Looking for a consensus HW top100!

Better longevity at the top? How about Ruiz had Don King and got too many chances. I think that explains it.

In addition, didn't Ruiz lose two fights to fringe contender types in Kobozev and Nicholson? I think so. Vitlai never lost to a non-ranked fighter, and his two defeats are injury related when he was up on points. Neither Lewis nor Byrd wanted any part of the re-match. If Vitlai had Don King, I tend to think he re-matches Byrd.


BTW, If Vitlai beats either Valuev or Chagaev, who have beaten Ruiz, would you change perspective?

 

If Vitali goes on and beats good competition for sure. Can´t see him going on for long with his age and injury history though. I wish him luck and hope he and his brother get it on after one of them beat Valuev.
Yesterday there was a short message to the press from Vitali - who also spoke for his brother - that they intend to force a fight with Valuev but that they haven´t decided who will fight him.

The thing is you are a fan and trying to twist everything to rank Vitali as high as possible but fact is he had a lackluster career considering his talent and he has not done enough to be ranked above Ruiz, Byrd and Tua yet.

 

I thinkk you guys should re-read what Chrispontius set out when he made the thread;

"1. Only fighters who fought between 1900 and 1999 are allowed. However, when a fighter spent part of his career outside of this time, i.e. in the 2000's or during the 1800's, the accomplishments during that time are to be taken into account. Why this seemingly inconsistent rule? Because all other fighters are judged on their entire career, so it would be unfair to judge those on the edge on a few fights on their end/start of their careers.

Boxers post-2000 are excluded because many haven't finished their careers yet, and it is a general rule of human psychology that a boxer's standing will rise several years after they retired. So, for a fair measurement, they're left out.

Pre-1900 is excluded because documentation on them (complete records, film) does not compare to those of the 20th century, and the rules of boxing were much different back then from what it was during most of the 20th century.


2. I'm looking for a general consensus here where many will disagree, so if you think one fighter should be top80 instead of top90, don't bother. The difference between top20 and top30 is obviously larger, but from there on things are becoming hard to separate. Top80 is only a bit lower than top60, even if there's 20 fighters between them.


3. Currently active fighters who spent part of their career in the 90's are excluded, unless it's clear they're not going to accomplish anything anymore.

So, for instance, Tua will be judged on his entire career despite part of that being in the 2000's. Officially he is still active, but it's not likely he'll achieve anything big in the future, so he's allowed to be on. The same goes for Holyfield and Ruiz. Jeffries had quite some fights before the 1900's and they are included because he was active as a champ in the 1900's. The Klitschko's however, were active in the 90's but are still active today and hence are not included. Corbett is excluded because he fought almost exclusively in the 1800's."

 

Vitlai looked fresh, and younger than his age. He can go on for a while. For at least two more fights, I think. Vitlai is dominating force in the ring. Whether I am a fan or not means little, the facts are the facts. I can't see many fighters in history stopping Vitlai or out boxing him. He's that good.

I saw that Valuev might fight Klitschko K-2 promotions will have to offer Valuev a lot of money, say 3 times what he will make in his next fight for Valuev to risk it. If the fight happens, Vitlai will beat Valuev badly, shutting him out on the cards, and stopping him....then picking up the Ruiz, and Chageav names on Valuev's resume.


Also, I am not ruling out a Lewis comeback either.

 

Yeah Vitali looked fresh and young but he was in there with a fighter who was not able to push him to his limit. chagaev and Valuev would be harder opponents. They would push him hard and I still have some doubts concerning his injuries.

The thing is Vitali never proved it against the very best. The only time was against a fat, untrained, past his prime fighter and he got stopped - also he looked good in there. I never pick unproven fighters over proven ones.

Well, I think the fight comes of next year. I also think Valuev will fight Vitali since he may think he is the easier opponent. After that one I really hope the brothers get it on and I can see this happen. There would be huge money in it.

I hope he does not.

 

Bryd TKO 10 Vitali Klitschko

 

Would you have favoured Byrd in a rematch shortly after their first fight?

 

Yeah, I know. those two are a bit like fire and water, as if they are married

btw. seen my reply on your Bowe-Schmeling question before this Klitschko-mess?

 

Well, I could live with that also I think Fitz is nearer to a Top20 hw than Bowe.

 

Well, Fitz wouldn´t be in my top20 either but i would put him in there before Bowe. Jeffries I´d put between 4 and 7 and Holyfield just outside the top10, so I don´t regard Holy as high as Jeffries.

 

I don't think Chagaev who is pretty short with short arms and average feet could press or coutner Vitlai. Chagaev edged Valeuve with speed, smarts and coutner punching. This would not work at all with Vitlai.



I don't think Valuev who is slow and lacks big time power could push Vitlai or win a round from him. Vitlai would paste either Chagaev or Valuev, and either take their will or knock them out.

.

I disagree 100%. You can prove yourself win, lose or draw. Every lineal champion lost to someone not as good as Lewis was with the exception of Marciano who never fought anyone as good as Lewis was to begin with.



Vitlai took the fight on 10 days notice, while prepping for a 10 round match, yet he easily out boxed Lewis, up 4-2 on all three cards, and had Lewis hurt, tired, also cut, and winded. You cannot say what happens in round seven. Vitlai proved how much he had left the moment he learned the fight was being stopped.

Vs Byrd, Vitlai proved he could be well ahead of a tricky southpaw boxer with one good working arm. If not for the torn shoulder, Vitlai wins easily.

So again, I disagree. Vitlai proved plenty vs Lewis and Byrd. The fact that neither man would re-match Vitlai also speaks volumes.

Vitlai vs Wlad for charity might happen one day. Just do not expect anything besides a good sparring session.

 

You are perhaps correct that Byrd and Tua have very slightly better resumes than Vitali in terms of who they beat. But do you base your historical standings entirely on resume? Through most any other comparison, Vitali is quite a bit better than them. It isn't as though Byrd and Ruiz have legendary, awe-inspiring resumes- by your own estimation, wins over guys like an old, badly-over-the-hill Holyfield and a washed-up Tony Tucker make their top fives. These guys' resumes consist largely of disputed split decisions and clinch-fests where officials gave them the necessary nudge to get the "W"s on their win columns. Unlike Byrd and Ruiz, Vitali's "wins" are all fights he actually won. Vitali was recognized by RING magazine as champion for a reason- he was head-and-shoulders better than the rest of the post-Lewis field, at least before Wlad pulled himself together and rose to dominance. Which of the two brothers will ultimately prove superior is still hard to say at this point, although, of course, if one is judging solely by resume, Wlad leads by a country mile.