Why doesn't Vitali get enough credit for his achievement?

by invisiblecoolers Mon 19 May 2014, 3:54 am

A Boxer technically undefeated if u consider the two matches he lost due to injuries not made by opponent and in both matches he was leading hands down on all referee cards. One of the biggest knockout ratios, this guy last all 12 rounds against any heavyweight pitted against if needed, one of the best chins I have seen in the history.

Unlike Wlad Vitali is more aggressor yet plans his punches in a much calculated way, he doesn't hug and thug like his brother Wlad does, Lewis certainly knew he had remote chance of a win on a rematch with Vitali at that time and hence timely saved his legacy, however Lewis knows very well he always has his chance against Wlad if he could get one of his right upper punch even if happened to be by accident.

Vitali in my view should easily make top 10 boxers of all time and could close in top 5, yes I would agree Boxers like Ali, Tyson, Robinson, Foreman, Frazier were there and could be above Vitali's accomplishments, but having seen Vitali fight and box I would certainly give him benefit of doubt to be along this great group. thumbsup

by kingraf Mon 19 May 2014, 4:48 am

The reason Is, Vitali is one of those "he could have been" stories. Got caught with the syringe in '96, which set him back a few years. Then in 2000, while comfortably leading against Byrd, decided the shoulder was simply too damaged to continue (an altogether fair proposition). Then gets an unlucky (in the sense that no boxer aims to catch you with his thumb in your eye) cut in the match he'd been training like a machine for. Gets himself atop the Heavy scene, and is forced to retire again, and when he came back, there just wasn't enough quality to claim his greatness. I rate Vitali highly as a boxer, chin of granite, good movement at 6'7, fast enough reflexes, and obviously a decent head on his shoulder. He'd be a proposition for anyone. Tall, string, rangy, very awkward. But you can only really rate a guy on his body of work, and it isn't there, neither is the longevity that helps Messrs Holmes et al get a look in.

by jimdig Mon 19 May 2014, 7:45 am

His link to the last great era in heavyweight boxing is the Lewis fight. There is a common opinion that a fat, 40 year old, Lewis who took the fight on 2 weeks notice still smashed his face in, and seemed to be turning the tide.
Lewis retired making a statement somewhere along the lines that's it's time to hang them up if someone like vitali is causing trouble. So in some ways the Lewis fight that is close to the high point in vitali's career is also the fight that affects his credibility most.
That and the lack of world class opposition available during his reign.

He should have fought his brother. Because I think his brother will end up being ranked higher than him in the all time lists.

by kingraf Mon 19 May 2014, 7:59 am

jimdig wrote:His link to the last great era in heavyweight boxing is the Lewis fight. There is a common opinion that a fat, 40 year old, Lewis who took the fight on 2 weeks notice still smashed his face in, and seemed to be turning the tide.
Lewis retired making a statement somewhere along the lines that's it's time to hang them up if someone like vitali is causing trouble. So in some ways the Lewis fight that is close to the high point in vitali's career is also the fight that affects his credibility most.
That and the lack of world class opposition available during his reign.

He should have fought his brother. Because I think his brother will end up being ranked higher than him in the all time lists.

1) Lewis was not fat. He came in at a career high, but he was not fat. I mean please.
2) the two weeks notice thing goes both ways, in fact, it's quite obviously more of a hindrance to Vitali, taking on his first truly great fighter, than It is for Lennox, who's been in the big time for nearly a decade.

3) Lewis would say that, he hadn't heard of Vitali, Liston was by all accounts quite embarrassed following his performance vs Ali.

by catchweight Mon 19 May 2014, 8:18 am

Quite clearly, the two weeks notice favoured Klitschko. As it is pretty obvious he was training seriously for a fight and Lewis was half assed and not. Klitschko couldnt have got a better opportunity to face Lewis. Lewis was old, unmotivated and under trained. Still won after gifting Klitschko every opportunity. Can you imagine how that Lewis would have got on against a genuinely great heavyweight? Knocked out inside two rounds while still half asleep.

by kingraf Mon 19 May 2014, 8:25 am

Lewis had a fight lined up himself. Vitali was the last minute stand in, not Lewis. I don't know why everyone keeps pretending Lewis was woken up and told he had a fight in two weeks. I mean he came in six pounds heavier than he was for Tyson, hardly the second coming of ButterBean

by Atila Mon 19 May 2014, 8:28 am

How come Vitali never gets credit for coming back after four years out of the ring and coming back and beating a younger, at the time dangerous champion in Sam Peter?

