41 year old Wladimir vs 41 year old Vitali who wins and why?

We never seen Vitali fight much at older age..Wlad wins bc we know what he did last saturday and that Wlad would get wins on a younger Vitali if they fought a few times. He would have movement and more powerful punches with the stronger punches and quicker hands. Vitali wouldn't be used to someone of same length practically who could take advantage of his hands down style.......

 

Vitali was always the more formidable HW. Always.

Wlad was never as tough either physically or mentally.

Vitali would never have lost to the guys who beat Wlad.

The only reason why Wlad has a better resume, is due to circumstances. Wlad retired twice through injury, giving Wlad the opportunity to fight an extra 25 fights. So he should have a better resume.

 

Are you talking about the prime versions or about the versions at the Age of 41 ?

In my opinion prime Wlad vs prime Vitali would be a close and tough fight with advantages for Wlad.

And 41 year old Wlad beats 41 year old Vitali by a wide UD or by KO.

 

I agree that Vitali was more "alpha male". He tended to fight as if his opponent was a disrespectful intruder into his boxing ring. Wlad almost always fights as if it's a sporting contest, which of course, it actually is

 

He does, but you could bet your life he wouldn't have fought Vitali in the way he's just fought Joshua.

 

Wlad looked amazing for his age against Joshua and Pulev.

He didn't against Jennings and Fury.

It's the opponent.

Wlad would have been ultra cautious against Vitali.

 

Why would he be cautious against Vitali if he wasn't against Anthony Joshua ?

 

This. And Vitali had that ability to 'feel' punches coming before they even got off. And according to Wlad... Vitali was physically stronger than him believe it or not.

 

Sanders wasn't prime when he iced Wlad.

Byrd was awkward for him, but he was winning the fight before having to withdraw. He then had shoulder surgery 5 days later.

Wlad is rightfully ranked higher due to his resume and his accomplishments. But on a H2H basis, it has to be Vitali. And if Vitali could have fought the same amount of fights as Wlad, there'd have been no doubt as to who would have been considered the best.

 

Vitali had the better chin of the two and I think he was tougher. And being the bigger brother he would have a psychological edge. Technically, Wlad is the better of the two but I don't thank that is what would decide this fight.

 

What happened at Wembley doesn't tell us that Wlad would have beaten Vitali.

You have to take into account his mindset.

Do you honestly believe he'd have fought Vitali in the same manner, where he was aggressive, letting his hands go? I don't think so.

Wlad would have been so cautious, as he's vulnerable in a way that Vitali never was.

 

I don't think so, he was 41 against Chisora and wasn't looking that good , Wlad would destroy every version of
Chisora right now, Wlad was always for me the more dominant looking fighter of both, he barely lost a round until
his fight with Tyson Fury.

I don't think that Vitali would have dominated David Haye the same way his brother did, he is a lot easier to hit
and more offensive minded, this fight would have been a war and David Haye could have beaten him stylewise
with his excellent footwork and in & out fighting style.

Vitali lost against Lennox Lewis, which is no shame but his flaws were exposed in this fight, his hands down
style could be a great disadvantage against many good fighters and he had a great chin but not the best defense.

 

You've got to be dreaming if you think Wlad would have knocked out any version of Vitali.

 

Vitali was the better fighter but at 41 Wlad might have beaten him. Vitali looked creaky and old vs Charr, the injuries had clearly taken a toll on him by then, his punches didn't have the same zip on them either. In comparison Wlad is quick and mobile and still punches very hard.

 

'Feel' punches before they got off? You mean sense? My goodness, you're an idiot.