How does Vitali Klitschko do against some of the greats?

Part II

Now here's your homework. Enclosed are annual ring magazine ranked opponents from 1926, 1936, 1946, 1956, 1966 ,1976, 1986, 1996, and 2006.

1 ) Let's find out their records of the ranked guys, then compare and contrast them to the best 10 fighters Vitali fought. I hope you follow through here..

2 ) Lets see out of the ten listed annual ranked men, where Vitlai would rank.


1926:
1. Gene Tunney, Champion
2. Jack Dempsey
3. Jack Sharkey
4. Jim Maloney
5. Paolino Uzcudun
6. Harry Wills
7. Jack Renault
8. Harry Persson
9. Knute Hansen
10. Johnny Risko

>Considering that Dempsey and Wills were on the slide, I'd pick Vitlai #1 here.

1936:
ames J. Braddock, Champion
1. Max Schmeling
2. Joe Louis
3. Gunnar Barlund
4. Jack Trammell
5. Maxie Rosenbloom
6. Ray Impelletiere
7. Leroy Haynes
8. Sonny Boy Walker
9. Al Ettore
10. Arturo Godoy

>>Outside of Louis, Vitlai is #2 here. Louis is #1.

1946:

Joe Louis, Champion
1. Tami Mauriello
2. Elmer Ray
3. Jersey Joe Walcott
4. Bruce Woodcock
5. Lee Q Murray
6. Curtis Sheppard
7. Melio Bettina
8. Joe Baksi
9. Joe Kahut
10. Joey Maxim

>>Terrible depth in this year. Louis was starting to slip in 1946. I think Vitlai is #2 here giving Louis, who would get out boxed by Walcott in 1946 the benefit of the doubt

1956:
Floyd Patterson, Champion
1. Tommy (Hurricane) Jackson
2. Archie Moore
3. Harold Carter
4. Willie Pastrano
5. Eddie Machen
6. Bob Satterfield
7. Ingemar Johansson
8. Bob Baker
9. Zora Folley
10. Wayne Bethea

>>Vitlai would be the best man on this list. #1.

1966:
Muhammad Ali, Champion
1. Ernie Terrell
2. Zora Folley
3. Thad Spencer
4. Floyd Patterson
5. Karl Mildenberger
6. Joe Frazier
7. Oscar Bonavena
8. George Chuvalo
9. Johnny Persol
10. Manuel Ramos

>>Vitlai would be #2 or #3 on this list. Frazier was not proven in 1966.


1976:
Muhammad Ali, Champion
1. George Foreman
2. Ken Norton
3. Jimmy Young
4. Duane Bobick
5. Ron Lyle
6. Larry Holmes
7. Howard Smith
8. Johnny Boudreaux
9. Stan Ward
10. Joe Bugner

>>One of the few listed decades with top talent. However, Ali and Foreman were not at peak, and Norton, Young and Lyle would likely not beat Vitlai. I'll settle for #3 here.


1986:
Michael Spinks, Champion
1. Mike Tyson
2. James (Bonecrusher) Smith
3. Pinklon Thomas
4. Tim Witherspoon
5. Tony Tubbs
6. Trevor Berbick
7. James (Buster) Douglas
8. Tony Tucker
9. Frank Bruno
10. Tyrell Biggs

>>Hmmm, as the decades roll on, the heavyweight look a lot more formidable. Note the depth. Outside of Tyson, it there anyone here that you think Vitlai would not likely defeat in 1986? Let's say Vitlai is #2 or #3 here.

1996:
Title Vacant
1. Evander Holyfield
2. Lennox Lewis
3. Mike Tyson
4. Michael Moorer
5. Andrew Golota
6. Ray Mercer
7. Henry Akinwande
8. David Tua
9. Riddick Bowe
10. Tim Witherspoon

>>Another loaded decade, far better than 26', 36, 46', and 56'. This is prehaps the loen era where Vitlai would rate #4. In the other decades he's 1-3.


2006:
1. Wladimir Klitschko
2. Oleg Maskaev
3. Samuel Peter
4. James Toney
5. Shannon Briggs
6. Serguei Lyakhovich
7. Lamon Brewster
8. Nikolay Valuev
9. Ruslan Chagaev
10. John Ruiz

>>>Too early to judge as fighters like Peter, Chagaev, and Wlad's careers are not over yet, but not as talented as 96', 86', or 76'. I think Vitlai would be #1 here as well.

Summary in decades:

Vitlai #1 in three decades

He is #2 or #3 in the rest of the decades with the exception of 1996. Use head to head ratings if you wish or use numbers.

 

Vitali would get beat by Lewis

 

If Ring Magazine was around and listed its anual top ten contenders in 1916, and 1906, I beleive Vitlai would be #1 in both decades. Willard was #1 in 1916, and Hart or Burns was #1 in 1906.

Having said that, I'd still like others to compare ring records of Vitlai's ten best opponets vs the ring records of other top ten eras, and see how they come out.