by catchweight Mon 19 May 2014, 8:35 am

How can anyone try to spin it that the situation somehow favoured Lewis? Its blatantly obvious that Klitschko got Lewis at his worst. A Lewis that hadnt trained properly, was lacking motivation and was at the tail end of his career. And who showed up to the fight half asleep for the first few rounds. Absolutley awful. Klitschko couldnt have asked for anything more. He couldnt beat a way undercooked Lewis so there have been a load of excuses invented for him. Klitschko wasnt unlucky. He couldnt get the job done. A great heavyweight would have with plenty to spare. A Tyson, Frazier or Foreman would have wiped out Lewis in that sort of condition.

by kingraf Mon 19 May 2014, 8:39 am

Tyson showed great ferocity finishing off Douglas, didn't he?

by catchweight Mon 19 May 2014, 8:41 am

Far more than Klitschko ever did. That Douglas would have whipped Klitschko around the ring.

by Mind the windows Tino. Mon 19 May 2014, 8:46 am

invisiblecoolers wrote:A Boxer technically undefeated if u consider the two matches he lost due to injuries not made by opponent

Lewis punched him in the face? Even if the original cut was a clash of heads, which I don't think it was, then being repeatedly punched in the face by your opponent will make them worse. He lost the fight because half his face was hanging off, having been punched by his opponent.

@ Raf, I understand your argument, and it has merit, but Lewis was at the arse end of his career and training to face Kirk Johnson who was a short, stocky pile of sh*tness who Lewis would almost certainly have beaten without any difficulties. Vitali was at the beginning of his career, a totally different physical specimen and someone who would go on to prove his capabilities. Something Johnson didn't/couldn't do. On balance, Lewis got the raw end of the 2 weeks notice.

by **seanmichaels** Mon 19 May 2014, 8:48 am

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
invisiblecoolers wrote:A Boxer technically undefeated if u consider the two matches he lost due to injuries not made by opponent

Lewis punched him in the face? Even if the original cut was a clash of heads, which I don't think it was, then being repeatedly punched in the face by your opponent will make them worse. He lost the fight because half his face was hanging of, having been punched by his opponent.

by kingraf Mon 19 May 2014, 8:51 am

catchweight wrote:Far more than Klitschko ever did. That Douglas would have whipped Klitschko around the ring.

yeah I'm sure he would, After all, that was a "peak" Douglas, who luckily didn't face a "prime" Tyson, who was the baddest man in the history of history. Tyson once melted ice just by staring at it from a 150 paces.

by catchweight Mon 19 May 2014, 8:55 am

Well he was no peak Sanders anyway who everyone knows was the real greatest of all time if only he trained and he scared Lewis into retirement.

by kingraf Mon 19 May 2014, 8:56 am

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
invisiblecoolers wrote:A Boxer technically undefeated if u consider the two matches he lost due to injuries not made by opponent

Lewis punched him in the face? Even if the original cut was a clash of heads, which I don't think it was, then being repeatedly punched in the face by your opponent will make them worse. He lost the fight because half his face was hanging off, having been punched by his opponent.

@ Raf, I understand your argument, and it has merit, but Lewis was at the arse end of his career and training to face Kirk Johnson who was a short, stocky pile of sh*tness who Lewis would almost certainly have beaten without any difficulties. Vitali was at the beginning of his career, a totally different physical specimen and someone who would go on to prove his capabilities. Something Johnson didn't/couldn't do. On balance, Lewis got the raw end of the 2 weeks notice.

Mate, I can't see how Vitali benefits. Would you say Porter/Thurman are the ones who benefit the most from getting a fight with Floyd at two weeks notice because they were preparing to fight a Malignaggi type?

by kingraf Mon 19 May 2014, 9:01 am

catchweight wrote:Well he was no peak Sanders anyway who everyone knows was the real greatest of all time if only he trained and he scared Lewis into retirement.

by kingraf Mon 19 May 2014, 9:01 am

catchweight wrote:Well he was no peak Sanders anyway who everyone knows was the real greatest of all time if only he trained and he scared Lewis into retirement.

