DARK SUN: Remembering Joe Frazier

First topic message reminder :

Great article on Frazier here: http://thecruelestsport.com/2014/11/11/dark-sun-remembering-joe-frazier/

"From 1968 to 1971, with Ali in exile, Frazier was the dominant heavyweight force in boxing and when Ali returned to settle matters once and for all, it was Frazier who won. The Ring rated Frazier the top-ranked heavyweight in the world for six consecutive years—from 1967 to 1972—a distinction few fighters can claim. Frazier was also voted The Ring “Fighter of the Year” three times."

AdamT wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:No heavyweight in history would have stood much of a chance with Ali in 67 let alone Foreman who was far too lumbering, he also didn't fight anything like Liston who was far more technically and tactically astute.

Have not seen a pile of Liston but what I have read and been told he would beat the s..t out of Foreman

They used to spar and Liston, by all accounts, gave Foreman the business. Odd that he's painted as a bully who folded under pressure based on the two Ali fights, which were about as straight as Don King's tax returns.

kingraf wrote:On that note, I think it's perfectly valid for Haz to now pen his thesis on Golovkin being the greatest middleweight in the history of humanity because he sparked Macklin, Stevens, Adama and Rubio... Because HOW he's done it has just been remarkable.

So you're essentially saying either Ali is over-rated garbage or that Wlad and Ali would have been comparable in the 60's? You think Wlad beats Liston and not only beats him but puts on a display that has a legend at ringside quoted as saying "that the greatest round of boxing I've ever seen"?

Bullsh!t

Raf, the moment Wlad gets through anybody half as good as Liston then i'll take that comment seriously, hell he hasn't even beaten anybody at Patterson's level yet.

DAVE667 wrote:

kingraf wrote:On that note, I think it's perfectly valid for Haz to now pen his thesis on Golovkin being the greatest middleweight in the history of humanity because he sparked Macklin, Stevens, Adama and Rubio... Because HOW he's done it has just been remarkable.

So you're essentially saying either Ali is over-rated garbage or that Wlad and Ali would have been comparable in the 60's? You think Wlad beats Liston and not only beats him but puts on a display that has a legend at ringside quoted as saying "that the greatest round of boxing I've ever seen"?

Bullsh!t

Wlad doesn't belong in the same sentence as Ali and Liston.

Glad some of us haven't just suffered a severe head injury

You don't think the Liston-Foreman sparring stories need a bit of an asterisk, Haz? Foreman was a teenager when they sparred. Liston would have still been close enough to the top of the pile back then.

No I'm essentially saying Ali faced a steady diet of garbage from 1966 to his retirement. A steady diet I can't see Wlad losing to... or actually struggling against. Quite simple. Zorra Folley? Cooper? One leg Williams? You're trying to suggest otherwise?

What is "great" about Klitschko?? Unless consistently be able to beat crap heavyweights in a robtic and unspiring fashion counts has great.

Has he had any "great" perfomances?
Demonstrated any "great" ability?
Beaten any "great" fighters?
Been involved in any "great" fights?

A resounding no to all of the things that should define greatness.

You don't suddenly become a great fighter just because I'm not sure which colour trunks you fought in

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:No heavyweight in history would have stood much of a chance with Ali in 67 let alone Foreman who was far too lumbering, he also didn't fight anything like Liston who was far more technically and tactically astute.

I strongly doubt the Ali of '67 would have withstood Foreman. He was less sturdy and less experienced at taking his licks. Ali spent hours conditioning his body to withstand Foreman's ferocity.

67 Ali would have been lightning fast, elusive and able to mess Foreman about until the steam left his work..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:No heavyweight in history would have stood much of a chance with Ali in 67 let alone Foreman who was far too lumbering, he also didn't fight anything like Liston who was far more technically and tactically astute.

I strongly doubt the Ali of '67 would have withstood Foreman. He was less sturdy and less experienced at taking his licks. Ali spent hours conditioning his body to withstand Foreman's ferocity.

67 Ali would have been lightning fast, elusive and able to mess Foreman about until the steam left his work..

Perhaps, but I have my doubts. Even Ali claimed the first version of him wouldn't have been able to withstand Foreman. Those Frazier fights; the Norton fights helped steel Ali. With his mobility decreasing, he trained himself to take pain, to withstand punishment.

Jimmy Young turned the trick by being elusive and slick but the Ali defeat shattered George mentally (which I'd suggest played a big part).

Haz I think your quite knowledgeable, lot more than me but I definitely think Ali is way too good for Foreman pre exile. Only my opinion.