My best guess is the top ten conteders in the decades as a group ( 06', 16' 26', 36', 46', 56', 66', have lower winning percentages than Vitlai top ten oppoents, have a lower knockout percentage, lost to more joruneyman, and are on average are a few inches shorter / 30-40 pounds lighter.

Does anyone disagree? If so, lets do the numbers and put it to the test.

 

Kurgan,

Bean lost a majority decision to a prime Micheal Morrer in a title fight.

Bean gave a prime Holyfield fits in another title fight and lasted the distance.

Yet the same Bean was severely over matched vs Vitlai. Bean won but one round ( 9th ) and Vitlai stopped him which is something neither Morrer nor Holyfield could come do.

Please explain why this is so. I'd love to hear your reasoning. If you make valid points, I will be the first one to agree.

Also, if Bean isn't talented then why did he give two former lineal champs good fights?

 

Bean had won 11 fights in a row, had world class experience, and was in his prime at age 27 when he meet Vitali. I could argue that Bean in 2002 was the best because he was not in-experienced or younger. The Bean who nearly beat Moorer was but 23 years of age. Moorer was in his prime or near prime when the match took place in 1997.

Holfyfield has plenty left in 1998. Indeed he Tko'd Tyson in 96, and TKO'd Morrer 97', leading up to the Bean fight in 98'

The weight were the weights.

I don't think Bean was a world beater. However, I do think Vitlai did much better against Bean in comparison to Holyfield, a legendary champion and hall of fame fighter to be, and Mike Morrer who was a pretty good alphabet champion. That is my point that I want Kurgan to comment on.

To build upon that, Vitlai in almost all cases beat his opponent faster and more cleanly than ALL of his opponents' opponents.

Take Donald for Example. He took Bowe the distance...Vitlai knocked him out.

Or take Hide, who lasted a few round s vs Bowe, but was out in two vs Vitlai.

Or take Purity who lasted vs most but was TKO'd by Vitlai.

Or take Johnson who was only stopped by Vitlai.

There might be but a few cases where another man looked more impressive than Vitlai did vs the same opponent, but the examples are far and few between.

 

Mendoza,

What you are trying to do here is recalibrate history to increase Vitaly's standing based on his unfullfilled career. The truth is we can do that to alot of modern fighters who IMO would show considerable promise in the same manner Vitaly does in your above examples. What we can't do is discount that in his own era he failed to achieve that recognition against the best possible opponents. As far as I'm concerned he was merely a promising titlist that failed to beat a version of Lennox Lewis that Holyfield, Mercer, Tyson, Tua, Briggs would have prayed to have in front of at the time they met. Hell even Hasim Rahman did his business when he was afforded that same complacent Lennox. On a head to head basis his dimensions and techinique are quite compelling, His size alone would give him a considerable advantage over many foes but the fact that it never materialized against a top tier opponent even in his own era must be taken into account when assessing him against other PROVEN greats. I'm not one to give the old timers the benefit of the doubt, I prefer to examine styles and analyze from there but the ring record needs to be considered and this is where Vitaly falls short against some (not all) of the greats.

 

It's tough to make comparisons with HW of the first half of the past century and some, because of the size of the fighters at that time.

Anyway, I'd say(based on fighters at their prime):

Vitali definetelly loses to Lewis and Ali.
Vitali beats Frazier, Marciano, Holyfield, Bowe, Liston, Patterson.
50/50 against Foreman, Tyson, Louis, Holmes.

 

Iron Champ,

History is History. I am simply examining it as a whole, then comparing the results in different eras. I am not making any number up. I am using the data.

Who says Vitlai's career was unfulfilled? Did he not ascend to the rank of Ring Magazine Champion, and earn the #1 spot by Box Rec, fightnews, EPSN, and any other third party ranking you can think of? I think he did. Thus he did reach the top in his career.

I'm reading two things here.

1 ) You say. " On a head to head basis his dimensions and technique are quite compelling, His size alone would give him a considerable advantage over many foes "

2 ) Then you say " The fact that it never materialized against a top tier opponent even in his own era must be taken into account when assessing him against other PROVEN greats ".

>>>Well, which proven great or old timer in your mind defeated a man of Vitlai's dimensions, and technique? Almost none of them. See my point?

However, Vitlai had short night vs blown up cruiser weights, and yes, I do beleive Hide and Norris would be Ring Magazine rated guys in many decades.

 

Mendoza,

What I'm essentially saying is that his size and technique make for a compelling argument but his ring record does little to validate that compelling argument when you look at his best wins. Despite his considerable advantages he lost to the two best fighters that he faced. Yes he was up on cards but so was Walcott against Marciano. Vitali's claim to the title IMO has always been invalid. The Ring, Espn, etc were all hungry to annoint a linear champion for the next era and jumped the gun by giving that distinction to Vitali on potential alone.

Chris Byrd and John Ruiz won their belts in the same manner that Vitali Klitschko won his with the difference being that they were never afforded the chance to fight Lewis like Vitali was. In addition, Ruiz beat Rahman and Byrd beat Holyfield opponents that are more formidable than the version of Sanders that Vitaly beat.

