BoxRec

dr_devious wrote:And Vitali was a bigger scalp in 2003 than both Byrd and Ruiz

True. Vitali was a very good heavyweight.
Had he not suffered his numerous injuries he would be the #1 ranked heavyweight in the world today

pundit wrote:Vitali was the widely recognized real champ, in contrast. And rightly so.

He was a recognized “title holder”, after beating a fat Ernie Els, errr, Corrie Sanders for a vacant meaningless alphabet title. He was never a champion. VK was a good fighter with a seemingly great record, but a rather weak resume. Please don’t try to make him out to be any better than any of the other meaningless title holders. The only reason Vitali get’s such passionate support from fringe boxing fans is because of the incredible hype he and his brother have been given by the US media, especially HBO. They were very good fighters, nothing more and nothing less, and do not deserve any more recognition than any of the other 300 or so paper title holders in the past 25 years.

The Great John L wrote:

pundit wrote:Vitali was the widely recognized real champ, in contrast. And rightly so.

He was a recognized “title holder”, after beating a fat Ernie Els, errr, Corrie Sanders for a vacant meaningless alphabet title. He was never a champion. VK was a good fighter with a seemingly great record, but a rather weak resume. Please don’t try to make him out to be any better than any of the other meaningless title holders. The only reason Vitali get’s such passionate support from fringe boxing fans is because of the incredible hype he and his brother have been given by the US media, especially HBO. They were very good fighters, nothing more and nothing less, and do not deserve any more recognition than any of the other 300 or so paper title holders in the past 25 years.

It always depends on what your yardstick is. There are guys who NEVER held a title -- say, Jimmy Young, or Razor Ruddock -- who I would rank higher than the Klitschkos. But compared to Don King's paper champs Chris Byrd and John Ruiz, who would never have gooten close to a belt without King's protecion, the Klitschkos are clearly a class above.

The Great John L wrote:

pundit wrote:Vitali was the widely recognized real champ, in contrast. And rightly so.

He was a recognized “title holder”, after beating a fat Ernie Els, errr, Corrie Sanders for a vacant meaningless alphabet title. He was never a champion. VK was a good fighter with a seemingly great record, but a rather weak resume. Please don’t try to make him out to be any better than any of the other meaningless title holders. The only reason Vitali get’s such passionate support from fringe boxing fans is because of the incredible hype he and his brother have been given by the US media, especially HBO. They were very good fighters, nothing more and nothing less, and do not deserve any more recognition than any of the other 300 or so paper title holders in the past 25 years.

Is that the same Corrie Sanders who sparked the consensus number 1 heavyweight in the world today, Vladimir Klitschko?
Vitali is one of the better of the numerous title holders over the last 20 odd years. He didnt look effective but got the job done. He was big, strong, had a decent chin and had an ungainly but effective style.
Hes not technically as good as Vlad but was more effective overall due to his much better chin.
This assessment isnt passionate support but an objective assessment of Vitali's worth as a fighter

dr_devious wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

pundit wrote:Vitali was the widely recognized real champ, in contrast. And rightly so.

He was a recognized “title holder”, after beating a fat Ernie Els, errr, Corrie Sanders for a vacant meaningless alphabet title. He was never a champion. VK was a good fighter with a seemingly great record, but a rather weak resume. Please don’t try to make him out to be any better than any of the other meaningless title holders. The only reason Vitali get’s such passionate support from fringe boxing fans is because of the incredible hype he and his brother have been given by the US media, especially HBO. They were very good fighters, nothing more and nothing less, and do not deserve any more recognition than any of the other 300 or so paper title holders in the past 25 years.

Is that the same Corrie Sanders who sparked the consensus number 1 heavyweight in the world today, Vladimir Klitschko?
Vitali is one of the better of the numerous title holders over the last 20 odd years. He didnt look effective but got the job done. He was big, strong, had a decent chin and had an ungainly but effective style.
Hes not technically as good as Vlad but was more effective overall due to his much better chin.
This assessment isnt passionate support but an objective assessment of Vitali's worth as a fighter

As I said in my original post, Vitali was a good fighter with a seemingly great record, built against marginal opposition. Since he fought so few world class opponents it’s hard for any objective observer to judge how good he actually was, but he was certainly NEVER a champion.