You dont need to be a whitaker/mayweather/leonard to be be a fantastic fighter. People are over enamoured with the flashy stuff. Wlad is an EXTREMELY skilled fighter.

Wlads very underrated mate, watched Haye fight last nite again. People think Haye didn't try hard but that is bull, wlad just didn't let hem similar to what Floyd does to opponents.

Good god I really hope you're not comparing the two, Wlad is a decent operator whk benefits from being big and strong that's about it.

Floyds heaps better and so is his competition, what I'm comparing is they both impose their game plans on other fighters and make them fight their fight.

I rate Wlad. I know he can put a glass eye to sleep and this is a weak era but I still think he is a skilled good champion. I understand I'm in the minority and am most likely an idiot but I rate the brothers

Wlad fights the same way every time and has no variety to his punching so the two situations are completely different.

Don't want to start a new thread but a serious question. How many past Heavyweights would everybody pick as favorite to beat Vitali?

Wlad the better longevity but Vitali the better fighter.

Yes Floyd adapts better, no doubt. Well if Wlad fights the same way he must be really good or I'm sure somebody by now would of beat him since he is so predictable.

I thought this was a great article by Tony Parson in GQ a couple of years ago:

Defined by his trilogy of title clashes with Muhammad Ali, he helped light up in the golden era of heavyweight boxing, but always stood in his rival's shadow. Here, Tony Parsons tells the story of how we finally came to love Smokin' Joe, the fighter's fighter

Joe Frazier stood just 5'10" in his bare feet. For a heavyweight boxer, that is almost ridiculously small.

But here was a giant of a man.

Nobody ever wrote pop songs about Joe Frazier. There were no photoshoots with the Beatles. Frazier never mas­tered the good-natured banter with Johnny Carson and Michael Parkinson that came so naturally to Ali. Handsome black actors never fought to play Frazier in the movies.


He had no easy charm. The women did not like him. White folk in Middle America never warmed to him. Frazier was never going to be offered com­mentary gigs on primetime fight night, for everybody knew Frazier could be as merciless with his words as he was with that left hook.

Like Sonny Liston before him and Mike Tyson after him, there was too much surly ferocity about Frazier for white America to ever lose their fear of him. Frazier was no Muhammad Ali - a fact that was a spear in his side for all of his adult life. But Frazier was a warrior touched by true lion-hearted greatness. And when he lost his final fight to liver cancer last November, dying at the age of 67, this strange truth was revealed. Smokin' Joe Frazier deserves to be mourned, remembered and - finally - loved.

When Frazier died, there was a ten­dency to picture him as Muhammad Ali's ferocious foil - a lesser man, but necessary to the Ali legend. But that is to under­estimate the importance of Frazier. When Sylvester Stallone had Rocky battering sides of beef in a slaughterhouse, it looked like pure Hollywood fantasy. But that was how Joe Frazier, the 12th child of a sharecropper in South Carolina, toughened his hands when he moved to Philadelphia to be a fighter.

If Frazier were boxing today, he would rule the world. Indeed, in most eras of boxing, Frazier would have been the heavyweight champion of the world for a decade or more. As it was, Frazier was heavyweight champion for just three years, from 1970 to 1973. For it was Frazier's misfor­tune and sport's great good luck that his time coincided almost exactly with the careers of two giants, Muhammad Ali and George Foreman, the only men to ever beat him. Both Ali and Foreman suffered five career defeats, against some great fighters and some less than great. But Frazier only ever lost to the very best.

Smokin' Joe was the man who pushed Muhammad Ali all the way - all the way to his first defeat, all the way to eternal glory and, on a night in Manila in 1975, all the way to the very edge of death.

Frazier and Ali beat and pummelled and smashed each other to greatness. They both knew triumph and disaster at the hands of other fighters, but it was what they did to each other that will be burned into the memory forever.

Frazier and Ali were defined by their trilogy of fights. In Madison Square Garden, in their first fight, Frazier knocked Ali down, broke his jaw and inflicted his first defeat. In Manila, in their last fight, Frazier and Ali made flesh George Foreman's definition of boxing as "the sport to which all other sports aspire".

Manila was sport - just about. But you could never confuse it with a game.

In Manila, both men suffered permanent damage at the hands of the other, as they pushed themselves beyond the limits of human endurance. They would pay the price for the rest of their lives.

Frazier was beaten but never humiliated by Ali in the ring. The humiliation only happened on the safe side of the ropes. Because Ali was always so profoundly loved, and because he was the great­est black sporting icon that the world had ever known, Ali got away with talking about Frazier in a way that would have made a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan blush.