No more ridiculous a statement than "peak" Tyson... Snatched a win vs Tillis on the KD, then beat a light heavy... Didn't want to be within 1000 miles of granddaddy Foreman, no matter which bum beat him. But he was bad.

by catchweight Mon 19 May 2014, 9:09 am

No sorry, but you are being ridiculous. Tyson was a great heavyweight. Sanders was not.

If you cant look at the facts of the Klitschko/Lewis fight and see which fighter benefited from short notice. Which fighter was hungrier. Which fighter was more motivated then there is something wrong.

Klitschko could not beat a 3rd rate Lewis. That is pretty much the story of the fight. A fully fit, motivated Lewis would do an absolute number on Klitschko.

by kingraf Mon 19 May 2014, 9:11 am

While we're at it, Frazier couldn't put away an Ali who came in not six, but twelve pounds larger than he'd been for Frazier II, eight pounds heavier than he'd been in the Jungle, was told busy fornicating to train properly, and got caught napping early because he'd spent more time in the weight room than the ring... but hey "no one will ever forget what you did here tonight, son"

by AdamT Mon 19 May 2014, 9:14 am

Atila wrote:How come Vitali never gets credit for coming back after four years out of the ring and coming back and beating a younger, at the time dangerous champion in Sam Peter?

Agree 100%. I'm not saying I have Vitali in my top ten, though I struggle to find 10 heavys from the past that could take him imo. Only his resume and a lack of opponents stops him getting in to a top ten for me.

by catchweight Mon 19 May 2014, 9:19 am

kingraf wrote:While we're at it, Frazier couldn't put away an Ali who came in not six, but twelve pounds larger than he'd been for Frazier II, eight pounds heavier than he'd been in the Jungle, was told busy fornicating to train properly, and got caught napping early because he'd spent more time in the weight room than the ring... but hey "no one will ever forget what you did here tonight, son"

Yep its a striking similarity to the Klitschko/Lewis fight. Carbon Copy.

by kingraf Mon 19 May 2014, 9:22 am

AdamT wrote:
Atila wrote:How come Vitali never gets credit for coming back after four years out of the ring and coming back and beating a younger, at the time dangerous champion in Sam Peter?

Agree 100%. I'm not saying I have Vitali in my top ten, though I struggle to find 10 heavys from the past that could take him imo. Only his resume and a lack of opponents stops him getting in to a top ten for me.

Stick around Adam, you'll learn that Johnny F***ing Tapia woulda done a number on Vitali and Wlad in the same night

by kingraf Mon 19 May 2014, 9:27 am

catchweight wrote:
kingraf wrote:While we're at it, Frazier couldn't put away an Ali who came in not six, but twelve pounds larger than he'd been for Frazier II, eight pounds heavier than he'd been in the Jungle, was told busy fornicating to train properly, and got caught napping early because he'd spent more time in the weight room than the ring... but hey "no one will ever forget what you did here tonight, son"

Yep its a striking similarity to the Klitschko/Lewis fight. Carbon Copy.

A little worse actually as he had a full camp knowing who he was fighting, had the great Futch in his corner, and had "that left hook". I mean he lost a war of attrition to a guy whose cardio came in the sack.

by catchweight Mon 19 May 2014, 9:30 am

Yeah hes just really fortunate it was Ali and not the Lewis from the Klitschko fight he was up against. Or worse, a prime Sanders.

by **88Chris05** Mon 19 May 2014, 9:39 am

To be honest, it always seems to me that the Lewis-Vitali argument just shows how easy it is to twist certain points to suit your argument, hence why it still divides opinion now.

I don't particularly think that the two weeks notice was a greater hindrance to Lewis, really. Why was it? He was preparing to take on a fighter who most seem to think wasn't and has never been in his class. Vitali on the other hand had two weeks to prepare for a man who, according to most, was a clear cut above him. People use the two weeks notice as a way of excusing and explaining Lewis being a career-high weight and clearly appearing a bit softer than normal, but this wasn't bad luck on Lewis' part, or something beyond his control. He'd been half-arsed in training (as Raf has pointed out, can we all stop this cobblers suggesting that Lewis had the fight date thrust upon him with no prior notice?) and Vitali took advantage where someone like Johnson almost certainly wouldn't have.

Vitali certainly wasn't in there with a peak or properly in-shape Lewis, but I believe Lewis gets way too much of a pass on that front. The problems he faced were almost entirely of his own doing.

