British Forum

Calzaghe-Hopkins has a good claim under that definition. In terms of hype and crossover appeal it doesn't.

But you have one certain great that is still fighting at the top level against an arguable lower end great.

I havn't decided whether Vitali's best win is over Sam Peter, Danny Williams or Herbie Hide, so in that respect it isn't looking good.

 

Yeah I know what you mean, the knock downs and all that, it's just that in my opinion both Holyfield and Bowe lacked that vigour and intensity they had previously (especially the first fight) and seemed a little listless. I'm not saying it was a poor fight or anything, it just didn't carry the constant excitement of their previous meetings for me. Horses for courses I suppose.

 

What has Vitali dominated man? Just because we tend to talk about the "Klitschko's" it does not mean he should get credit for everything his brother has done, which is actually to unify a couple belts and put together a credible and deep record.

Vitali himself has done ****. He's a one time WBO beltholder, including such groundbreaking performances as wins over Danny Williams, Kirk Johnson and Herbie Hide. He has also held the WBC belt on two occasions, his most impressive effort coming against Sam Peter after a 4 year lay off. Yes this is impressive and he deserves credit, however it shows how **** Sam Peter really is also. It is embarrassing to be owned by a glass bodied old man who hasn't fought for years.

Never has he come close to becoming anything more than a beltholder, only twice has he beaten B level fighters (I'm giving him Sam Peter and Corrie Sanders).

Anyway, regardless of all this a fight can only be taken in the context of the time it took place and not looking back in hindsight. At that time Lewis was a disinterested great and Vitali was a WBO champion.

 

Vitali being the possible dominant force of the weakest HW era for a long long time fighting against an old Lennox Lewis that wasn't in shape does not constitute a superfight. You can't be a revisionist and decide that because actually, yeah, Lewis and Klitschko were good so their fight must have been a superfight. That doesn't sit well at all.

By your logic Hopkins vs Jones Jr in 1993 was the biggest superfight in history.

 

Significance is seperate from the notion of a "superfight"

A superfight would have been built as and called one at the time it took place.

That's not a hard issue to grasp.

 

It's not a "superfight" at the time then, is it? At the time its just a good fight.

When I think of a superfight I'm thinking of big events, big exposure, perhaps some crossover appeal. You can't rewrite history and create that.

For me something like MAB-Morales I is a legendary fight for what they became, what happened during the fight and what happened post-fight.

I suppose it depends on terminology, to me superfight is usually an event. You feel it in the buildup, thats the big give away.

 

My point was well made thanks a lot anyway.

Unlike yours.

 

I'm using your original definition.

You're being a revisionist and that contradicts what a superfight is.

 

When I originally read this thread, I thought it meant what fights that were built up as mega fights turned out to be let downs, and what fights turned out to be epic, legendary battles worthy of being a true "superfight".