In the build up to Manila, Ali's abuse of Frazier was viciously and overtly racist as he constantly compared him to a gorilla, called him an Uncle Tom and the "white man's champion". Ali got away with it. More than this, the white world lapped up the gorilla jokes, and wiped away tears of helpless mirth.

Kind words were spoken by Ali in the stunned aftermath of Manila, but more than one kind of damage was done.

Frazier and Ali made each other great. Frazier broke Ali's jaw and dished out his first defeat - and his first beating - in Madison Square Garden, while in Manila Frazier pushed Ali to the peak of his powers. It is often said that Ali revealed his true greatness against Frazier in Manila. It is closer to the truth to say that Ali only learned of his true greatness against Frazier in Manila. But, in Manila, Ali turned Frazier into the King Kong of boxing, a scary buffoon, a pantomime villain there to be vanquished by the handsome hero.



Frazier deserved infinitely better. Frazier had supported Ali during his years of exile after being banned from boxing for refusing to go to Vietnam. Frazier had given Ali money, and refused to take part in a tournament to determine the disgraced champ's successor. But all of that was forgotten in the bitterness that would endure for the rest of their lives.

Boxing has such fond memories of Manila that it us reluctant to confront the ugly truth. Frazier was not merely beaten by Ali in Manila. He was dehumanised.


I met the three of them once - Muhammad Ali, George Foreman and Joe Frazier, the trinity of fighters who gave heavyweight boxing its last great golden age.

It was the end of the Eighties and they were in London to promote a video called Champions Forever. They shone like gods and the room full of journalists gawped in wonder, for already - just a decade after all that blood and glory and drama - they were like men from a different time, as exotic and improbable as survivors of the Somme.

Ali, Foreman and Frazier - they came from an era when the heavy-weight champion of the world was as famous as any movie star, when boxing was primetime drama, and when ringside seats were so hard to come by that, when Ali and Frazier fought in Madison Square Garden in 1971, the only way that Frank Sinatra could get ringside was by landing a gig as the official photographer for Lifemagazine.

And they were all in character. Muhammad Ali, although already adrift in the fog of Parkinson's, was the most charismatic human being I had ever seen. Women who had no real interest in boxing seemed to melt in his presence. Ali didn't say much, but when you shook his enormous hand and he looked you in the eye, you knew that you would never forget it.

And Foreman was the grinning salesman, the unfriendly giant who had reinvented himself as a jolly cook and slick businessman, making a fortune with his grills. Foreman was garrulous and enthusiastic, selling the video to us, and he only clouded over and frowned with that old terrible violence when your reporter dared to ask a question about a young fighter called Mike Tyson.

And Frazier sat back, silent and grinning, saying less than Ali, as if he was here for whatever money was in this project, and that was all. He wasn't about to get dewy-eyed about the fights of his youth because, deep down inside, he felt that he had been cheated out of what was rightfully his - the acknowledgement that he was at least as good as Muhammad Ali.


It is more than 40 years since 8 March 1971, the night of Joe Frazier's greatest triumph when he successfully defended his world title against Muhammad Ali, and Frank Sinatra took pho­tographs at ringside.

That first fight in Madison Square Garden was billed as the Fight Of The Century and, watching it half a lifetime later, the roles seem reversed. What you notice about Ali is his hardness, his incred­ible bravery, his resilience - getting up to fight on even after Frazier has knocked him down and smashed his jaw, fighting on even after Frazier repeatedly hits him with incredible force on that broken jaw. And what you notice about Frazier are his incredible boxing skills - the bobbing and weaving so immaculately timed that, again and again, Ali's punches connect with nothing but thin air. Even Frazier's ferocity seems to have a supreme intelligence guiding it.

"Kill the body and the head will die," Frazier always said, with a little laugh, and that night he launched a blitzkrieg of hooks into Ali's ribcage, making him lower his guard to protect his bruised and battered body, and leaving himself wide open to the left hook that broke his jaw and made his face swell even as we watched in dis­belief, choking back the tears, truly shocked to see our handsome hero being given a good hiding.

Neither Frazier nor Ali were ever quite the cartoon characters of legend. Ali, for all his undoubted beauty and charm and genius, had a viciously cruel streak, while Frazier had a nobility and grace and dignity that he was never given credit for. Because on the surface he resembled one of those black men that Richard Nixon's white America had nightmares about - powerful, menacing, mean as hell. It was as if Frazier carried the stench of jail about him. But unlike Sonny Liston or Mike Tyson, the boxers he so closely resembled, Frazier never saw the inside of a jail.