And no, the overweight Sanders that he beat was not the same one that blitzed his brother, who also gets way too much credit for his accomplishments. Wlad may be generally considered the best HW in the world, but he hasn’t proven that he is the best. Why are there so many boxing fans willing to anoint fighters who win one of the trinkets as “the best” rather than expecting them to actually beat the best in their division? Without any unification there can’t be a true #1.

The Great John L wrote: As I said in my original post, Vitali was a good fighter with a seemingly great record, built against marginal opposition. Since he fought so few world class opponents it’s hard for any objective observer to judge how good he actually was, but he was certainly NEVER a champion.

Why is that? He took the previous champion's title after the previous champion retired, normally the succesors of champions are called champions.

pundit wrote:

The Great John L wrote: As I said in my original post, Vitali was a good fighter with a seemingly great record, built against marginal opposition. Since he fought so few world class opponents it’s hard for any objective observer to judge how good he actually was, but he was certainly NEVER a champion.

Why is that? He took the previous champion's title after the previous champion retired, normally the succesors of champions are called champions.

I must have missed something. I thought Vitali beat Sanders to win the WBC title, not the HW championship that Lewis held. Do you consider all holders of alphabet titles to be champions? Some of us expect a fighter to actually prove they are the best before they are called champion. Vitali was nothing more than a marginal titleholder, just like Seldon, Bruno, Ruiz, Jones, etc. In fact Vitali didn’t even beat a title holder to win his “title” -- he beat a 38 year old out of shape golfer for his alphabet trinket. Lewis fought and beat the best for years. For you to imply that this makes him worthy of being called a champion who fought and beat the best like Tyson, Lewis, Holyfield, Ali, etc is ridiculous.

As I’ve said several times, he was a good fighter, but he was not a champion.

The Great John L wrote:

pundit wrote:

The Great John L wrote: As I said in my original post, Vitali was a good fighter with a seemingly great record, built against marginal opposition. Since he fought so few world class opponents it’s hard for any objective observer to judge how good he actually was, but he was certainly NEVER a champion.

Why is that? He took the previous champion's title after the previous champion retired, normally the succesors of champions are called champions.

I must have missed something. I thought Vitali beat Sanders to win the WBC title, not the HW championship that Lewis held. Do you consider all holders of alphabet titles to be champions?

Of course not. Lewis had unified belts, two belts he lost because of boxing politics and Don King's influence to clearly inferior fighters. He kept the WBC belt, which as the time was the most legit heavy belt. When he retired, Vitali won this vacant belt fair and square. Vitali was thereafter widely recognized as THE man at heavyweight (didn't we have a poll on this some time ago with a petty clear result). Substitute "champion" for "THE man" and there you are.

Surely one of the weaker champions in heavyweight history, but champion he was -- like it or not.

pundit wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

pundit wrote: Why is that? He took the previous champion's title after the previous champion retired, normally the succesors of champions are called champions.

I must have missed something. I thought Vitali beat Sanders to win the WBC title, not the HW championship that Lewis held. Do you consider all holders of alphabet titles to be champions?

Of course not. Lewis had unified belts, two belts he lost because of boxing politics and Don King's influence to clearly inferior fighters. He kept the WBC belt, which as the time was the most legit heavy belt. When he retired, Vitali won this vacant belt fair and square. Vitali was thereafter widely recognized as THE man at heavyweight (didn't we have a poll on this some time ago with a petty clear result). Substitute "champion" for "THE man" and there you are.

Surely one of the weaker champions in heavyweight history, but champion he was -- like it or not.

Yes, a pundit boxrec poll should be used to determine all champions. That way we can avoid the messy necessity of a fighter having to actually earn a championship. Great idea.

You certainly love degrading real boxing champions, don’t you?

The Great John L wrote:

pundit wrote:

The Great John L wrote: I must have missed something. I thought Vitali beat Sanders to win the WBC title, not the HW championship that Lewis held. Do you consider all holders of alphabet titles to be champions?

Of course not. Lewis had unified belts, two belts he lost because of boxing politics and Don King's influence to clearly inferior fighters. He kept the WBC belt, which as the time was the most legit heavy belt. When he retired, Vitali won this vacant belt fair and square. Vitali was thereafter widely recognized as THE man at heavyweight (didn't we have a poll on this some time ago with a petty clear result). Substitute "champion" for "THE man" and there you are.

