The perception of who the better fighter was is reflected in the ratings and media response. Byrd catapulted to the top, Vitali was purged from the RING top 10 for several years. As I already stated in the other thread. I don't rate fighters on theoretical match ups. As I already stated. You can't wish the fight away and force me to base my opinion on your proposed outcomes of a hypothetical fight. That makes no sense.
Lol! Evasion and denial. Good job of avoiding the central questions. The ultimate perception of the fight is who gets considered one of the two best fighters of the era and who gets considered an also ran. There is no real debate about that one, only noises from trolls.
I must object to your assumption that the outcome of Byrd vs Vitali is the only factor if any factor in the popular opinion of Vitali being the greater fighter in hindsight. After the fight in question, Vitali spent roughly threes rated below Byrd.
Nor was I saying it was the only factor. But I do hate to have to repeat myself on the other points. How many times can I note that there is a popular"assumption" that the Byrd win over Vit was fluky? Most people don't share your strange belief of how a fight should be viewed
But you just did: "The ultimate perception of the fight is who gets considered one of the two best fighters of the era and who gets considered an also ran." And I don't care if it is popular assumption, I'm free to challenge it. You've been trying to flame me into silence and it just isn't working.
No, I'm just beating down a troll who has now added about 5 pages of irrational, thoughtless spam to a thread that, until you came about, was noteworthy for generating thoughtful comments and analysis. Oh, and you got your meanings mixed up (in two different ways) again. I said the ultimate(ie greatest, not "only"), perception of the FIGHT was the legacy, not the LEGACY was the fight. So, yeah, you kinda got mixed up twice there.
If we cut out your horrible flames and rants about my quality as a poster, we could probably reduce it by three pages. And rightfully so, that makes absolutely no sense.
If we cut out your unnecessary quote break ups it would save twice what my "flames"(and you do the same, just less honestly) would save. Regarding your latter assertion, I can't help it if you aren't intelligent enough to follow along. This is about the tenth time you've gotten mixed up with word or phrase meanings. I'm going to call you the Kentucky Mix Up from now on, that seems more fitting for you than Cobra.
"The ultimate perception of the fight is who gets considered one of the two best fighters of the era and who gets considered an also ran." "nor was I saying it was the only " "ultimate perception of the FIGHT was the legacy, not the LEGACY was the fight." I have mixed up no words, these words simply don't form a concrete statement and for that matter make little sense. What does this have to do with my statement that Byrd was regarded as being better than Vitali after their match up?
Let's try this again. The fighters respective legacies showed that the loss was treated as fluky, and "ultimate" is not "only'. These aren't difficult concepts, kmu, you just aren't grasping them.
To be fair, Sanders did no roadwork and very little if any sparring for that one. He'd had a knee op prior to the bout which had caused havoc with his preparations: "AE: I heard you'd had a knee operation a couple of months before and you came in quite heavy for that fight. CS: Well, that's true, yes, but I don't want to sound like those guys who say 'no excuses' and then talk nothing but excuses. I don't like that all that. My preparations could have been a little better but maybe his could have, too, you know?" http://www.secondsout.com/archive/anthony-evans/q--a-with-corrie-sanders
Okay, that's worded more coherently. I disagree. Vitali being rated higher in an all time sense doesn't necessarily equate to the Byrd loss being fluky. How the Byrd loss effected Vitali's standing in the context of it's time has been covered. Vitali built his legacy after the loss.
It equates to it being regarded as fluky. If it was a higher regarded win, Byrd would have a higher rep and Vitali lower. You clearly have your own opinion about A. Whether it was a fluky win and B what Byrd and Vitali's respective legacies should be. In both instances, your opinion is very far outside the mainstream. That isn't necessarily bad in and of itself, I have plenty too. I just disagree with your rationale and find it to be an identical argument usually maintained only by trolls.
I don't regard the win as a fluke but I can still see an argument for Vitali having a better legacy. Just as Bowe's wins over Holyfield were no fluke but Evander is unanimously an all time great lock while Bowe is fringe. As you've made clear.