He was a boxing man to his core, winning Olympic gold four years after Ali - and with a broken thumb. And Frazier was a music lover, a soul man with a good singing voice and his own band. And he was a family man, having five children with his wife Florence before they divorced ten years after Manila.

Forced to play the role of the bad guy, he took to sporting a black cowboy's hat, and he wore it for the rest of his life. The cruelty was not one way - in their later years, Frazier was not above citing Ali's Parkinson's disease as proof that he had the better of their epic fights. Frazier was even known to smile about it. "A wrecking ball" is how Frazier described his left hook, and as Ali shakily lit the Olympic Flame in the 1996 Atlanta Games, Frazier would tell you how it wrecked Muhammad Ali.


On 1 October 1975, as the bell went for the end of the 14th round in Manila, Frazier's eyes had been punched closed. He could no longer see, but he was planning to fight on. In the other corner, Muhammad Ali felt as if he was dying.

In Ireland, a young boy called Barry McGuigan had just decided that he would become a boxer, largely because of Frazier. Nobody could imagine dancing like Ali. But any boy could dream of having the true grit of Frazier.

"That fight was like a light going on in my head," McGuigan wrote after Frazier's death. "Frazier's eyes were shut, his face battered and bruised, yet still he kept coming."

Before the bell went for the final round, it was the two trainers who decided the outcome of boxing's greatest fight. Legend has it that Ali wanted to quit and Frazier wanted to fight on. But trainer Angelo Dundee told Ali he had to go out for the final round while in the other corner, Eddie Futch told Frazier he was pulling him out. The greatest drama in sport ended with both men sitting on their stools, the life force draining out of them.

The words of Eddie Futch, so gentle and wise and full of the com­passion that is unique to boxing, called a halt to Frazier's suffering that night, and now those words ring down the ages, and stand as the perfect epitaph to Smokin' Joe.

"Sit down, son. It's all over," Joe Frazier heard the man say. "No one will ever forget what you did here today."

Originally published in the February 2012 issue of British GQ. http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/comment/articles/2012-02/01/joe-frazier-tribute/viewall

YEAH all you need to know about boxing can be gleaned from Britian's "favourite" middle class literary man-gina.

AdamT wrote:Don't want to start a new thread but a serious question. How many past Heavyweights would everybody pick as favorite to beat Vitali?

Wlad the better longevity but Vitali the better fighter.

The problem with Vitali is that he's been generally phenomenally consistent / dominant (he's probably only lost about a dozen rounds in his entire career, including his two losses) but against relatively average opposition, but I think he's a pretty sure-fire top ten Heavyweight on a who beats who basis, personally. There are probably about 5, 6 who I'd start as a clear or outright favourite against him, and then maybe another couple where it's a bit more borderline, but that's about it really.

His strengths would be enough to take him a long way in absolutely any era, for me; great size which he knows how to use to his advantage, heavy hands, solid chin, decent defence and a pretty good engine for a Heavy. He's got his drawbacks (flat footwork, average speed and a lack of variety in the punches he does let go) but just about every elite Heavyweight has glaring holes in their game aside from an exceptional two or three.

On a head to head basis who would start as clear Favourite? Ali, Lewis, Holmes, Tyson?
Perhaps Liston?

I'd pick Tubbs, Page, Witherspoon to beat him on points and Bruno to knock him out..

Lest not forget Lewis was fat and old and still couldn't miss with the jab..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'd pick Tubbs, Page, Witherspoon to beat him on points and Bruno to knock him out..

Lest not forget Lewis was fat and old and still couldn't miss with the jab..

You serious Truss? Perhaps Wlad but I doubt any of them guys,Bruno included could Ko Vitali

88Chris05 wrote:

AdamT wrote:Don't want to start a new thread but a serious question. How many past Heavyweights would everybody pick as favorite to beat Vitali?

Wlad the better longevity but Vitali the better fighter.

The problem with Vitali is that he's been generally phenomenally consistent / dominant (he's probably only lost about a dozen rounds in his entire career, including his two losses) but against relatively average opposition, but I think he's a pretty sure-fire top ten Heavyweight on a who beats who basis, personally. There are probably about 5, 6 who I'd start as a clear or outright favourite against him, and then maybe another couple where it's a bit more borderline, but that's about it really.