Surely one of the weaker champions in heavyweight history, but champion he was -- like it or not.

Yes, a pundit boxrec poll should be used to determine all champions. That way we can avoid the messy necessity of a fighter having to actually earn a championship. Great idea.

You certainly love degrading real boxing champions, don’t you?

You know what? Why don't you just disagree. I don't find the discussion terribly interesting.

Cheers, P

pundit wrote:You know what? Why don't you just disagree. I don't find the discussion terribly interesting.

Of course you don't.

The Great John L wrote:

dr_devious wrote:

The Great John L wrote: He was a recognized “title holder”, after beating a fat Ernie Els, errr, Corrie Sanders for a vacant meaningless alphabet title. He was never a champion. VK was a good fighter with a seemingly great record, but a rather weak resume. Please don’t try to make him out to be any better than any of the other meaningless title holders. The only reason Vitali get’s such passionate support from fringe boxing fans is because of the incredible hype he and his brother have been given by the US media, especially HBO. They were very good fighters, nothing more and nothing less, and do not deserve any more recognition than any of the other 300 or so paper title holders in the past 25 years.

Is that the same Corrie Sanders who sparked the consensus number 1 heavyweight in the world today, Vladimir Klitschko?
Vitali is one of the better of the numerous title holders over the last 20 odd years. He didnt look effective but got the job done. He was big, strong, had a decent chin and had an ungainly but effective style.
Hes not technically as good as Vlad but was more effective overall due to his much better chin.
This assessment isnt passionate support but an objective assessment of Vitali's worth as a fighter

As I said in my original post, Vitali was a good fighter with a seemingly great record, built against marginal opposition. Since he fought so few world class opponents it’s hard for any objective observer to judge how good he actually was, but he was certainly NEVER a champion.

And no, the overweight Sanders that he beat was not the same one that blitzed his brother, who also gets way too much credit for his accomplishments. Wlad may be generally considered the best HW in the world, but he hasn’t proven that he is the best. Why are there so many boxing fans willing to anoint fighters who win one of the trinkets as “the best” rather than expecting them to actually beat the best in their division? Without any unification there can’t be a true #1.

I can agree with what you're saying about Vitali and how he built a resume based off (on the whole) marginal opposition. There is no question about this........Though a few posts down you talk about Lennox having beat the best of his era (Tyson, Holy, etc, etc).......That is just not an accurate statment........He barely beat Holyfield (I still say Holy won their second match).....but the true reality is LL beat two clearly faded / past-their-prime's Holyfield and Tyson -

Hell Holyfield was just as old as Muhammad Ali when he lost to Leon Spiks (and close to Ali's age when he lost to Trevor Berbick)......does anyone seriously try and suggest Leon beat Ali at his best....or that Berbick beat the best of his era??....of course not. (heck Ali even had several years off for his body to completely heal/ rest....to boot....Which made him a relatively younger 37-39 year old in some physical aspects).

meade95 wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

dr_devious wrote: Is that the same Corrie Sanders who sparked the consensus number 1 heavyweight in the world today, Vladimir Klitschko?
Vitali is one of the better of the numerous title holders over the last 20 odd years. He didnt look effective but got the job done. He was big, strong, had a decent chin and had an ungainly but effective style.
Hes not technically as good as Vlad but was more effective overall due to his much better chin.
This assessment isnt passionate support but an objective assessment of Vitali's worth as a fighter

As I said in my original post, Vitali was a good fighter with a seemingly great record, built against marginal opposition. Since he fought so few world class opponents it’s hard for any objective observer to judge how good he actually was, but he was certainly NEVER a champion.

And no, the overweight Sanders that he beat was not the same one that blitzed his brother, who also gets way too much credit for his accomplishments. Wlad may be generally considered the best HW in the world, but he hasn’t proven that he is the best. Why are there so many boxing fans willing to anoint fighters who win one of the trinkets as “the best” rather than expecting them to actually beat the best in their division? Without any unification there can’t be a true #1.