Seems to me that you can't think that Vitali was a bit unlucky without also agreeing with the general consensus which says that, peak for peak, Lewis was certainly the better fighter. I agree that a full-flow Lewis beats the best version of Vitali, but that doesn't mean that Vitali can't still feel a bit aggrieved about how their 2003 fight went. A win can still be legitimate and have an element of luck about it, I feel. A cuts stoppage is a legit win, but when you've lost four out of six rounds and opened the cut with what was really a grazing blow (kudos to Lewis for worsening it, mind you) and haven't made your supposed superiority iron-clad by conclusively outboxing your opponent or forcing the referee to step in / administer a ten count, I reckon it's fair to say that you've had a bit of the rub of the green. Not a complete fluke, but Lady Luck has favoured you more than the other guy.

I think it looks pretty poor on Lewis fanatics when they talk as if he outclassed or destroyed Vitali, or as if it was a resounding, brilliant win. I don't hold it against Lewis, because for me on the strength of his career and the fact that he clearly had little motivation left (and the fact that Vitali obviously went on to prove himself a very good fighter in his own right) struggling with Vitali is no shame. But acting as if Vitali turned up and got his backside handed to him is a bit fanciful, for me.

by kingraf Mon 19 May 2014, 9:40 am

so it's sometimes acceptable to lose to a half-arsed ATG, but not always? Seems the scorn is only reserved for fighters you don't like.

by catchweight Mon 19 May 2014, 9:46 am

kingraf wrote:so it's sometimes acceptable to lose to a half-arsed ATG, but not always? Seems the scorn is only reserved for fighters you don't like.

Nope you are just pulling out irelevant, pointless comparisons. Are you really trying to use the Thrilla in Manilla between two past it legends who served up a classic display of almost unbreakable will to a short notice fight where Klitschko couldnt beat a 3rd rate Lewis? I thought you were joking.

by kingraf Mon 19 May 2014, 9:52 am

catchweight wrote:
kingraf wrote:so it's sometimes acceptable to lose to a half-arsed ATG, but not always? Seems the scorn is only reserved for fighters you don't like.

Nope you are just pulling out irelevant, pointless comparisons. Are you really trying to use the Thrilla in Manilla between two past it legends who served up a classic display of almost unbreakable will to a short notice fight where Klitschko couldnt beat a 3rd rate Lewis? I thought you were joking.

Frazier was same age as Vitali, without the mileage gained as a world champion kickboxer.

this third rate spiel of yours is getting boring.

by jimdig Mon 19 May 2014, 9:54 am

Vitali was training for years to take on Lewis. He got the fight on 2 weeks notice but his goal must have always been to fight Lewis.

It's completely different for Lewis. Lewis had never heard of vitali, probably never seen any footage of him fighting, it's the archetypical example of taking a boxer too lightly.

The first 2 rounds must have been, "wholly sh1t, this white guy can fight, manny told me larry Byrd beat this guy, wtf"???

by catchweight Mon 19 May 2014, 9:56 am

88Chris05 wrote:To be honest, it always seems to me that the Lewis-Vitali argument just shows how easy it is to twist certain points to suit your argument, hence why it still divides opinion now.

I don't particularly think that the two weeks notice was a greater hindrance to Lewis, really. Why was it? He was preparing to take on a fighter who most seem to think wasn't and has never been in his class. Vitali on the other hand had two weeks to prepare for a man who, according to most, was a clear cut above him. People use the two weeks notice as a way of excusing and explaining Lewis being a career-high weight and clearly appearing a bit softer than normal, but this wasn't bad luck on Lewis' part, or something beyond his control. He'd been half-arsed in training (as Raf has pointed out, can we all stop this cobblers suggesting that Lewis had the fight date thrust upon him with no prior notice?) and Vitali took advantage where someone like Johnson almost certainly wouldn't have.

Vitali certainly wasn't in there with a peak or properly in-shape Lewis, but I believe Lewis gets way too much of a pass on that front. The problems he faced were almost entirely of his own doing.