His strengths would be enough to take him a long way in absolutely any era, for me; great size which he knows how to use to his advantage, heavy hands, solid chin, decent defence and a pretty good engine for a Heavy. He's got his drawbacks (flat footwork, average speed and a lack of variety in the punches he does let go) but just about every elite Heavyweight has glaring holes in their game aside from an exceptional two or three.

I think he's overrated. Tough as old boots but all the movement of a drunk giraffe. Sanders wobbled him and Chisora gave him all he could handle. Fair enough, he was knocking on a bit but Chisora is distinctly average.

The only top fighter he faced was Lewis - a shot Lewis - who bashed one side of his face in. I think it's a bit of a grey area assuming he'd beat other top heavyweights when he didn't face any. Would anyone pick him over Bowe for instance? I wouldn't.

Bowe sometimes seems the forgotten man. I wish he had of faced Lewis. Think it would of been a pick em at the time because I still think Lennox was quite at his very best. I know Lewis beat him in the amateurs and maybe Bowe still had the scar of that defeat.

Bowe's one of the guys I'd consider to be more borderline, Haz.

Great talent, but dodgy temperament and it's fair to question his durability or confidence in the face of heavy punchers. Brilliant win over Holyfield in 92 and of course he became the first man to stop him three years after that, but Holyfield was a small Heavy who was disadvantaged in just about every area when it came to matching up against Bowe.

A washed up Tubbs gave Bowe serious problems, his win over Hide is nowt to get too excited about, and Gonzalez's performance was worse than the likes of Arreola, Peter and Sanders have managed against Vitali. Bowe's the more naturally-gifted all rounder and of course he could well beat Vitali. I'd make him a marginal favourite assuming both guys were at their best. ButI don't think it's a gimme. Bowe gets way too much benefit of the doubt for my liking.

Sanders wobbled him... heavyweights not allowed to be rocked now?
Cooper-Ali?
Wepner-Ali?
McCall-Lewis?

As for Chisora... gotta be quite kind call losing eleven rounds to a 40-year old politician giving him all he could handle...

As Chris has already pointed out Vitali has lost very few rounds.

Lost very few rounds to absolute garbage, a shot Lewis is the only half decent opponent he's ever faced and look at the state of him after six rounds, imagine what happens when a marauding great on top form faces him.

The Lewis fight was strange... Said more about Vitali's skin than anything else. Up until that final round, the damage on his face was hardly proportional to the damage he'd taken, or indeed the effect the punches had on him. Don't think I've ever seen a fighter up 4-1 with three different cuts on his face. I know some (Harris) will claim Lewis was landing flush, but Lewis basically discombobulated Tyson, and he didn't look like he'd been in a Saw movie. He also 350 punches on Holy, without anywhere near the damage. About a quarter of the damage later, and Vitali looked like he'd been in a local rumble.

Most peculiar

Vitali was great and imo so is Wlad. The heavyweights are dire but these two are still class acts and are much better than people think.

Wlad said recently if am boring and winning easy, then I'm doing my job right.

The Klitschkos are like Celtic and Rangers dominating Scottish Football from the 90s onwards. They are better than the rest but they arent great and the division is bollix.

kingraf wrote:The Lewis fight was strange... Said more about Vitali's skin  than anything else. Up until that final round, the damage on his face was hardly proportional to the damage he'd taken, or indeed the effect the punches had on him. Don't think I've ever seen a fighter up 4-1 with three different cuts on his face. I know some (Harris) will claim Lewis was landing flush, but Lewis basically discombobulated Tyson, and he didn't look like he'd been in a Saw movie. He also 350 punches on Holy, without anywhere near the damage. About a quarter of the damage later, and Vitali looked like he'd been in a local rumble.

Most peculiar

Is this a dodgy wraps accusation raf? Maybe vk cuts easy, but no-one who hits like lewis had landed as frequently on him before?

If Vitali Klitschko was a great boxer he would have made short work out of the half-assed Lewis that showed up.

kingraf wrote:The Lewis fight was strange... Said more about Vitali's skin  than anything else. Up until that final round, the damage on his face was hardly proportional to the damage he'd taken, or indeed the effect the punches had on him. Don't think I've ever seen a fighter up 4-1 with three different cuts on his face. I know some (Harris) will claim Lewis was landing flush, but Lewis basically discombobulated Tyson, and he didn't look like he'd been in a Saw movie. He also 350 punches on Holy, without anywhere near the damage. About a quarter of the damage later, and Vitali looked like he'd been in a local rumble.

Most peculiar

Lewis was teeing off on Klitschko. He was tentative against both Holy and Tyson but let them fly at Vitali. Caught him with the edge of his glove and once the eye ripped, the rest became more susceptible to cuts.

