If Vitlai defeats Sam Peter, where will rate as an all time heavyweight come back.

Foreman's record in the three years leading up to his title shot wasn't bad at all, at least compared to Vitali's.

I wouldn't say that. Quarry had a left hook and Bonavena could brawl; that's about all they have in common with Frazier. Quarry was at his best when he was counter-punching and Bonavena fought with a counter-punching strategy against Ali. However, it is certain that the 15 rounds Ali got against Bonavena was probably vital in his survival against Joe.

Peter would be the favourite against a 37 year old burnt-out overweight Ali who was showing the first signs of Parkinsonism and was drugged up on multiple metabolism-altering prescription drugs for incorrectly diagnosed illnesses; I'll give him that. He has almost no chance of a KO, though. As Ali showed against Berbick, he could do a mix of moving and holding that could get him through the distance against just about anyone. Even the Holmes stoppage was just a realisation of hopelessness.

However, Ali was 36 when he beat Shavers and I doubt anyone seriously thinks Peter could beat that Ali. Only after the punishment Shavers inflicted on him did Ali REALLY start to slide; he went from beating an ATG puncher in one fight to losing to a drugged-up novice with an injured rib.

 

I agree ,but then Ali relied so much on his reflexes and judgement of distance whereas Vitaly is a huge guy with a long reach and very good power,so the age will not be so crucial to him ,I think he beats Peter,though he may be blowing badly as his stamina is sure to have been affected by such a layoff.

 

Possibly but because ALi was brain damaged from fighting some of the greatest heavyweights of all time and shot to pieces. Vitali has no real ring damage because hes only fought a few ranked opponents. Anyway even the Ali who beat Spinks may have beaten Peter

 

It does mean something, but so do:
1. the fact that the majority of fans and ringsiders thought Toney won the first fight
2. the fact that Toney was lucky to get a split decision over Danny Batchelder four months later
You yourself were an intense critic of Toney back when he was ranked and picked him to lose practically every fight he had, as I recall. Hence, Peter officially has two wins over a somewhat-credible opponent, but this is hardly front-page stuff. What Wlad has been doing the last couple years has been indicative of a genuine championship-caliber fighter; he soundly defeats these fat, lazy, inactive old folk on a consistent basis. What Peter has been doing has been far from the same; he was beaten badly (aside from the 11th-round knockdown) when he got in there with Wlad and has been just good enough to muddle through to victory against nominal contenders with considerable circumstantial disadvantages since then. The fact that he is the #2-ranked heavyweight in the world is more indicative of the fact that, as I say, aside from Wlad, who is leaps and bounds better than Peter, there are virtually no other current heavyweights who fight with reasonable regularity and win against at least nominally-credible opposition. There are guys out there who are formidable on their best nights and can pose a threat to near anyone, but they lack the consistency and professionalism to maintain any good standing. Although I believe that a guy like Wlad could compete with almost anyone, this is one way I do believe heavyweight boxing has severely declined. There were a lot more genuine, quality contenders with real professionalism in previous decades.

You seem to have this analogy backwards- the comparison should be where Bonavena was ranked in relation to MCCLINE, not Peter, as McCline was the one doing the knocking down, just as Bonavena was against Frazier. Bonavena was the #4 contender in the world, was in his prime, active and winning against name opponents when he decked Frazier twice. On the other hand, McCline was not even in the top 10, maybe not even top 15, and was also old, inactive and coming off a severe injury, when he decked Peter three times. Frazier was an inexperienced prospect with under a dozen pro fights when he was decked twice by the #4 contender in the world before rallying to win a decision; Peter was an established contender with nearly 30 pro fights when he was decked three times by a guy who wasn't even in the top 10 and was old, inactive, and coming off a severe injury, before rallying to win a decision. The difference is obvious.

Um, the only aspect of that description Walcott fits is the age- he was most definitely NOT coming off repeated injury problems, and far from being badly inactive, he had just beaten a top three heavyweight in the world three months earlier.

Foreman would be a good bet. If Lennox Lewis had retired at 33, it's plausible he could've done it. I also like Holmes' chances- he came out of retirement at the same age to face Tyson and was quite competitive for the first three rounds. A slow, plodding, predictable opponent like Peter would be far better-suited for such a match-up.

Fighters ranked in the top two losing to 37+ year-olds? There's Charles losing to Walcott, Moorer losing to Foreman, Mercer (I don't have the rankings for this particular moment in the division's history, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but he was at the least in the top five and was more highly-regarded relative to his time than Peter is now) losing to Holmes, and Valdes losing to Moore, that I can recall at the moment.

There are only three men under 30 in the top 10 right now, and they're all 28-29. In addition to stylistic factors like the ones you discuss, fighters are turning pro later and having fewer fights, which also allows for greater shelf life into their 30s. Ali was a speed/reflexes guy in the '60s. Vitali was a fighter of the blueprint you reference in this paragraph; he was never especially reliant on speed, timing, reflexes or raw energy, but instead on size, physical advantages (height/reach), strength, durability, workrate, and a well-crafted style to complement his assets, none of which are particularly dependent on age, which is why so many people right now believe Vitali will be able to successfully come back in spite of his age and time out.

Mercer was an undefeated Gold Medalist and was coming off a highly-impressive KO over Morrison at the time; he was the hottest up-and-comer in the division at the time, although he subsequently had some admittedly-pathetic performances (by world-class standards, anyway). Peter, on the other hand, has already lost and had his shortcomings well and thoroughly exposed since he stepped up to the world-class level. Although it was not directly off his own layoff, Holmes was several years older and defeated a considerably more credible opponent here.