Seems to me that you can't think that Vitali was a bit unlucky without also agreeing with the general consensus which says that, peak for peak, Lewis was certainly the better fighter. I agree that a full-flow Lewis beats the best version of Vitali, but that doesn't mean that Vitali can't still feel a bit aggrieved about how their 2003 fight went. A win can still be legitimate and have an element of luck about it, I feel. A cuts stoppage is a legit win, but when you've lost four out of six rounds and opened the cut with what was really a grazing blow (kudos to Lewis for worsening it, mind you) and haven't made your supposed superiority iron-clad by conclusively outboxing your opponent or forcing the referee to step in / administer a ten count, I reckon it's fair to say that you've had a bit of the rub of the green. Not a complete fluke, but Lady Luck has favoured you more than the other guy.

I think it looks pretty poor on Lewis fanatics when they talk as if he outclassed or destroyed Vitali, or as if it was a resounding, brilliant win. I don't hold it against Lewis, because for me on the strength of his career and the fact that he clearly had little motivation left (and the fact that Vitali obviously went on to prove himself a very good fighter in his own right) struggling with Vitali is no shame. But acting as if Vitali turned up and got his backside handed to him is a bit fanciful, for me.

Nobody has argued Lewis condition wasnt his own fault but the simple fact is he was way off his best and Klitschko couldnt win. Lewis was training (or more accurately not training) for an easy defence at a point in his career where he had no motivation. This was evident in everything from his physical condition to his performance on the day - he looked asleep for the first few rounds. Klitschko was training for a fight for a shot at the title and had quite clearly been training seriously, unlike Lewis. He was not at then end of his career and he was motivated. The whole scenario blatantly favoured Klitschko irrespective of whether it was Lewis' own fault for his condition. People are trying to argue that it favoured Lewis some how. Klitschko got Lewis when he was close to his worst and couldnt win. Now the achievement of winning 4 rounds and losing against a half assed Lewis is used to champion Klitschko as an all time great heavyweight like thats some kind of proof. Give me a break. If Klitschko was half as good as his fanatics say he would have beaten that Lewis without too much of a fuss.

by catchweight Mon 19 May 2014, 9:58 am

kingraf wrote:
catchweight wrote:
kingraf wrote:so it's sometimes acceptable to lose to a half-arsed ATG, but not always? Seems the scorn is only reserved for fighters you don't like.

Nope you are just pulling out irelevant, pointless comparisons. Are you really trying to use the Thrilla in Manilla between two past it legends who served up a classic display of almost unbreakable will to a short notice fight where Klitschko couldnt beat a 3rd rate Lewis? I thought you were joking.

Frazier was same age as Vitali, without the mileage gained as a world champion kickboxer.

this third rate spiel of yours is getting boring.

Listen to yourself. Getting almost as embarrassing as your Lewis was afraid of Sanders stuff.

by kingraf Mon 19 May 2014, 10:15 am

jimdig wrote:Vitali was training for years to take on Lewis. He got the fight on 2 weeks notice but his goal must have always been to fight Lewis.

It's completely different for Lewis. Lewis had never heard of vitali, probably never seen any footage of him fighting, it's the archetypical example of taking a boxer too lightly.

The first 2 rounds must have been, "wholly sh1t, this white guy can fight, manny told me larry Byrd beat this guy, wtf"???

This isnt some Chinese movie, or Dragonball Z, where the protagonist seeks vengeance on someone and trains in a hyperbolic time chamber using anti-gravity to get stronger. It also isnt Marquez-Pacquiao IV, where Marquez took a year off, drinking his own urine, finding his inner spirit animal. Vitali may have been looking for Lewis, but he did have other fights to take care of. I mean Frazier want training for years to face Ali, in FOTC, he probably knew that at some point he'd have to face him, but its ridiculous to claim Vitali would have been in Lewis-mode for years... And more especially that he was prepared for Lewis (who before Johnson was slated to face Tyson II) to lose two opponents on the off chance... If anything, chances are higher, that he would have eased up on his camp, against what was supposed to be an easy opponent, to enable him to be at full tilt for his fight/camp with Lewis. Or even worse he coould have been tapering off for his fight, when the Lewis news came through, which might have made him go harder when he normally wouldnt have.

by kingraf Mon 19 May 2014, 10:20 am

catchweight wrote:
kingraf wrote:
catchweight wrote:
kingraf wrote:so it's sometimes acceptable to lose to a half-arsed ATG, but not always? Seems the scorn is only reserved for fighters you don't like.

Nope you are just pulling out irelevant, pointless comparisons. Are you really trying to use the Thrilla in Manilla between two past it legends who served up a classic display of almost unbreakable will to a short notice fight where Klitschko couldnt beat a 3rd rate Lewis? I thought you were joking.