The ATG's of the past never had the opportunity face and beat a fighter like Vitali Klitschko with the exception of Lennox Lewis who performed that task as his final fight.

 

I never cited Ring magazine ratings. I'm merely suggesting that very few of the fighters Vitali Klitschko beat deserved to be considered among the top 5 or so elite at that time.

Sure, that's subjective, but there IS a GENERAL CONSENSUS at any given time about which fighters are near the head of the queue for the shot at the number 1 guy !

You cant argue that such a situation doesn't exist.

For example, in mid-2003 Kirk Johnson was considered in a fairly moderate position to a title shot and eyebrows were raised all round when Lennox was going to fight him. He wouldn't really warrant a mention in a list of 5 or 6 most deserving guys out there at that moment, not by any reasonable pundit or fan, so it's safe to say he was NOT top 5.

It's straightfoward.

I never pretended any such thing. I'm just pointing out that Vitali Klitschko never faced many of the most deserving world-leading fighters of his time. Corrie Sanders is the only one he beat who I would defend as a genuine leading contender.

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

There you go, just making stuff up.
Lennox Lewis didn't TKO Holyfield in 24 rounds in 1999, so I dont see why we should say Klitschko would have. Yeah, maybe by 2003 when Toney did it, when Holyfield was no longer a top 5 guy, maybe earlier. Maybe.
No one's saying much about James Toney being a great heavyweight, no one gives credit to Holyfield-conquerors Ruiz and Donald, so it's another strawman argument as far has I can see.

"Tua would not win a round" etc. etc. etc. - must be true, because Mendoza says so.

Frankly, I'm not interested. Ring records are deceptive.

[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I think I may have been answering a post that wasn't directed at me. Because I cant remember refering to "ranked ring magazine contenders". (Though my memory isn't too great, admittedly)
Anyway, I'm half-way through so let's continue.

[/QUOTE]
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? [/QUOTE]

Is this supposed to persuade me that somehow (an aging) Orlin Norris or Herbie Hide are somehow comparable to Rocky Marciano and Jack Dempsey, or even Ezzard Charles or Jimmy Ellis.

Blasting out two good fighters of a certain bodyweight doesn't indicate anything about how he'd perform against ALL OTHER FIGHTERS OF THAT BODY WEIGHT.
You may believe it does, but that's seriously bad logic.

Mike Tyson beat quite a few, more than two, very good fighters of around 210-228 pounds, some of them lasted 1 or 2 rounds. Is that any sort of evidence that great 210-228 pounders would be outclassed by Tyson ? Is it any sort of evidence that all men of that weight dont stand a chance ?

I reduce your arguments to the absurd to show you why I find them unpersuasive.
In case you're wondering, I have no wish to "win" an argument or change your mind on Vitali. I'm merely explaining why I dont buy it.

Sorry, numerical ring records dont impress me, for reasons that are obvious to every boxing fan who can remember seeing some glorified palooka show up with a 30-0 record.

Audley Harrison beat guys with 26-0 records, 21-0. He also beat a guy, Rob Calloway, with something like 50-3.

Lamar Clark was 44-0 (44 KOs) in the 1960s, but there are guys from same decade who are like (for example) 21-7 who we would consider has good or better.

****, Butterbean was 60-2 or something like that. World-class fighters like Mike Weaver and Bonecrusher Smith never had numbers like that, they had "unimpressive" numbers.

So, that's why we shouldn't get hung up on numerical records.

I'm not saying those guys that Vitali Klitschko fought were palookas, and I am not belittling them. I've explained reasonably that most of them were NOT at the front places of the queue - the general consensus ratings - and some of them were barely in the queue at all.

 

The only interesting or relevant thing in there is that of the 10 listed contenders rated for 2006, the year after Vitali's retirement, Vitali faced a grand total of NONE of them.
I wouldn't exactly use that as any sort of compelling argument on my side, but I'd guess the similar picture would emerge going back over the ratings for previous 5-10 years. Anyway, that's not really by way of making my point, I've made my point in previous posts in better ways.

(To be fair to Vitali, I think Chris Byrd - a man who Vitali DID fight - should be rated in 2006. But Vitali never beat Byrd, so doesn't really make a difference).

Again, you've gone to a lot of trouble to tell who Vitali does and does not beat. I dont even know every fighter on those lists, and certainly dont know how ALL of them looked at those particularly points in time - DO YOU ? - so I'm hardly going to accept that you've done something really convincing there.
And of the fighters I do know there are lots who I wouldn't back any less against Vitali than I would back Vitali against them.

For you, most of those guys at every point in time are close to "forgone conclusion" to LOSE to Vitali.

Like I've said in the thread before, Vitali Klitschko was a serious challenge, a dangerous man, a man to be respected. It's not unreasonable to say he'd be among the top 3 or 4 in any era when AT HIS BEST.

But the ATGs were usually at the top for years, and regularly beat guys rated in the top 3 or 4, and did so sometimes before and after their primes. They proved a certain caliber that goes beyond being "estimated" as "good enough to compete", which is really ALL we can do with Vitali.