Did anyone accept VITALI as the legitimate heavyweight champion when he beat Sanders?

Byrd lost to Wlad, Twice.

And he was being schooled by Vitali (8 rounds to 1) in their fight, until Vitali tore his shoulder and lost (technically)


Byrd's chance would have been very slim against a healthy Vitali.

 

Byrd's second loss to WK has nothing to do with this. Also--it really doesn't matter WHY or HOW Byrd beat VK, it's just the fact that he did. So it has to be taken into consideration.

 

That's how I see it, too. Byrd got the win over Vitali, and so Byrd should be given the ranking boost from it, regardless of how decisive, or not, the win was.

A win is a win, to me.

 

I have more of an issue with how The Ring handled Sanders' ranking than Vitali's...

Sanders was semi-retired, completely unranked, then after beating Wladimir he's suddenly #3. Then he takes on Vitali, has an 8th round tough TKO loss, getting stopped on his feet and never getting knocked down...and blammo, they completely drop him out of their top 10.

Total yo-yo stuff.

 

Yes it DOES matter how he lost when trying to determine how a future bout would go.

If a 'nobody' is playing Pete Sampras and is losing two sets two zero and it's five zero in the third, and Pete goes over on his ankle, tears it and can't continue, he loses and the 'nobody ' wins, technically.

But Eveyone knows how he win and few would expect him to beat a healthy Sampras.

Byrd lost eight rounds. He couldn't get near Vitali. Because of Byrd's considerable skills, he avoided the fate of ALL bBUT ONE previous Vitali opponent, being KOd.

For that I give him credit, but hoping for another Vitali injury in a second bout is a risky strategy.

Vitali was the top dog when he beat Sanders, but only for a short time.

 

Vitali legitimiately won based on their rules (#1 vs. #3 in some instances), but Vitali jumped too high in the ratings. Putting up a tough fight but losing (fairly) to the champion shouldn't get you a jump of 6 spots.

 

It's my understanding that he actually jumped up several places after LOSING to Lewis. Over fighters who hadn't lost! I think that's the most amazing thing. I think he was 8-10 and then LOST to Lewis and suddenly he is a top 5 and then he takes over #1 by beatingKirk---all the while leapfrogging Byrd who he did lose to. VK has been rewarded more than anyone in recent memory by losing a fight--and losing by TKO at that.

JoeyP

 

The thing is, I'm not trying to determine how a future fight would go. I am basing rankings and who deserves what by IN THE RING decisions. He lost the fight. No matter how you spin it, no matter how you can try to explain it away he lost. If you quit, there's nothing technical about it. Not only did he lose to Byrd, he also received a huge bump in the ranking when he LOST to Lewis. Leapfrogging guys who had not lost in the same time frame. I still hold to my point that because Byrd had not lost in a while, and because he did have a win over VK, and because he remained a top ranked 1 or 2 over quite a bit of time, there's no way The Ring should have given out their belt without Byrd at least being involved someway. A healthy VK beats a healty Byrd the majority of the time--but that's why they fight--let them prove it in the ring.

JoeyP

 

Joey, sometimes a boxer's standing goes up with a loss, depending on how they perform, especially if it's to the undisputed best on the planet and they are leading at the point of stoppage (on cuts with half the fight gone).

RING may have felt, based on Vitali's record and his performance that no-one other than Lewis (who had retired, rather than rematch him) would be favoured to beat him head to head, hence their ranking.

 

Ok--fine--give me a few more examples then of how someone in the HW division moved up in rankings by losing to the current champ. Could it be a remote possibility that they felt VK would sell more magazines?

Look--I agree that right after Lewis retired VK was the best in the division. But crowning him because I THINK that he would win is completely unfair to the rest of the other belt holders at the time, esp when one of those beltholders does in fact have a win over VK.

Joey

 

I'm not going to debate this any more. We've reached an impasse.

I understand your position perfectly and it's just as valid as mine.

You could make the case either way (and between us, we have).

I was trying to explain what might have been in the minds of the RING guys (always a difficult thing to do) when they made their list.

I believe Vitali was the top dog for a little while and would have done much more but for injuries. I believe that it's ludicrous to suggest that he feared Rahman (as some on these threads have) when he took on Lennox. Vitali would probably have KO'd Rahman earlier than Lennox did.

I understand and respect your points.


Regards.

 

I agree, he should not have gained ANY rankings boost by losing to Lewis, even if it was a valliant effort he put up. A loss is a loss, and should not be rewarded with any rise in ranking, whatsoever. That's how I see it.

But I think Vitali got his big rankings boost by taking out Johnson, who was a top three contender at the time he was beaten by Vitali. Not absolutely sure, but I think that is correct.


The Johnson win got him a boost in rankings, and then Vitali beating Sanders made him THE man, cause after Sanders KOed Wlad, Sanders was the man to beat. And Vitali certianly beat the hell out of him.