Lewis was taking over at the time of the stoppage - blowing hard but had found his range.

I always think the presumption that Ali's gorilla jibes were racially motivated is premature. Liston was the bear, Williams or Patterson was the rabbit and Foreman was the mummy. Gorilla sounds like just another nickname.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I always think the presumption that Ali's gorilla jibes were racially motivated is premature. Liston was the bear, Williams or Patterson was the rabbit and Foreman was the mummy. Gorilla sounds like just another nickname.

Course it is, just so happened people decided that it simply HAD to be a racist slur

Few Ali quotes...
When Ali introduced his new daughter to the press, Frazier said, "Hey, it looks like me" Ali quickly quipped, "You calling my kid ugly?"

My personal favourite "Joe Frazier is so ugly, when he cries the tears turn around and run down the back of his head!"

Ali said that he was "pretty" and Frazier was ugly. Gorillas ARE ugly creatures, I doubt anyone has gone to watch Dawn of the Planet of the Apes for the "babe" action (unless they a sexual deviant like JBW)

Most comments on the Vitali-Lewis fight just tend to show how you can twist or omit certain details to fit an agenda rather than being fair or a real reflection of the fight. The way Lewis' fans (or Vitali's biggest critics) talk, you'd think Lewis just showed up, kicked Vitali's backside in a one-sided manner and strolled off with the easiest few million dollars he'd ever made.

Lewis didn't hand Vitali some boxing lesson or show the Ukrainian to be a clear second best on the night no matter how much it gets twisted. Vitali lost the fight, yes, but not in a manner which suggests he was totally exposed and I don't see how that fight proved he could never hang with any Heavyweight considered a great one. If either of them had cause to be a little bit red-faced about the affair it should have been Lewis, not Vitali, particularly if Vitali is as bang average as he's sometimes portrayed here.

Lewis' punches cut Vitali badly whereas Vitali's shots didn't do the same, but that doesn't change the fact that Vitali landed more shots and boxed better than Lewis did for six rounds. A win can be legitimate but still have an element of good fortune about it and Lewis' win here falls in to that category for me. Lewis having just two weeks to prepare is seen as a cause for building up his victory, but it seems like people don't want to hear the counter claim that Vitali only had two weeks to prepare for an all-time great who was a massive leap up in opposition. If Lewis was badly up against it and had less than ideal preparation, then the same applies to Vitali.

I don't see how anyone can take from that fight that Vitali could never compete with a great Heavy, or how it's impossible for him to improve on that showing with better preparation or a bit more rub of the green (or compete with a great Heavy with a different style to Lennox). Lewis' win was legit, and I think he might well have gone on to win in any case even without a cuts stoppage, but acting as if the guy who was the better man for the completed rounds somehow got exposed as a chancer doesn't make sense. Again, that fight didn't show a great difference in the respective abilities of Lewis and Vitali regardless of how badly you want to run Vitali down.

That would be true if we weren't talking about a half arsed 38 year old Lewis who was just in it for another payday, the fight highlights what could have happened were he on top form. Vitali gets too much credit for those first four rounds.

88Chris05 wrote:Most comments on the Vitali-Lewis fight just tend to show how you can twist or omit certain details to fit an agenda rather than being fair or a real reflection of the fight. The way Lewis' fans (or Vitali's biggest critics) talk, you'd think Lewis just showed up, kicked Vitali's backside in a one-sided manner and strolled off with the easiest few million dollars he'd ever made.

Lewis didn't hand Vitali some boxing lesson or show the Ukrainian to be a clear second best on the night no matter how much it gets twisted. Vitali lost the fight, yes, but not in a manner which suggests he was totally exposed and I don't see how that fight proved he could never hang with any Heavyweight considered a great one. If either of them had cause to be a little bit red-faced about the affair it should have been Lewis, not Vitali, particularly if Vitali is as bang average as he's sometimes portrayed here.

Lewis' punches cut Vitali badly whereas Vitali's shots didn't do the same, but that doesn't change the fact that Vitali landed more shots and boxed better than Lewis did for six rounds. A win can be legitimate but still have an element of good fortune about it and Lewis' win here falls in to that category for me. Lewis having just two weeks to prepare is seen as a cause for building up his victory, but it seems like people don't want to hear the counter claim that Vitali only had two weeks to prepare for an all-time great who was a massive leap up in opposition. If Lewis was badly up against it and had less than ideal preparation, then the same applies to Vitali.

