You see its not those guys that Liston beat that I rate him highly for. Its the Eddie Machens, Zora Folleys, Cleveland Williams, Nino Valdez.........These were the top most dangerous contenders in the divsion, these were the men Cus Damato refused to throw in the ring vs floyd patterson. I didnt see vitali taking on the Tuas, Ibeubuchis, Rahmans, brewsters, etc etc etc of his era. Liston did not struggle in his prime, at least not compared to larry holmes, lennox lewis did in there prime vs top oppostiion. Im not impressed with these numbers because of his lack of opposition against the top rated fighters of his era. He could have continued vs byrd, he was not forced to resign on his own will vs byrd. Larry Mercant commentd after vitali quit "Jim, Vitali lacks the mentallity of a champion" No but he certainly was not lennox lewis, not even close. He was just another Buddy Baer type. So now hes backing out of another fight against a young prime top contender just like he did with rahman? History shows WBO is the weakest of titles, and isnt really a world title claim like WBC, IBF, WBA are. Ill concede to Hide, although Hide was by no means one of the better heavyweight contenders of that era. not even close. He was more of a bert cooper type. Walcott was in great shape! if he had showed up to the marciano fight at a career high 210lb looking soft, slow, lethargic like lennox did.......I would defintley take points of marcianos victory. By the way marciano beat walcott, Vitali LOST to Lennox. These are exuses, whether their credible or not. Vitali had 100% control over the Byrd quit job. Also I must add Cuts are a part of the game, vitali was legit cut by one of lennoxs punches because vitali didnt know how to block. its vitalis fault he got hit and cut badly. He lost, uncontroversially.
Yup, listening to these Klitschkonians you'de think Vitali's face was ripped apart by a passing Eagle. Having your face pummeled into a grisly mess and the referee saving you from disfigurement is fairly UNcontrovesial, no?
It's sad that these head-to-head hypothetical matches often go no deeper than "Boxer A has a better resume than Boxer B" which means little, or into vague generalisations such as "Bigger is better and being taller is da bomb". It's sad, because as my post demonstrated, what we have here is two boxers with distinctive styles and very unusual physiques- Vitali: one of the best heavyweights ever at fighting tall; an unusually busy superheavyweight; successful in spite of his crude technique. Liston: a methodical, menacing figure who could outbox or outblast you; an intimidator with his imposing nature being compounded by his seek-and-destroy attitude in the ring. Vitali: extremely tall; his relatively short arms allowed him to throw much shorter punches than most superheavyweights, while still reaping the benefits of his height. Liston: a very broad boxer; he had the body of a gorilla, with his massive arms giving him a broader wingspan than most modern superheavyweights. There is so much more to chew on here than tired old discussions of steroid use and shoulder injuries.
Ok so who would win 48-1 Lamar Clark or 96-25 ezzard charles? if we dont go by resumes for part of it, then how do we separate the fighters by class?
Who said that we should use numerics in their stead? I said that resumes had only a little role to play. They perform the frankly near-insignificant task of allowing us to contextualise a performance: so Ali looked utterly unbeatable against Brian London, but one considers the quality of Brian London when extrapolating this performance to other fights. This is why it is so essential for boxers to face as many tough opponents as possible in order for their skills to be properly evaluated. If Ali hadn't come back in 1970, for instance, we'd never know whether he could cope or not with his stylistic nemesis, a left-hook orientated swarmer. At the same time, as in the business world, a candidate is so much more than a curriculum vitae. One could argue, for instance, that Ali had a much better resume going into the FOTC, but that didn't save him from his stylistic nemesis and the consequences of a flawed strategy. Equally, in head-to-head fights, I would favour Rocky Marciano to beat Larry Holmes, in spite of the fact that I consider Holmes's overall resume to be a bit better. The same goes for Hopkins vs. Hagler, Jefferies versus Dempsey, Bob Foster verus Roy Jones etc. Liston would beat Klitschko because of the way they would match-up, not the way Liston beat Patterson, Machen or Folley.
