Is Vitali really an H2H monster?

I don't really know how many guys I'd use that term for, even guys much greater than Vitali on achievement. I mean, my own H2H best guy who beat vastly better fighters...also struggled more frequently against lesser fighters. Vitali is one of the best on-top fighters against B- and C+ fighters in the division's history. I'll say that. As far as what that should mean, I don't know, for monster status.

 

Vitali doesn't have the power to deter Fury. Furys defence will reduce his power even further.
Fury dragged Wilder into a phonebooth battle and he hits with the power to one shot anyone out cold.

 

And there it is.

 

Well, could have, but no champion granted the challenger an immediate rematch after stopping them and Lewis was about to retire anyway. Plus, fight with Lennox shows, that Vitali wasn't no H2H monster, as he couldn't take advantage of an out of shape Lewis, while f.e. Hasim Rahman did. He beat Lewis, Vitali didn't. Is Rahman better than Vitali H2H then?

Again - maybe he could have. But wouldas, couldas, shouldas don't count. For some reason he didn't rematch him for 5 years.

 

Surely a thread like this is all about 'wouldas and couldas' isn't it? I give Fury a much better chance than AJ due to the styles involved, but I think Vitali would have stopped AJ late and decisioned Fury.

 

H2H also should be based on real fights, not imaginary fights in someone's head.

 

Cunningham almost had him out.

Wilder isn't able to carry his power against serious contenders. Anyone with decent defense can avoid his shots. His mechanics are terrible. He couldn't do anything against Zhang or Chisora.

 

If I remember correctly Lewis was supposed to have multiple fights after Vitali. What happened?

 

Surely we are debating fights in people's heads based upon evidence of fights fighters had when active? I think, for instance, Usyk is an H2H nightmare for most heavyweights yet he has never beaten an ATG or anyone near the level of some of the fighters I think he'd hang with or beat? The whole H2H debate by definition is based 'in people's heads' but is a notion based on knowledge, experience, head and heart.

Thanks for taking the time to reply, you make some interesting points which give me cause to think. Take care, peace and love always, Px

 

I think the fight with Lewis shows exactly WHY Vitali IS a H2H monster...

 

He was flip flopping with the retirement claims a lot. Lewis liked to talk a lot of shyte.

 

So Rahman must be a bigger H2H monster, right? Since he beat him.

 

Zeljko Mavrovic performed better against a primer Lewis.

Frank Bruno outboxed young prime Lewis longer than Vitali did.

The ghost of tony tucker boxed in a way that prevented Lewis from smashing him to pieces.

The Lewis fight showed Vitali had terrible defence, zero inside skil , no plan b and no adaptability.
He's one of the only guys in history to lose a passing of the torch fight.
Logic states losing your biggest fights means you are not a h2h monster.

 

Absolutely not. Simple triangle theory rarely works, and I think you know this based on the knowledge you show in your posts. Rahman and McCall caught lightening in a bottle and capitalised on Lenny's achilles, he could be lazy, he liked a fight and his chin whilst not bad was not grade A. I think that Lenny's performance against Vitali was one of the ones that showed HIS H2H credentials. My goodness he showed some bottle in that fight and came back from the biggest adversity he had had to deal with as a pro, in perhaps the worst shape he had ever been in.

For me H2H credentials aren't based on performance in one fight, they are based on a career worth of 'work', beating many types of opposition and not just how you won, but how you lost. Mix that with physical and mental attributes and season it with the all important eye test and there is an intangible recipe for years worth of debate!!

 

Those are interesting opinions man, thanks for sharing them.