Yes, Moorer was a blown-up light heavyweight, but the fact that he had proven himself at heavyweight in his last outing against Holyfield, was linear world heavyweight champion, and was not old, inactive or disgustingly fat like a James Toney, but rather was prime and undefeated, more than makes up for it; a 45-year-old who lost the title 20 years ago defeating such an opponent and regaining that title is a truly exceptional achievement. If Vitali beats Peter, it will also be an exceptional achievement on his part, but not on the same level.

Yes, but who says Vitali will look close to being the best in the world/win without fouls against Peter? The only question was, "If he BEATS Peter." If Vitali were to, say, dominate every round, outland Peter 3-1 and KO him within five, that would be better than Dempsey here; on the other hand, if he were to cop a split decision or have Peter retire with an injury, it wouldn't necessarily be. If Vitali does something a lot like the former (and you can quote me on this), I may be tempted to consider it second to Foreman; if he does something more akin to the latter, I wouldn't look at it as one of the top three.

 

Ali had been through a number of wars by then and was just starting to show Parkinson's disease, the other fact is people simply age differently, Foreman was still a great fighter at 44 where Ali would have been dead meat if he had fought at that age.

Anyway lets see how Vitaly goes if he prepares well he should win.

 

It just occured to me after opening this thread again that I'd forgotten a classic example, here: Wlad losing to Sanders. Not to be excessively provocative, though; I like Wlad, I think he's an exceptional fighter and is a true, genuine professional, he always comes prepared and ready to give it his best, he has heart (in spite of his naysayers), and if he keeps up what he's been doing for another, say, three years and unifies the championship, he may yet be an all-time great.

And on this paragraph:

Let me restate this in another way: If Peter, in his 12th pro fight back in 2002, had stepped up and faced McCline, who was, at the time, a top contender coming off wins over Grant and Briggs, been knocked down three times and come back to win the decision, then that would have been a huge PLUS and a CREDIT to Peter- everyone would've been impressed that a 22-year-old with 11 pro fights was able to pull that off. On the other hand, if Frazier, when he was already defending world champion with over two-dozen pro fights, had faced an old Bonavena who was no longer ranked and hadn't beaten a name opponent in years, been knocked down twice, and come back to win the decision, that would have done an enormous DISSERVICE to perception of him and his abiity. As is, though, the situations are the exact opposite of this; your comparison is utterly invalid. Frazier was the inexperienced prospect coming back to beat a prime top contender, while Peter was the established top gun having to come back to beat a battered old trial horse.

 

Where did you learn maths?

100 - 3 = 97

97 - 2 = 95


100 - 7 = 93


Basically you're saying Frazier would have won by two points, unless you're trying to argue there were MULTIPLE 10-7 rounds, rather than that "s" just being an idiosyncratic typo.

 

Yes, but if you refer back to the previous post, you had said that you thought I would be hard-pressed to find many examples of #2-ranked fighters in the world losing to 37-year-olds. Hence, I listed several examples, then later realized I had forgotten the most recent and obvious one (Wlad to Sanders).
Also, for the sake of argument, Wlad was a FAR better and more highly-regarded fighter than Peter is, and I highly doubt Vitali will destroy Peter with four knockdowns in two rounds (if he does, come back and quote me on this and I will recant).

Peter started boxing when he was 11, and made the quarterfinals in the Sydney Olympics in 2000. I've read that he had around 20 amateur fights. Frazier started boxing at about the same age and went to the Olympics at about the same age, although I believe he had a dozen or so more amateur bouts. Not an enormous difference. Either way, you're skirting the central point; it's an obvious and crucial difference, and invalidates the comparison, that Frazier was a green prospect facing a prime top contender, while Peter was a prime top contender facing an over-the-hill ex-contender, when either man was knocked down.

7-3 in rounds, if all rounds are 10-9, is 97-93. If one of the three rounds you lost was a 10-7, it becomes 95-93, which is still a win, not a draw.

McCline is not a bigger puncher than a Bonavena or any of several other fighters Frazier beat. He was closer to stopping Peter than anyone was to stopping Frazier aside from Foreman himself. Wlad is the only really monstrous puncher Peter has fought, and he was not really committing to his shots against Peter, but was coasting, clinching and jabbing. In a rematch, I would expect him to knock Peter out.

Coming into the Peter fight, McCline hadn't beaten a top 15 heavyweight in five years. Going into the first Frazier fight, Bonavena had beaten two top 15 heavyweights in the last year. Bonavena was an active, winning world's #4 contender. McCline was an over-the-hill former contender who was not ranked in the top 10, probably not even the top 15, at the time. A young prospect rallying to edge an established top contender is highly impressive; an established top contender rallying to edge a battered old ex-contender is an embarrassment.

Right now, in the General forum, there is a poll as to who is going to win the match in question. Over 75% of the voters in said poll say they believe that Vitali is going to win it. I would bet that the vast majority of those individuals do not believe Vitali Klitschko is an all-time great fighter; they simply recognize that Vitali's main assets are of a sort which are not especially vulnerable to effect through age or inactivity, that Peter has a pretty taylor-made style for Vitali, and that Peter is not an especially good fighter as world-class heavyweights go.