How does Vitali Klitschko do against some of the greats?

Ike forgives you.

What's that Ike? You want me to kill the postman and drag his corpse into the cellar? Yes Ike, yes I will. :admin

 

The problem is we never saw Vitali risking himself against the very best of his era. How would he do against the best prime contenders of his era like:

Ike Ibeaubchi
Tua
Rahman
Ruiz
Valuev
RJJ
Toney
Tyson
Holyfield
Brewster
Wlad
Golota
Changeev
Gomez
Sam Peter
Maskaev

I think he beats some of them but not them all. Vitali never fought top level competition outside of Lewis/Byrd/Sanders and maybe Williams but Williams lost to Audley Harrison of all people and Sanders lost to Nate Tubbs in 2 and Rahman. Vitali fought and lost to Byrd only months after Ibeauchi sparked Byrd out in 5rounds

I think Ike Ibeauchi and Tua achieved more than Vitali and I'd pick Ibeauchi over Vitali

Vitali fought 3 top 10 ranked fighters and lost twice.

 

I basically agree.

I think Danny Williiams was definitely not one of the era's genuine contenders. Williams was tough enough to outlast a long overdone Tyson, but in the fight before that he'd lost to Michael Sprott.
I think everyone here in the UK knows Williams was never world class. Williams was British championship level.

Vitali beat such fighters as :

Corrie Sanders
Larry Donald
Kirk Johnson
Vaughn Bean
Herbie Hide
Orlin Norris
Timo Hoffman
Danny Williams


Those were his best wins - forgive me if I've forgotten someone.

Mendoza accuses me of "belittling" his opponents, but all I say is that most of his best half-dozen wins were against FRINGE CONTENDERS, or good journeymen.
I think that's a fair and reasonable statement.

Corrie Sanders was a genuine high-ranked fighter at the time.

Some of the names you mention were not particularly impressive as far as contenders go, and that illustrates that Vitali was fighting in a fairly weak era. He didn't clean out the division or even half clean it out, and the division wasn't in a great state as far as quality goes.

That's why we have to conclude he never proved himself capable of defeating elite quality heavyweights, like ATG-level heavyweights. No way did he show anything in that regard. And the fact that he lost to Lewis has to be considered as relevant.

This isn't me being "negative", it's just a sober assessment of a fighter's career and accomplishments.
Vitali was obviously a far better than average fighter, but his level among the absolute top-flight is doubtful.

 

To be quite honest, Vaughn Bean doesn't even belong with those guys. Quite how he got two title shots, despite having never beaten a top 30 ranked boxer or having had an ounce of popularity, is beyond me. I suppose Moorer, Holyfield and Vitali were all up for feasting on a boxer who was composed of 50% padded record.

 

I have to add though, Tua and Byrd indeed were ring top10, but so were Sanders, Johnson and Williams, rightfully or not. Of course Vitali lost to Byrd, but then again, i thought Ike lost to Tua by a round.

 

Put it this way- I consider a close loss to a peak Tua to be of more worth than a win against anyone Vitali fought on the night they fought him. Or, put another way, I'd pick Byrd to beat Sanders, Johnson and Williams (an in-shape Johnson could pose him a lot of problems, though) and I'd pick a peak Tua to wipe them off the face of the Earth.

As for the Ring top 10... Make of it what you will. The quality of the heavyweight division is highly variable, andI doubt that Sanders or Williams would be there in the late 1990s. Which is strange to say, considering that the 1990s as a whole were greatly maligned by writers at the time, but I suppose the period of about 2003-2006 was one of the worst in the division's history. Thank the boxing gods that the heavyweight division is beginning to look a lot better now, and has a clear number 1 (Wladimir).

 

Agreed. Byrd could be troubled or even knocked out by Sanders, but if he makes it past 5, he's pretty much guaranteed to win.

 

My thoughts exactly, especially if we're considering a 2004 Sanders, who was barely a 2 round fighter (let alone the 5 round fighter that he was in his prime). Sanders had the speed, power and southpaw stance to land a big set of bombs and knock Byrd down, but I don't think he had the stamina or killer instinct by 2004 to finish off someone as tough and skilled as the Pecker.

Johnson-Tua could be difficult for Tua, until his bodyblows start to take effect and Johnson's lack of fire starts to tell.

 

Sanders was definitely better when mustachioed.

 

I disagree with this part. Vitali only lost the first round but dominated the rest of the fight and comfortably took all other rounds. By contrast, Sanders knocked Rahman down twice and i think the fight was pretty much even in the 6th or 7th although Sanders was gassed. Can't argue with Tubbs of course, he landed a great punch and it was over.

 

Gotta love the 90's heavyweights, though.

I just rewatched Lewis-Botha, and every now and then, Botha keeps doing a completely ineffective Ali-like dance around his opponent.

 

Klitschko was a good fighter but gets over rated. H2H he is maybe top 40-50 but againt bonafide ATGs like Ali, Louis he gets beat. He had a good jab, size, power, and chin. But speedwise he was slow and he never really had the intangibles that makes greats.

 

Before we continue, you can not say numbers mean nothing to me, then site Ring Magazine ratings...then pretend they are magicaly the same in each decade. They are not. Talent varries in decades.

Here's what you're missing, and it’s a lot.

1 ) First off is Vitlai did not fight popular washed up X champs. He would have KO'd Tyson had Danny Williams not beaten him. He would have TKO'd Holyfield too. Moore and Bowe would have been dog meat in the 00's vs Vitali. Tua would not win a round. How many Ring legends fought past their prime guys? A lot.

2 ) I will match Vitlai's opponents ring records vs other greats, and let the excuses fly when the records of those of past decades don't stack up. Care to take the bacon?

Which brings me to point 3.

3 ) How in the world would a typical sub 200 pound ranked ring magazine heavyweight compete in the 00's? Misty eyed love for old timers aside, roughly 80% of the names you refer to as ranked ring magazine contenders of decades ago would be modern curser weights fighting at 201 pounds or less. Vitlai fought two excellent cruiser weights. They were Orlin Norris, who was a champ, and Herribe Hide. These two lasted a combined three rounds. Get the point? Oh sure Hide has a glass jaw. Care to match the amount of times he was Ko'd vs other ring magazine ranked opponents of other era's?

Ok, maybe not. Allow me to illustrate. There are archived annual ring magazine ratings at this web site:

http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine%27s_Annual_Ratings

Let's use ten year increments staring from 1926 and ending in 2006, then compare them to the best ten fighters Vitlai fought.

The best ten fighters Vitali fought were ( ring records when he fought them )

Lewis 42-2-1
Byrd 30-1
Sanders 39-2
Johnson 34-1-1
Donald 39-2-2
Bean 42-2
Norris 51-6
Williams 32-3
Hide 31-1
Hoffman 21-0

Combined ring record of top ten opponents: 362 wins, 20 losses, and 4 draws, or a winning percentage of 93.78% !!!!! So much for weak competition. Furthermore, Vitlai lost a combined 6 rounsd vs the above men. That's it.

It is the in vogue thing to belittle the heavyweight division in most decades. Always has been, always will be. Read the news press and you'll see.



Part II CON'T>>>>>>>>>>