HW TOP 10 h2h and achievement

In terms of h2h, i like Vitali over Wladimir so much inthe grand scheme of things. If i put them against any if the better guys in history i defo think Vitali does better. Why does effectiveness get overlooked and tangibles take priority here? This guy Wladimir gets overrated so much imo. Great fighter no doubt, but h2h i have no problem liking his bro over him.

Dont take my post out of context, got a hangova, cba.

 

Our lists are quite similar, and mine is also a combination of achievement and head-to-head. If I went back past the 1930s, Johnson would certainly displace Patterson, making the content of our lists identical, if not the exact order.



It's rare to see a poster on here with your perspicacity and insight into the sport !

From an earlier post:

 

No Liston?

 

What the fock!

He blew his shoulder out. Have you ever blown out a shoulder? I have. He could have ruined his career if he'd continued, shoulder injuries are no joke, not to mention they hurt like Hell.

 

Lad, for someone who's been on here for a while and has followed boxing for some years, you appear to know very little about the Klitschkos.

While Wlad has an edge in the skills department AND the overall achievement (largely due to the injury-plagued nature of Vitali's second career- he was a kick-boxer first), there was never a day in Wlad's life where he could have hoped to defeat his older, bigger, tougher brother.

And this goes not just for the two brothers because of Vitali's psychological edge, being the big brother.

It also holds true of third parties. Ask Sanders, Purity or Peter which is the tougher dude, head to head.

(And Chris Byrd doesn't feature here. Vitali's ONLY defeat came at the hands of an alltime top 3 or 4, who was better than anyone Wlad has faced so far.

Pulling out of an assured victory with two rounds to go seems prudent when you hold a doctorate in Phys. Ed. and understand that to continue would probably be a career-ending move.)



While Vitali ranks higher in terms of overall greatness, this is because he has been more injury-free.

Head to head, with both guys in earnest and pissed off at each other, Vitali takes this one in four or under.

 

You're starting to sound like Teddy Atlas.

It had **** all to do with heart, and much to do with prudence.


As in:

Do you want to continue and win this fight with near certainty, but perhaps never box again ?

Or do you want to retire from a bout everyone knows you had in the bag and almost certainly continue your career ?

 

True, but is it a difference in heart or merely in attitude? In boxing there has often been the thinking that you have to go out on your shield, but that's not always so smart.

To finish a fight with high risk of being crippled is in a way just as dum as it is brave, especially if you got no chance of winning (which Vitaly of course had, though). One could argue that a fighter that quits to avoid a permanent injury and thus having the chance "to fight another day" isn't necissarily less brave, just smarter.

I think this might apply to Vitaly. He certainly didn't look chicken against Lewis.

 

Quite probably, but what is your point here ?

Implicitly, you appear to be endorsing the choice to continue. Or could I be mistaken ?

IMO, 'YES' was the wrong answer.

Now I'll agree that no two sets of circumstances are ever identical and that each person must decide for themselves what is 'doable' and what is the wisest course.


I don't believe that heart had anything to do with Vitali's decision to retire from that fight, nor do I count it as a defeat, any more than I would count a tennis player on their way to an easy victory who goes over on his ankle and has to withdraw, as having been 'defeated.

I don't consider Griffin to have defeated Jones when Roy was DQ.

Both Roy and Vitali suffered a 'loss' in these fights, but I don't consider them as having been defeated.

I realize its somewhat semantical, but to list them as losses without a footnote as to circumstances is misleading.