Frazier was same age as Vitali, without the mileage gained as a world champion kickboxer.

this third rate spiel of yours is getting boring.

Listen to yourself. Getting almost as embarrassing as your Lewis was afraid of Sanders stuff.

POT....KETTLE

by Scottrf Mon 19 May 2014, 10:39 am

AdamT wrote:
Atila wrote:How come Vitali never gets credit for coming back after four years out of the ring and coming back and beating a younger, at the time dangerous champion in Sam Peter?

Agree 100%. I'm not saying I have Vitali in my top ten, though I struggle to find 10 heavys from the past that could take him imo. Only his resume and a lack of opponents stops him getting in to a top ten for me.

His brother was the champion at the time. How much credit does Haye get for beating Valuev?

by kingraf Mon 19 May 2014, 10:54 am

Scottrf wrote:
AdamT wrote:
Atila wrote:How come Vitali never gets credit for coming back after four years out of the ring and coming back and beating a younger, at the time dangerous champion in Sam Peter?

Agree 100%. I'm not saying I have Vitali in my top ten, though I struggle to find 10 heavys from the past that could take him imo. Only his resume and a lack of opponents stops him getting in to a top ten for me.
His brother was the champion at the time. How much credit does Haye get for beating Valuev?

A lot.... more than is adequate really.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What a pitiful article to suggest.......A bonafide British great who took on the best heavyweight and alltimer in the last ten years in Wlad won countless alphabet world titles......

Inflicts on himself a cut and fakes an injury because he's worried about a guy that gets decked off on the slide close to middle age cruisers...

Can't stand haye but have some respect.............

Sad thing about Haye's injury is that it leaves us with questions unanswered...How good was he..Did he over-achieve or under-achieve?

Still respect where it is due.. a two weight world champ, a division unifier even if a poor one...

Deserving of a place with the Hattons as a great British fighter....

Good luck to him for whatever he chooses to do in the future...

Frustrating end to a pretty frustrating career...though a succesful one..

Rather backhanded but a compliment nonetheless

manos de piedra wrote:Valuev isnt even in the worst 10 heavyweight champions of all time in my view, let alone every other division. He had no skills but his size alone made him awkward.

by Gentleman01 Mon 19 May 2014, 11:21 am

I think Vitali gets plenty of credit for his achievements. He won legitimate world titles in an era which is almost universally accepted as being one of, if not the very worst era in Heavyweight history. He is widely considered a top 20 ATG Heavy, which is no mean feat.

However, he lost to the best fighter he ever faced and, for much of his reign, he never established himself as 'the man' in his division. I appreciate that the Wlad vs Vitali fight was always a non-starter, however, it has to count against him, and Wlad, that, for whatever reason, he was not able to dominate his division. It might seem harsh to hold that against him, but not many ATG boxers are afforded the luxury of being given a free pass to not fight their fellow divisional champs and greatest natural rivals.

I rate Vitali as a great Heavy, however he's certainly outside my top 10

With regards to the Lewis fight and who the two weeks notice actually favoured, I'd be inclined to agree with Tino that Vitali perhaps gained a slight advantage. Either way, any advantage gained was pretty negligible.

Ultimately though, Lewis got the win despite clearly being well short of his best.

by Hammersmith harrier Mon 19 May 2014, 11:26 am

The cuts of which there were several were definitely caused by punches and made worse by taking even more so it's hardly losing because of an injury.

by Rowley Mon 19 May 2014, 11:29 am

Have to say for a guy who had already had one horrific slip up against a second tier opponent by taking his eye off the ball for Lewis to be putting himself into a position where such a slip up even becomes a possibility is pretty dumb. Unless of course he was doing no such thing, which to be honest seems more likely.

by catchweight Mon 19 May 2014, 11:39 am

I think its pretty obvious that Lewis was at the point of his career where his motivation was gone and he was going through the motions.

by kingraf Mon 19 May 2014, 11:41 am

Which explains his desire for a rematch, or why according to Steward, they were still talking about the rematch that never happened two years later.

by Scottrf Mon 19 May 2014, 11:42 am

kingraf wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
AdamT wrote:
Atila wrote:How come Vitali never gets credit for coming back after four years out of the ring and coming back and beating a younger, at the time dangerous champion in Sam Peter?

