Why Vitali is a top 10 HW ATG

And why its irrational to not at least include him in the top 15.

Vitali is currently the most underregarded ATG in boxing. Typically, modern fighters aren't given their due until later, so this will eventually change. Here's why:

First the obvious and undeniable stuff: 1. 8th longest reigning champ in HW history
2. Tied for 6th most consecutive HW title defenses
3. 6th most overall HW title defenses
4. 2nd highest ko percentage of HW champs
5. Probably the highest rounds won percentage in the history of HW boxing among title holders
6. Came back from a 4 year layoff and in first fight beat the most highly regarded non Klitschko title holder
7. One of the two best and most accomplished HW's of his era, perhaps the best (a period of time of average peak performance for a HW, at least 7 years)

These are basically empirical facts, almost everything else is much more subjective. Looking at those facts, a ranking from between 5-10 is reasonable. Ironically, rationally speaking, the logical application of the rest of his career should only improve or at maintain the standings the above would indicate. However, irrational people use subjective standards to not just lower his ranking, but lower it beyond all plausibility (below top 20 etc).

The subjective elements contain two main criteria:
1. Quality of opposition. Vitali ducked no one, was the most ducked HW champ ever (Valuev, Haye, etc). He clearly dominated legitimate top HW contenders. Arguably, his defenses in his last reign were less accomplished than Wlads, but his performances in winning the titles in the first place were more impressive.
2. Strength of the era. Realistically, this is the strongest era ever in terms of H2H. It's not as satisfying an era in terms of fight matchups. It's debatable as to how this should be weighted, but the worst one should regard Vitali is 2nd best of an era, and while I don't have a problem if someone choses to put an occasional, special 3rd best of an era over a 2nd best, maybe Joe Frazier, generally there is no excuse of putting more than a couple such fighters over someone much more successful in his era.

Logically, there is a strong argument that Vitali is the best of his era, he beat the best non Klitschko fighters of his era, who his brother struggled against. The quality of those top wins elevate him above the quantity of his brothers top wins, in my opinion. I'd gladly admit this is debatable. That's why it's reasonable to put his brother in the top 10 instead of him.

Personally, I have him ranked #7. My ATG methodology is dominant fighters of an era, and their achievements in era to the sport and social significance. If it was just H2H, the modern fighters would be completely dominant. My top twenty five, with in era ranking designated: #1 Ali (or Louis) best of era #2 Louis (or Ali) boe #3 Marciano boe #4 Dempsey boe #5 Lewis boe #6 Sullivan boe #7 VK boe #8 Holmes boe #9 Johnson boe #10 Foreman 2nd best of era11. Tyson 2nd best of era (or best of a fringe era)12 Wlad 2nd boe 13 Frazier 3rd best of special era 14 Tunney 2nd boe (or best of fringe era) 15 Jeffries (best of very weak era) 16 Schmeling 2nd best of era 17 Corbet 2nd best of era 18 Holyfield 3rd best of era 19 Ezzard Charles 2nd or 3rd boe 20 Walcott 2nd or 3rd boe 21 Patterson 2nd or 3rd boe 22 Bowe 4th best of great era 23 Liston 2nd or 3rd best of era, but controversial career 24 Norton 4th boe 25 Baer 3rd boe etc.

Miscellaneous subjective arguments: 1. He lost to the best fighter he faced, and is most know for that. That is true of other top 10 ATG's such as Dempsey, Foreman. In fact, Ali, Louis, Dempsey, Sullivan, and Foreman all lost to the best fighter they faced. That doesn't demean their accomplishments. Vitali's fight was one of the greatest fights ever, and a rematch could easily have gone the other way.
2. He quit against Byrd. So what? I never personally understood this criticism. He proved his heart against Lewis. Fighting in what he thought was a losing effort against Byrd with a serious injury was the rational thing to do, it could have jeopardized his career for minimal rewards. Besides, if you rank him outside the top 15, you'll almost certainly have to rank him below Liston. Liston quit much more egregiously against Ali, certainly once, arguably twice. The first time, just like VK, he quit from a shoulder injury in the mid to later rounds. The second time, he quit from a phantom punch that may well have involved corruption (in fact, both may have involved corruption). Unlike VK, he didn't have a long time as champ, beat fewer top contenders than VK, and his main claim to fame was beating little Floyd Patterson, 3rd best fight of his era, who was knocked down all the time, had the weakest reign of any HW and beat the weakest competition. There is simply no rational way to rate people like Liston or Patterson above Vitali.

Ultimately, the best brain dead, irrational hater fans can do is make flippant, scoffing comments to this. But if any are courageous enough to rank VK below the top 20, and actually offer a ranked list of people above him, it will be truly laughable, and completely irrational. Who will they put above him?

Norton? Someone who never successfully defended a title, who lost to a bunch of top contenders, was blown out by a second best HW of the era (Foreman), whose main claim to fame was having close, but mostly losing efforts to two best HW's of their eras in Holmes and Ali? That's just not rational. His resume is closer to Corrie Sanders, a VK victim, than VK. Like Norton, Holmes beat one of the two best HW's of his era and was competitive against another of the two best HW's. Unlike Norton, he smoked the one he beat and was unavenged in his victory (no I don't think Sanders deserves a higher ranking than Norton for various reasons, but there shouldn't be too much distance between them).

Patterson? Fewer title defenses, much weaker opposition among those title defenses. People love to criticize VK's victims, but they were legit top 20 opponents, few of Patterson's opponent were, except for those he lost or nearly lost to at least once (Jackson, Johannson, Liston are the only legit top 10 HW's he fought as champ). In addition, barely won many of the fights he did win. Was decisively proven to be the 3rd best of his era. Completely irrational to put him above Vitali.

Bowe? Much fewer title defense against much weaker opposition. His best non Holyfield win was against Donald or Hyde, both of whom Vitali beat more impressively and who aren't even among his top 5 victories. He (arguably) lost to Holyfield, lessening the significance of his win, and Holyfield was the 3rd best fighter of his era. It's insanely irrational to put Bowe anywhere near VK, he's more comparable to Hasim Rahman, ie someone who beat a top HW but clearly not even debatably the best of his era.

In short, while I'd disagree with it, and note that its more rational to put Vitali in the top ten and above his brother, you can be reasonable and still put VK at maybe #15 or so and below his brother. After that, you are either a brain dead hater, or the occasional disturbing person who claims to be a fan but apparently is brainwashed by the haters into thinking 2 plus 2 doesn't equal 4.

 

There's no rational rationale for putting him below 20, under any criteria. I noted why at length above. I even put a top 25 list, are you really saying people like Max Baer or Floyd Patterson, under any criteria, should be ranked above him? That would be laughable.

For the record, I do think he could have had a more satisfying career. If he'd squeezed a few more top contenders into his last couple years, fought a bit longer, gotten to maybe 12 consecutive title defenses, I'd have him even higher.

Most of the other comments comment on things I've already dealt with above, i.e. being known for a loss or losing to your best opponent (so did many other top 10's), or fighting in a weak era (completely subjective and also wrong, at least as far as H2H goes), or poor resume (subjective and inaccurate; beat contenders, ducked no one, beat the best two non K's of era, who his brother struggled against)

 

Also, the forums are his biggest critics. Many boxing analysts etc give him his credit. Just one example: [url]http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/the-pugilist/vitali-remembered-hugely-underrated-time-great-144316989.html[/url]