What are you smoking!?!? Holmes was 48-0 when Spinks beat him, how in any realm of reality is that comparable the the old shot version of Toney and Holyfield that we see now!?!? And whilst we're at it, why don't we compare the pre-HW resumes of Spinks and Adamek:- Spinks: Lopez Johnson Muhammed Qawi Davis Adamek: Dawson (lost) 2x MD against Paul Briggs Bell Cunningham Please tell me you don't rate Adamek as highly as Spinks!?!?!
beating a featherfisted CW that didnt really have a chance isnt his best win at all. Good win but not best. Saunders was, He landed some bombs
Yeah, I don't think there is too much to praise about Vitali's performance. I like Adamek a lot and he fought bravely but he simply isn't a very good heavyweight. His chin, his best feature at the lighter weights, is no longer rock solid, he isn't active and he fights in a defensive manner. The guy who was so impressive against Paul Briggs all those years ago, is a much different fighter to the one we've seen at heavyweight. Vitali did what everyone expected him to. Utterly dominate Adamek and stop him late on in the fight. It was one of the easiest fights in a long, long time to correctly analyze. There's nothing to note about Vitali's dominance. He did what everyone knew he would and did it unspectacularly. That said, you can fault Vitali's actual performance. I thought his footwork was atrocious and I don't think I've ever seen a heavyweight move poorer than that. I made the point in another thread that Primo Carnera had better footwork and it's something that I think is absolutely true. Vitali looks clumsy, awkward and his balance is terrible. I know the obvious answer is "He was still dominant" and whilst that's true, I think it's a reflection of how bad Adamek is rather than how good Vitali is. We aren't looking at a George Foreman calibre, awkward, unconventional brawler here. That's not the case. Vitali is a Max Baer or Jess Willard calibre fighter. Good chin, decent power, awkward but, ultimately, limited and flawed.