Agree 100%. I'm not saying I have Vitali in my top ten, though I struggle to find 10 heavys from the past that could take him imo. Only his resume and a lack of opponents stops him getting in to a top ten for me.
His brother was the champion at the time. How much credit does Haye get for beating Valuev?

A lot.... more than is adequate really.

You're not serious? One post stating a fact and one saying Valuev isn't one of the 10 worst Heavyweight Champions. Praise indeed.

Look at the top British Heavy thread:

"I agree. Especially when viewed in the context of Haye's stellar heavyweight career." (as sarcasm)
"Haye was a chancer. Made millions exploiting the crap heavyweight scene and peoples desperation to see it get better."
"I don't think he has a single victory at HW that Bruno couldn't have matched."
"Pushing the boundaries saying that Valuev and Ruiz are good wins, both amongst the worst champions of all time."

So how much credit does Vitali really deserve for Peter? Who, lets be honest, was pretty useless.

by Hammersmith harrier Mon 19 May 2014, 11:43 am

Got to agree Catch weight, he'd beaten all the top Americans and Tua so wasn't much left for him other than money. Johnson was just an easy payday while Vitali was in the process of rebuilding following what the Americans perceived as shamefully quitting against Byrd. He wasn't considered a tough man back then.

by kingraf Mon 19 May 2014, 11:47 am

Mate I didn't know you wanted a list of Pete crediting Haye for Valuev, I thought it'd be enough to prove that this is so, given the fact that Haye marketed himself as a legit threat to Wlad, made £8m on the back of a Valuev win...

I mean you can read the backslapping for yourself online after Haye beat the eight foot tall, one ton giant. It's what Haye built his joke of a HW resume around

by hazharrison Mon 19 May 2014, 11:50 am

Gentleman01 wrote:I think Vitali gets plenty of credit for his achievements. He won legitimate world titles in an era which is almost universally accepted as being one of, if not the very worst era in Heavyweight history. He is widely considered a top 20 ATG Heavy, which is no mean feat.

However, he lost to the best fighter he ever faced and, for much of his reign, he never established himself as 'the man' in his division. I appreciate that the Wlad vs Vitali fight was always a non-starter, however, it has to count against him, and Wlad, that, for whatever reason, he was not able to dominate his division. It might seem harsh to hold that against him, but not many ATG boxers are afforded the luxury of being given a free pass to not fight their fellow divisional champs and greatest natural rivals.

I rate Vitali as a great Heavy, however he's certainly outside my top 10

With regards to the Lewis fight and who the two weeks notice actually favoured, I'd be inclined to agree with Tino that Vitali perhaps gained a slight advantage. Either way, any advantage gained was pretty negligible.

Ultimately though, Lewis got the win despite clearly being well short of his best.

I'm not sure Vitali is widely considered a top 20 heavyweight. His opposition (save Lewis) was generally poor. His title reign (if we focus on the Ring championship he was awarded before their ratings went to pot) consisted of Kirk Johnson, Corrie Sanders and Danny Williams.

He would have been competitive with most of the heavyweights from history but that's a different argument. Quite how fighters able to compete in their 40s with the strength and vigour of men half their age is another (which is why I don't feel it's particularly fair to summise how Klitschko might have done with the greats from history -- unless we also imagine they'd have access to the same potions and concoctions the current mob have).

by ONETWOFOREVER Mon 19 May 2014, 11:51 am

invisiblecoolers wrote:A Boxer technically undefeated if u consider the two matches he lost due to injuries not made by opponent and in both matches he was leading hands down on all referee cards. One of the biggest knockout ratios, this guy last all 12 rounds against any heavyweight pitted against if needed, one of the best chins I have seen in the history.

Unlike Wlad Vitali is more aggressor yet plans his punches in a much calculated way, he doesn't hug and thug like his brother Wlad does, Lewis certainly knew he had remote chance of a win on a rematch with Vitali at that time and hence timely saved his legacy, however Lewis knows very well he always has his chance against Wlad if he could get one of his right upper punch even if happened to be by accident.

Vitali in my view should easily make top 10 boxers of all time and could close in top 5, yes I would agree Boxers like Ali, Tyson, Robinson, Foreman, Frazier were there and could be above Vitali's accomplishments, but having seen Vitali fight and box I would certainly give him benefit of doubt to be along this great group.

This is completely wrong.

