, saying he won a higher percentage of rounds than a top fighter of that era means nothing to me.

 

Or it could be that Ali just took rounds off similar to how a lot of ATGs simply took rounds off when they felt like they could win it any moment.

I'm gonna guess that's why.

 

:good

 

I'd forgotten about the Bugner fight. Cooper was inconsistent, but like Holyfield, when he was "on" he was quite disturbing. There's no way a 37- year old who'd been through so many wars and beatings should be capable of that kind of performance.

 

I think you have a good point and a bad one:

1. Your good point is that Vitali may well be the largest man who is the most skilled fighter of his era that boxing has seen. The others I can think of, Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, and Larry Holmes, were relatively smaller in contrast to the average fighter of their eras. Only Lennox Lewis really compares to Vitali. Any fighter in any era who was as big relative to his comtemporaries and as skilled as Vitali is would be extremely dangerous.

2. The bad point is that you are playing ducks and drakes with eras in order to maintain that Vitali's opposition is better than Ali's, or even compares to it. Compare Samuel Peter with Floyd Patterson in all around boxing ability and skills. Frankly, no one thinks Peter compares with Patterson at all unless you assume the size advantage of the modern superheavyweight. If Vitali were relatively the same size versus Patterson (or Cooper, whom you brought up) as he is versus Peter, he would have a far more difficult time dominating the fight. That does not mean he might not win.