A 38 year Vitali throws over 800 punches in 10 rounds !

So what, he got caught got up and stopped him in the next round, in line with his pre-fight prediction. It's curious how Ali stopped Cooper on a cut similar to the one that cost Vitali the fight with Lewis yet I've never heard anyone claim that as a victory for Cooper, same with Minter/Hagler etc.

What the critics of Vitali invariably say is that he doesn't have a great range of skills, he does what he does well, i.e. walks down opponents and uses his size advantage to good effect but because he's fought in a weak era (through no fault of his own,) he's never had to, for example, fight of the back foot or adjust mid fight to an opponents style.

For someone who can be pedantic about the use of language you'd think you would know better than to put words in my mouth. Where did I say he has no reasonable chance?

I don't think he's a quitter or he has no heart but I think Ali would be too skilled for him. The way I would envisage an Ali-Vitali fight playing out is 12 or 15 rounds like the first round of the Klitschko-Hide fight (which Hide won on all 3 cards,) with Ali having the fleet of foot to prevent himself from being pinned down and attacking Klitschko from different angles. Hide is obviously no Ali and I wouldn't imagine Ali would get caught as easily as Hide and would have a better chin if he did. I would take Ali to win by late stoppage or UD. Obviously there is no way of proving that beyond reasonable doubt but I think Ali would be heavy favourite without Klitschkos heart or endurance being the issue.

No, you were acting more like a psycho English teacher on crack. Obviously the huge majority of things said on these boards are opinions, that's a given without spending half a dozen posts or so and wasting two pages of a thread going on and on about 'that's an opinion', 'there's no empirical evidence' etc. I don't know if it's your ambition to turn every post on the boards into 20 page legal documents using strict definitions of every word or phrase used but if you do you should watch yourself saying thins like Vitali "did beat Lennox" - it's a matter of fact that he didn't and saying he did is less accurate than the things you seemed to take upon yourself to highlight.

 

He only had to fight one more fight. . .he had to decisively defeat Klitschko in a rematch to clear up his previous "victory" which occurred under extremely rare and debatable circumstances. By retiring, he's admitting he wasn't sure of himself in rematch with Vitali.

 

yup very impressive

 

So , the 188 lbs Henry Cooper still managed to knock him down.. It isn't far fetched to imagine that a guy as big & as skilled (and awkward) as Vitali , would also have the potential to be a legit threat and even beat any of the past ATG , including Muhammad Ali.

I'm not saying that it's a certainty ,But anything is possible.

But the knockdown still happened...against a 188 lbs guy. Thankfully , it happened only a few seconds before the bell sounded.

True. (still doesn't change that he almost ****ed it all up and got knocked down by a 188 lbs Henry Cooper.

But , obviously Cooper is no Vitali & Vitali is no Cooper...This isn't about boxingmath here , not trying to say that because Cooper did it , Vitali > Ali.

But because it still happened , i maintain that my position is reasonable.

He's awkward (even when compared to his younger brother)....However , i'm going to totally disagree with you on that one.

From my perspective , ALL eras had their pros & cons. For instance back then , the eatsern block was banned from participating. Resulting to an approximate 90 if not 95% US participation.
You just have to do the experience and check Ali's record for yourself.
http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?cat=boxer&human_id=000180
(or foreman's , or Larry Holmes...etc)

Fans have a short and selective memory. For instance , "fan A" says:
"look at today's era , even old Maskaev was able to grab the belt"..."look , holyfield is still fighting"... and yet....


in The 90's....
An era in which a + 40 yr old Foreman (who was far from being in shape like today's Bernard Hopkins is at his age & was slower than Maskaev) , managed to beat Michael Moorer.

SO ...Is it a testament of foreman's greatness ?....Or an indication of mediocre competition ? Let's not forget that Tua annihilated Moorer in 30 seconds too.

Another big name of the 90's ...
Riddick Bowe , here again , a guy who was getting clearly dominated by the mentally perturbed Andrew Golota. (who ruined his chances of beating him after landing low blows on two occasions)... Golota was also finished in 52 seconds by Brewster....

Today's era is far from perfect. True , but so were 80's...

Tyson was feasting on monumental cans for the most part , one of his most important opponent was Trevor Berbick in 86 (for the WBC HW title)...Which , to his credit...He totally destroyed in 2 rounds...

(it's worth noting that Mercado did better & finished Berbick in 1 round a few years eariler)..

I mean how dangerous would prime Berbick be against Lennox Lewis or the Klitschkos ? Maybe he'd beat them both...maybe not , but i don't see why Tyson's victory over Berbick , would be too "too much" of a difficult opponent for a guy like Vitali...

When you take the time to scrutinize all eras...from the 1930's to 2000...You'll see ups and downs. in ALL of them.

I don't see how guys like let's say....Jerry Quarry or Earnie Shavers be impossible competition for today's fighters. I'm serious...Or how about "mr white hope" Gerry Cooney...who lasted 13 rounds with Holmes & was ridiculed by turtle Foreman in 2 rounds...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2XlGWhY_5I

Cooney was a 6'6 tall guy...but wasn't using his size to his advantage when compared to either Klitschkos...(and yet still found ways to beat Ken Norton & last + 13 rounds vs Holmes)....Would Cooney annihilate Vitali in the 1rst ? who knows....Maybe , but the point is , for all the bull**** today's era is dealing with , i personally fail to see why these previous-gen fighters would be "too much" to compete with...

I wasn't...and if i did , it was unintentional...I was just continuing where TommyV left , when you intervened...here
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5037959&postcount=68

It seemed to me like you were taking his side even though he was (like most fans anyway) , talking out of his ass. (with "his 5% chance" )

Not really , it's not like i was correcting anyone's grammar , and there's nothing "psycho" about trying to clear things up.

He said:

To which i responded
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5036964&postcount=62

Then he predictably responded with :
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5037000&postcount=63

(even though the burden of proof was on him)

My ambition ? Far from it , it's not profitable. But i'm responding back to my interlocutors. it's a discussion forum afterall. You can simply ignore my replies if you want and i'll stop responding back. As simple as that...Or you can keep on replying and ask me to stop if you want.

Or maybe you shouldn't quote out of context.... I said:

Granted , it's not a well constructed reply....i'll pay more attention next time.

But what i meant to say , is that he was the clear winner on the score cards...Still lost the fight though...

See above....(he did on the score cards)..But you're right , i shouldn't have formulated it this way.