I don't see how anyone can take from that fight that Vitali could never compete with a great Heavy, or how it's impossible for him to improve on that showing with better preparation or a bit more rub of the green (or compete with a great Heavy with a different style to Lennox). Lewis' win was legit, and I think he might well have gone on to win in any case even without a cuts stoppage, but acting as if the guy who was the better man for the completed rounds somehow got exposed as a chancer doesn't make sense. Again, that fight didn't show a great difference in the respective abilities of Lewis and Vitali regardless of how badly you want to run Vitali down.

Lennox may indeed be a great heavy but he sure as hell wasn't that night. Vitali may have been as close to his peak as we've ever seen (after three years out he was significantly slower and less mobile) and he still came up short against a badly faded version of Lewis. Vitali's height, chin and reach advantage may have made him "competitive" with any number of heavies but I struggle to see Vitali beating even the likes of Holmes etc even though he may very well last the distance. I personally think Vitali's skill set is significantly inferior to that of the ATG and it's only the aforementioned physical attributes he possesses that would keep him in the fights.

Decent enough fighter but it's damning that his legacy will, certainly in my mind, be defined as him losing against the best fighter he ever faced and not a particularly good version at that. The version of Lewis that annihilated the likes of Golota, Grant etc would have had a field day with Vitali who has NEVER changed his approach to fights so I fail to see what a "better prepared Vitali" could do differently against a better prepared version of Lewis

I had it all square............Fact is though klewis looked lethargic, too big and was 36....

and he still landed everything he threw on a face first ambler.....He couldn't miss....

Imagine Buster Douglas jab.............

However you spin it.............Vitali is Tex Cobb with a bit more weight and a couple of inches of height..

Lewis was a bit long in the tooth, Hammer, but nobody was calling him washed up beforehand. He was evidently still capable of performing at the highest level and considering that Vitali was being chucked in right at the deep end having never boxed anyone remotely close to Lewis' class, I don't think Lennox should get a completely free ride for how bad he looked.

The fight might demonstrate that Vitali wouldn't have beaten any version of Lewis (barring the odd big upset ala McCall / Rahman) I guess, but as I said above I don't see how it proves that Vitali loses to every great Heavy or can't give them a great fight, particularly ones with a different style to Lewis.

There have been great Heavyweights - even ones cosidered head to head beasts - who have turned in much worse and less inspiring performances in or around their prime against much lesser opposition than Vitali did against Lewis; Foreman against Young, Louis against Schmeling, Holmes against Weaver (even though he pulled it out with one shot) etc.

In those cases they had better contemporaries than Vitali to prove their worth again, so they rightly get a better rating and I'd say all three of those guys were better all-round fighters as well, but that doesn't mean that Vitali couldn't compete with them, as those poorer moments they all had at various stages would point to as well.

I think vitali is big strong tough and fit. Enough to make any great heavy know they've been in a fight. Limited from a boxing perspective but you can say that about a lot,  of the ATG heavies.

Re the prep/notice for the lewis vitali fight. Lewis had a bit of a history of taking guys easy if he thought they were beneath him. He was preparing for kirk Johnson who I don't think anyone saw as a threat... And he didn't look in great shape, he obviously also had an eye on retirement. That said, it's no excuse. I was surprised at the time that he took vk as a replacement as he was obviously the biggest threat out there.

In the fight itself, lewis was certainly having more success before the stoppage but no/one can say with real conviction who wins if it went the distance. I saw enough to think prime lewis beats vk, but that vitali was a real handful. I don't think lennox ran into retirement because of vk, but I wish he'd got himself into shape and had a rematch due to what was a legitimate but ultimately frustrating ending. I think the hunger had gone so retiring was the smart move.

88Chris05 wrote:Lewis was a bit long in the tooth, Hammer, but nobody was calling him washed up beforehand. He was evidently still capable of performing at the highest level and considering that Vitali was being chucked in right at the deep end having never boxed anyone remotely close to Lewis' class, I don't think Lennox should get a completely free ride for how bad he looked.

The fight might demonstrate that Vitali wouldn't have beaten any version of Lewis (barring the odd big upset ala McCall / Rahman) I guess, but as I said above I don't see how it proves that Vitali loses to every great Heavy or can't give them a great fight, particularly ones with a different style to Lewis.

There have been great Heavyweights - even ones cosidered head to head beasts - who have turned in much worse and less inspiring performances in or around their prime against much lesser opposition than Vitali did against Lewis; Foreman against Young, Louis against Schmeling, Holmes against Weaver (even though he pulled it out with one shot) etc.

