would vitali be a journeyman in the 70s

yes or no

This content is protected

 

No he wouldnt. He would be right up there competing with and beating top fighters.

 

I wouldn't call him a journey man, but he wouldn't have probably won a title. I'm thinking a career similar to Ken Nortons.

Keith

 

Vitali would get beat by journeymen in the 1970s. That's how bad he is in my honest opinion. I do, however, think guys like Gomez, Peter, Arreola, and Johnson could do some damage during that era. Just not Vitali.

He sucks. Really, really bad.

 

Or perhaps more like a fellow European, Jean-Pierre Coopman, the "Lion of Flanders".

 

Keith

 

Different times... Coopman didn't even get into boxing untill his midtwenties and the fight with Ali was a tune up for the champ. I respect Coopman a great deal, otherwise he wouldn't be in my avatar, but Vitali would fare a lot better imo. I see Vitali as a serious competitor in just about any era... Coopman was a name in Europe only.

 

Vitali is 10 times the fighter ken norton was, he would be right up there.

 

Isn't he bigger than the guys in the 70's? He would have won and lost a title.

 

No, not really.

That's a ridiculous statement.

Keith

 

**** no he wouldn't be a journeyman. Style-wise he'd pose huge problems for anyone, from Ali on down. And then you have to consider his size, which would be almost unmatched. Foreman was considered huge and he was 6-3, 220. Vitali is 6-7, 250.

 

Vitali would be top dog.

 

Koman. I bet your mum hates you.

 

I dont think that high of ken norton, maybe I underrate Norton but I truly believe vitali takes him out, same for foreman and frazier.
Ud's 70's version of ali and loses only to holmes.
How can I then not rate him higher than Norton if I feel that way?

 

He'd be a contender. Whether he would have ever won the title is difficult to say. There was Norton, Ali, Foreman and Frazier to contend with among others - I'd say he'd be competitive with some of those guys but I'm not certain he could beat all of them.