So Haye, Chagaev, Peter, Sanders were elite in your book? As I said before, Wlad and Vitali are #1 and #2, and brothers. So all that is left to fight " elite " they way you are defining it here is #3, which in many cases angles away from them. Not a very fair way of looking at it. Once a #3, #4, or #5 fights Klitschko and looses, then get shuffled down the ratings. This is a given. My point was there is not a large difference between #3 and #8, because as soon as #3 losses, he's now #5 or #6, which is but two spots away from #6. If Chagaev stayed #3 after Wlad pasted him, then you can say there is a noticeable difference in ranking between #3 and #8.
When Byrd had the IBF belt, he got a huge pay day ( Bigger than anything King gave him ) to fight Wlad again. How is this a slave contract? Byrd had other options for sure. He took the money. Yes--re-matches are important, particularly if the fight was close and exciting, and there was a " what if "type of ending.
They were ranked higher than everybody else in the world. Yeah, that's elite. If you prefer, it is not elite, but the #3. And who gives a **** about fair? Vitali lost to the #1 when he was beaten by Lewis. Since then, he's failed to fight the #1 available to him in Wlad. So it's difficult to judge how good he is. Of the other very best available to him outside of the other extraordingary HW he shares an era with, he has gone 2-1 in circumstances. But these are not "elite" fighters to you, and not extraordinary ones to me. More problems. In a wider sense, he beat more men who got their names in the Ring, but against the very best available to him, his record is bad sprinkled with ommisions.
The fighters who gave Wlad trouble ( Omit Brewster ) were Sanders, Peter, and Purrity. In these fights Wlad is 1-2, and had I think was knocked down 8 times. Vitali fought the same guys. The difference in the results was huge. Vitali knocked them all out, losing but one round in the series of fights. This shows Vitali is #1 if Wlad wasn't here. If also makes a case that perhaps Vitali was the better of the two. The Byrd fight was a fluke loss. Wlad never fought Lewis, who I think was better than both. History is full of big fights that never happened in the same division. Do you downgrade Jack Johnson for failing to meet the best 4-5 men as champion? Yes or no? How about Joe Louis for only offering two black men a shot in 26 title defenses? Is he downgraded as much? Or how about Holmes for never meeting Page, or Dokes? I'd really like to read you replies as it will determine if there is an double standard here perhaps you are not even aware of. In this case the two are bothers and great friends. There is a reason they do not fight for money. The Klitschko will fight anyone out there, with the exception of themselves.
You're comparing Vitali head to head to Wlad and that's fine. In the future it might even be seen as important. But the fact is that Vitali has crossed eras with two genuinely extraordinary HW's. He can't fight one because this is his brother. He lost to the other. The bottom line speaks loudest. Very much so, yes. No. Louis didn't duck out on any of the extraordinary HW's of his era. If Louis had failed to fight Walcott because he was black or Schmeling because he was German, or Baer because he fought with the start of David on his trunks, then we would have had a serious problem. Just because a couple of the good HW's of that era were black, I don't downgrade him for that, no.
SuzieQ would strongly disagree. Certainly there were top level black fighters better than the garden variety bum of month club fighters.
It's arguable that there were black fighters who were on occasion better than the white fighters that Louis met. It is not arguable that Louis has a track record as misreable as Vitali's when it comes to matching the very best his era could provide. Additionally, Vitali has never beaten the man.
I think it's fair here to point out that: 1. In 2004, Vitali had impressed everybody (except SuzieQ) with his losing effort against Lewis and his 2-round destruction of Johnson. Likewise, Sander destroyed Wlad in two rounds. They were seen as the two best heavyweights on the planet and when they squared off, the winner was seen as the man. Vitali wasn't recognized as the ring magazine champion for nothing. Similar to Patterson-Moore, Burns-Hart, etc. 2. Yes, Vitali Klitschko lost to the champion before the latter retired, but then again, is there anyone who thinks Patterson would've beaten Marciano in 1956 or that Burns would've beaten Jeffries in 1905? 3. Even though Vitali lost to Lennox, it is one of the, if not the most controversial wins over that entire decade. For the record, I think Lewis beat him fair and square, but it should carry some weight that half of the people don't think so. And even though Lewis had nothing left to prove and deserved every second of his retirement, it's clear why he didn't like that rematch.
Louis missed out on fighting a few, but he also lost 3 years due to World War II. Surely Louis would have fought some of these black challengers had he been given the chance. lastly, Louis was clearly not afraid to take then on. Louis fought 3 hall of fame black fighters(John Henry Lewis, jersey joe walcott, ezzard charles) so Joe was taking on the best black contenders out there.
Yep. It's kinda sad that Vitali has never beaten a # 1 ring magazine rated contender in his career. Makes you realize how overrated he gets by modern fans.
Don't be naive. Literally four years after the fight, every topic that as much as contained the words "Lewis" and "Vitali" went 50 pages within a day.
Further to this, the point still stands. I agree with you that Vitali-Sanders is comparable to Patterson-Moore, Burns-Hart, that's fine by me, what it isn't is a victory over an definitively incumbent #1 (as was the case with the provided examples). The fight may have settled that issue, but Vitali can't fight himself. Lewis and Wlad are the two guys in this regard, plain and simple. I agree that Vitali was impressive versus Lewis. Farr was impressive versus Louis, also.