In those cases they had better contemporaries than Vitali to prove their worth again, so they rightly get a better rating and I'd say all three of those guys were better all-round fighters as well, but that doesn't mean that Vitali couldn't compete with them, as those poorer moments they all had at various stages would point to as well.

Lewis was shot that night. He had no bounce, no rhythm and his timing was off. He also came in fleshy as he'd been preparing to face Kirk Johnson (which to be fair to him would have been an easy night). I followed every Lewis fight and while he wasn't labelled shot going in he was after a couple of rounds.

To Lennox's credit he sat in the trenches and just let fly with what he had - and in my opinion he had turned the fight at the time of the stoppage. Klitschko had out worked him early but it looked as though he'd shot his bolt - Lewis was really beginning to tee off on him. Whether Lewis - who was blowing out of his backside - could have seen it through is moot: in his prime he'd have flattened Vitali.

Klitschko may have been a round up but being a round up against a once great - however fleeting that greatness was - heavyweight doesn't qualify him as one of the best heavyweights to ever lay on gloves.

milkyboy wrote:

kingraf wrote:The Lewis fight was strange... Said more about Vitali's skin  than anything else. Up until that final round, the damage on his face was hardly proportional to the damage he'd taken, or indeed the effect the punches had on him. Don't think I've ever seen a fighter up 4-1 with three different cuts on his face. I know some (Harris) will claim Lewis was landing flush, but Lewis basically discombobulated Tyson, and he didn't look like he'd been in a Saw movie. He also 350 punches on Holy, without anywhere near the damage. About a quarter of the damage later, and Vitali looked like he'd been in a local rumble.

Most peculiar

Is this a dodgy wraps accusation raf? Maybe vk cuts easy, but no-one who hits like lewis had landed as frequently on him before?

Not at all. Wlad checks the opposition wrapping if I'm not mistaken, and I don't think he'd let his brother go in with a guy with dodgy wraps. Yes, Lewis hit him, and hit him hard, but he basically ragged Tyson around for 10 rounds a year earlier, and Tyson did NOT look like anywhere near that. It wasn't the swelling per se, but I've never seen a fighter 4-1 up with three cuts that deep... It's all good to say Lewis was teeing off (lol at the revisionism though, but I mean since Beating Folley makes you unbeatable to anybody in history...). I'm sure Lewis was fighting clean, I'm just quite baffled by it.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That would be true if we weren't talking about a half arsed 38 year old Lewis who was just in it for another payday, the fight highlights what could have happened were he on top form. Vitali gets too much credit for those first four rounds.

Losing your "0" to,any version of Lewis beats getting your cherry plucked by McCall.

kingraf wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

kingraf wrote:The Lewis fight was strange... Said more about Vitali's skin  than anything else. Up until that final round, the damage on his face was hardly proportional to the damage he'd taken, or indeed the effect the punches had on him. Don't think I've ever seen a fighter up 4-1 with three different cuts on his face. I know some (Harris) will claim Lewis was landing flush, but Lewis basically discombobulated Tyson, and he didn't look like he'd been in a Saw movie. He also 350 punches on Holy, without anywhere near the damage. About a quarter of the damage later, and Vitali looked like he'd been in a local rumble.

Most peculiar

Is this a dodgy wraps accusation raf?  Maybe vk cuts easy, but no-one who hits like lewis had landed as frequently on him before?

Not at all. Wlad checks the opposition wrapping if I'm not mistaken, and I don't think he'd let his brother go in with a guy with dodgy wraps. Yes, Lewis hit him, and hit him hard, but he basically ragged Tyson around for 10 rounds a year earlier, and Tyson did NOT look like anywhere near that. It wasn't the swelling per se, but I've never seen a fighter 4-1 up with three cuts that deep... It's all good to say Lewis was teeing off (lol at the revisionism though, but I mean since Beating Folley makes you unbeatable to anybody in history...). I'm sure Lewis was fighting clean, I'm just quite baffled by it.

Lewis didn't sit down on his shots against Tyson like he did Klitschko (he had little choice - his legs had gone).

Steward implored him to throw hard shots against Tyson instead of flicking jabs and rights and playing safe if I recall.

kingraf wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That would be true if we weren't talking about a half arsed 38 year old Lewis who was just in it for another payday, the fight highlights what could have happened were he on top form. Vitali gets too much credit for those first four rounds.

Losing your "0" to,any version of Lewis beats getting your cherry plucked by McCall.

He'd already quit against Byrd by that point Raf.