I know we disagree slightly on Vitali's H2H abilities so gonna go to deep there. I agree his competition was questionable but it's impressive to me how few rounds he lost. I usually stay away from H2H comparsions myself anyway.
Because head-to-head isn't the same as a resume. Buster outclassed Tyson, and many people believe it wasn't a coincidence. So why couldn't Vitali, who seems much stronger than Buster, beat Ali in a hypothetical fight? I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just saying that head-to-head isn't a resume. Besides, Vitali's resume is highly underrated, but that's a topic for another time.
From the perspective we have gained since, this was very much an over-reaction. Tyson was a spent entity post-prison. He was well on his way to being such before prison.
I would pick Vitali to beat the versions of Liston, Frazier and Foreman that Ali beat. So, who does that leave?
Yes, but only 6 of them were Top 10 fighters. He didn't beat top contenders of his era and didn't beat the best of his era. Ali beat 32 Top 10 fighters and cleaned out the division in 2 decades. His H2H accolades come from beating all the guys with all different styles. Vitali doesn't have variety nor the class of fighters in his resume that Ali had.
Not claiming that Vitali had a better resume relative to his era. But that a lot of the pushovers from the 60's and 70's wouldn't have made a dent a few decades later. As far as greatness Ali far outshines Vitali. As far as head to head, I would pick Ali over Vitali. But their relative greatness narrows when discussion moves from record in their era to head-to-head abilities.
He fought 30% of the worst HW era known to man while his brother fought the rest. He still lost twice.
Post Zaire 70's was far worse. Post WW2 to Liston was far worse. The Color Line era was far worse. Take that rubbish to the curb.