Lewis punched him and cut him. Seen the fight many times so you're argument has been corrected.

by Scottrf Mon 19 May 2014, 11:52 am

I said does he get, not did he get.

by catchweight Mon 19 May 2014, 11:54 am

Lewis wasnt arsed with a Vitali rematched. He just wasnt arsed getting into top shape. Who was Vitali Klitschko? Nobody important at the time. He beat him when he wasnt in shape and knew it was time to retire. The whole fight has been rewritten by Klitschko fanatics desperate to give Klitschkos career some additional relevance. At the time this was a short notice defence for Lewis which he just wasnt motivated or in shape for. Klitschko was just a challenger who was best known at the time for quitting against Byrd. After the fight Klitschko got given some props for having a good go of it and Lewis was recognised as looking like a man who should retire after a long career. Nobody was ridiculously suggesting that Lewis was on top of his game, or that the fight was proof Klitschko was a great heavyweight. Thats something thats been rewritten because unfortunately for Vitali Klitschko, the most significant fight of his career was a losing effort against a semi retired Lewis.

by kingraf Mon 19 May 2014, 11:57 am

Scottrf wrote:I said does he get, not did he get.

With the general public? Or here? Because that's two very different places. Not British, so I have no idea how he is seen there, and we don't have any HW hopes, so the division is so to say, a topic of no discussion.

by hazharrison Mon 19 May 2014, 11:58 am

catchweight wrote:Lewis wasnt arsed with a Vitali rematched. He just wasnt arsed getting into top shape. Who was Vitali Klitschko? Nobody important at the time. He beat him when he wasnt in shape and knew it was time to retire. The whole fight has been rewritten by Klitschko fanatics desperate to give Klitschkos career some additional relevance. At the time this was a short notice defence for Lewis which he just wasnt motivated or in shape for. Klitschko was just a challenger who was best known at the time for quitting against Byrd. After the fight Klitschko got given some props for having a good go of it and Lewis was recognised as looking like a man who should retire after a long career. Nobody was ridiculously suggesting that Lewis was on top of his game, or that the fight was proof Klitschko was a great heavyweight. Thats something thats been rewritten because unfortunately for Vitali Klitschko, the most significant fight of his career was a losing effort against a semi retired Lewis.

Lewis was training for Kirk Johnson -- that's why he wasn't in top nick. That and the fact he'd hit the skids. His balance had gone, he lacked snap in his shots -- usual fare for a clean athlete in their late 30s.

The Lewis from a few years prior would have knocked Klitschko out.

by Gentleman01 Mon 19 May 2014, 12:07 pm

hazharrison wrote:
Gentleman01 wrote:I think Vitali gets plenty of credit for his achievements. He won legitimate world titles in an era which is almost universally accepted as being one of, if not the very worst era in Heavyweight history. He is widely considered a top 20 ATG Heavy, which is no mean feat.

However, he lost to the best fighter he ever faced and, for much of his reign, he never established himself as 'the man' in his division. I appreciate that the Wlad vs Vitali fight was always a non-starter, however, it has to count against him, and Wlad, that, for whatever reason, he was not able to dominate his division. It might seem harsh to hold that against him, but not many ATG boxers are afforded the luxury of being given a free pass to not fight their fellow divisional champs and greatest natural rivals.

I rate Vitali as a great Heavy, however he's certainly outside my top 10

With regards to the Lewis fight and who the two weeks notice actually favoured, I'd be inclined to agree with Tino that Vitali perhaps gained a slight advantage. Either way, any advantage gained was pretty negligible.

Ultimately though, Lewis got the win despite clearly being well short of his best.

I'm not sure Vitali is widely considered a top 20 heavyweight. His opposition (save Lewis) was generally poor. His title reign (if we focus on the Ring championship he was awarded before their ratings went to pot) consisted of Kirk Johnson, Corrie Sanders and Danny Williams.

He would have been competitive with most of the heavyweights from history but that's a different argument. Quite how fighters able to compete in their 40s with the strength and vigour of men half their age is another (which is why I don't feel it's particularly fair to summise how Klitschko might have done with the greats from history -- unless we also imagine they'd have access to the same potions and concoctions the current mob have).

Hmmm perhaps not. The majority of top 20 lists I have seen recently have Vitali in there, however perhaps saying 'widely considered' is overstating the case, somewhat.

by Sponsored content