Vitali Klitschko vs Evander Holyfield

Not at all. The 4th round was close already but I gave it to Lewis. Lewis landed a couple more punches but Holyfield had that stiff jab to the chest. Then came the 5th another close round, which I then gave even to be fair. In the 9th, Holyfield was doing better overall but Lewis had that big uppercut. Very difficult round to score

 

"Just give him a nod Mr Pip,he likes that,dont you Aged P?"Wemmick Great Expectations

 

To be fair - I think Aged P carried a little more charm.

 

Bump

 

84 pages? Jesus, I only scanned through the first couple of pages.

I don't know if I have time to sit through this lo. Can anyone summarize why this has gone on for 84 pages?

 

I can try:

In short, the debate turned into a 'Holyfield's Performances' VS 'Vitali's Stats' type of affair.

So, on the one hand, it seems the majority of people think Holyfield can win a head-to-head against VK (no poll so, unconfirmed). The argument being that Holyfield faced better opposition and delivered better performances than VK. Even in his defeats to Lewis and Bowe (combined with his win over Bowe), Holyfield demonstrated that he could compete with the modern, skilled SHWs (even when he was advanced in years).

An offshoot from this position is that Vitali, in his losses to Byrd and Lewis, didn't quite stack up to the prime and closer to prime versions of Bowe and Lewis, serving as an indicator as to how VK could handle himself at the Prime elite tier of the early to mid '90s.


But, in response to this, Holyfield's ledger has been criticized and made out to be inferior to VK's. Regardless of this being a Prime, Head-to-Head debate, the fixation on comparing ledgers has been a persistent one, pretty much derailing the topic from roughly the early-to-midway mark.

So, the usual bigging up of each man's record; the usual reasoning given for each man's losses (Bowe, Moorer for Holyfield and Byrd, Lewis for VK) and the Holyfield/Ruiz trilogy appeared to draw more attention than it deserved.

IIRC, the VK/Byrd section of the thread conjured up some interesting viewpoints about how the quitting of Vitali actually played out and there was a long debate on the potential of a rematch and why it didn't come off.

Mendoza also has a 10-[loaded]questions survey about Holyfield (I think), which you might want to answer (or not, as the case maybe) - I think they're repeated several times, somewhere near the middle of the deck (in the page-40-somethings).

The highlight, in the case for VK's ledger (at least, for me) was the assertion that a 2010 Shannon Briggs would beat Tyson's '80s opposition, such as Berbick, Thomas, Tucker, Holmes and Spinks.

Kirk Johnson was a great scalp for VK, apparently. Added to this are the numbers VK amassed, e.g. didn't lose many rounds etc. etc. - all of which perhaps have a limited application to an assessment of a Head-to-Head, but are there, nonetheless.


And - a lot of other silliness in-between.

 

I still pick Vitali Klitschko

 

I bumped this thread hoping to get an explanation like yours in order to understand this madness. Thank you sir.

 

lol I am crying from laughter, classic ESB

Thanks so much for the summary. 2010 Shannon Briggs beating Tucker and Thomas is hilarious.

Oh God, I needed this laughter.

Anyway for what its worth, I make Holyfield a slight favourite but Vitali has a huge physical advantage and I would not count him out. This certainly should not have gone 84 pages. lol.

 

Yes just a bit!

 

I created this thread to usher in a new dark age it’s that simple need not read the content simply disagree with everyone and allow the fire to rise, Saint Primo be with you.

 

Excellent post.

I pick Holyfield by KO in the later rounds. He is a slightly better class than Vitali and a lot better than any of Vitali's option, even though Vitali might sneak a win in a trilogy.

I didnt say anything to contradict this ealier on this thread did i?

 

Khaosai Galaxy

 

Ha ha ha, told by a guy who hates Klitschko, who decided to sit out of the tough questions, and throw stones later from his glass house.

The highlights were Holyfield fans offering all type of excuses, failing to acknowledged he was a big time PED loser, some claiming he drew vs Lewis fairly, ignoring the fact that Ruiz beat him in their first fight, ignoring the fact that he has match up issues vs skilled bigger men ( Bow and Lewis 1-4 on fiar score cards ) ignoring the fact that Vitali did way better vs common opponents beaten in Bean and Donald, ect... Brushing off his 1-1 vs Moorer, he floored and trouble moment v Bert Cooper, etc...

Vitlai would beat him.

Holyfield lost more round to Ruiz that italii did in his career! Also discusses was no re-match vs Byrd or Lewis, which Lewis clearly ducked out of

 

The fact is that your case was so weak that you had to bring up issues with little or no relevance to the thread. For intance fights where Holyfield was past his prime (the Ruiz fights) or a potential PED use or fights Holyfield even won (against opponents like Copper which bear no stylistice resemblance with the Vitali matchup )