So what? I have seen this picture before, and here is an even better one. This content is protected Who gives a ****? An ugly face doesn't erase the fact, that Klitschko was dominating the fight, and forced to resign because of the decision of a doctor. It was probably a good stoppage, but the fact is, he didn't quit, show lack of heart, nor lack of boxing ability.
That version of Lewis, overweight or not, was no push over. He was determined to fight in the trenches and go toe to toe..that's a tough assignment for anyone. He wasn't about to get outboxed, that version of Lewis was either going to win or loose by KO. As to the loss itself, I don't think it was that contriversal, V.K. may have been winning the boxing match, but when they were in the trenches fighting, it was Lewis who had the upper hand, particularly in the 6th, when he rocked V.K. with an uppercut and won the round on all 3 scorecards.
Posted the pic in response to you claiming his losses were both 'contoversial' - now you're admitting it was a good stoppage. So I guess you agree with me - nothing 'controversial' about it :good
Taking words out of context are we? I clearly said that it was "probably" a good a stoppage, but the outcome was still controversial, and I stand by my claim that it had nothing to do with lack of heart or the inability to stay ahead on the cards-a part of my post which you blatatantly avoided responding to.
Magoo, stop being so emotional in your new found Klitschko-love, you're just making more errors in continuity (which isnt surprising given some of the ranting tangents you've gone off on) - if i wanted to be an ******* about it I'd cut & paste them for the good folks. But I dont (and, frankly, I don't have the energy.)
Yes, but legacy wins in one's own time do not guarentee victory in a cross era matchup with someone from a totally different time period. I gave distinct reasons and characteristics that I felt set Vitali apart from the Pattersons, Foleys, Williams, Machens, etc, but you still seem to only be concerned with ring magazine ratings and comments about them from back in the day. You also, are quick to point out that Klitschko fought an old Sanders, but now you're mentioning Nino Valdez who was arguably further past his best, plus had infinately more losses. Well, his brother is the concencus best in the world today, and Vitali defeated two men that his brother couldn't. I also wouldn't say that Hide, Donald, Sanders, Hoffman and some of the others were bums. As for Ibeabuchi, he went to jail with only 20 fights under his belt, and Vitali's injuries have kept him from facing Rahman, who frankly I think never possed a threat to him. Perhaps their prime lasted longer, and they faced better guys. He fought and defeated 4 ring rated opponents, ( a criterion that is a mandatory in your book ) and several others who were rated by the governing bodies, yet managed to survive boxing with a record of 35-2-0-34, and a list of all time unmatched statisitcs. I have tried to explain this to you in just about every language except Hungarian, and still you cling to a technicality. In all likelyhood you've never seen this fight, nor suffered a rotator cuff injury, so let's just eject the Byrd fight from the debate, as it appears to be useless from both sides of the argument. Now you seem to hold what Larry Merchant says in high regard. However, when I rebuddled your falacious claim that Corrie Sanders gassed after 2 rounds against Klit by mentioning Merchant's comment in the 5th round " what a fight ", you ignored it. I don't see how anyone can possibly maintain any degree of credibility with these types of double standards. Was Buddy Baer ever a world champion? I don't see how you can possibly make the comparison. The ****in' guy hasn't fought in nearly 4 years and has suffered repeated injuries that were well documented. Is this what you would call a conventional ducking in the purist sense of the term. The point is, he was rated. I suppose. Marciano wasn't dominating that fight through the first 6 rounds, and in fact got put on his ass-something that never happened to Vitali. If that fight had been scheduled for 12 rounds, Rock would have lost. He beat a tiring veteran. *****VOID******
Is this a discussion about boxing, or my feelings on the issue? And if you think I'm being unreasonable or giving factual errors, then feel free to comment on them. Keep in mind however, that this is the classic forum, and we don't use fabricated polls with biased propaganda to win the support of others. Keep that **** in the general forum please.