I can agree with what you're saying about Vitali and how he built a resume based off (on the whole) marginal opposition. There is no question about this........Though a few posts down you talk about Lennox having beat the best of his era (Tyson, Holy, etc, etc).......That is just not an accurate statment........He barely beat Holyfield (I still say Holy won their second match).....but the true reality is LL beat two clearly faded / past-their-prime's Holyfield and Tyson -

Hell Holyfield was just as old as Muhammad Ali when he lost to Leon Spiks (and close to Ali's age when he lost to Trevor Berbick)......does anyone seriously try and suggest Leon beat Ali at his best....or that Berbick beat the best of his era??....of course not. (heck Ali even had several years off for his body to completely heal/ rest....to boot....Which made him a relatively younger 37-39 year old in some physical aspects).

Ali began fighting professionally at heavyweight at the age of 18.
Holyfield began fighting at heavyweight at the age of 26 (began professionally at the age of 22).

Holyfield spent 4 years not swapping punches that Ali did. 8 years not fighting heavyweights. This more than offsets the time Ali spent not fighting. It could be argued further that Ali had ring rust that Evander never had to deal with because his time off was at the start of his career.


And WTF? Lewis is actually OLDER than Tyson. To say Tyson was faded and Lennox wasn't completely defies logic.

cubedrum wrote:

meade95 wrote:

The Great John L wrote: As I said in my original post, Vitali was a good fighter with a seemingly great record, built against marginal opposition. Since he fought so few world class opponents it’s hard for any objective observer to judge how good he actually was, but he was certainly NEVER a champion.

And no, the overweight Sanders that he beat was not the same one that blitzed his brother, who also gets way too much credit for his accomplishments. Wlad may be generally considered the best HW in the world, but he hasn’t proven that he is the best. Why are there so many boxing fans willing to anoint fighters who win one of the trinkets as “the best” rather than expecting them to actually beat the best in their division? Without any unification there can’t be a true #1.

I can agree with what you're saying about Vitali and how he built a resume based off (on the whole) marginal opposition. There is no question about this........Though a few posts down you talk about Lennox having beat the best of his era (Tyson, Holy, etc, etc).......That is just not an accurate statment........He barely beat Holyfield (I still say Holy won their second match).....but the true reality is LL beat two clearly faded / past-their-prime's Holyfield and Tyson -

Hell Holyfield was just as old as Muhammad Ali when he lost to Leon Spiks (and close to Ali's age when he lost to Trevor Berbick)......does anyone seriously try and suggest Leon beat Ali at his best....or that Berbick beat the best of his era??....of course not. (heck Ali even had several years off for his body to completely heal/ rest....to boot....Which made him a relatively younger 37-39 year old in some physical aspects).

Ali began fighting professionally at heavyweight at the age of 18.
Holyfield began fighting at heavyweight at the age of 26 (began professionally at the age of 22).

Holyfield spent 4 years not swapping punches that Ali did. 8 years not fighting heavyweights. This more than offsets the time Ali spent not fighting. It could be argued further that Ali had ring rust that Evander never had to deal with because his time off was at the start of his career.


And WTF? Lewis is actually OLDER than Tyson. To say Tyson was faded and Lennox wasn't completely defies logic.

It most certainly does not - Anyone who is willing to have an ounce of intellectually honest on the subject would be willing to admit that Tyson's prime (like many short HW's) came at a much earlier age .....Lennox's prime came at a much later age. Hell Tyson was fighting for the HW championship of the world when Lennox was still thinking about trying out of the Olympics.....(age is merely one factor in looking at where one was at a given time during their career)..

Addittionally your Ali / Holyfield comparision is all wet - In that while Holyfield wasn't at HW until 25....he was fighting championship level fights since his 11th pro fight.......at the young age of 23....So the notion that Holyfield fighting championship level (with training) is somehow the equivalent of having "time off" is just odd???........

The reality is neither Holyfield or Tyson were in their primes when they faced Lennox....They most certainly were not.....Additionally Lennox (most would suggest) was in the midst of his most proficient time in the ring exactly during this same time period.

Holyfield was at the same age and with the same deterioration of skills when he faced Lennox...as was Ali when he faced Leon....(and nobody would serioulsy try and suggest Leon could beat a prime Ali)...... Hell Holyfield looked shot Vs Bean a whole 7 months prior to him even fighting Lennox the first time...

meade95 wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

dr_devious wrote: Is that the same Corrie Sanders who sparked the consensus number 1 heavyweight in the world today, Vladimir Klitschko?
Vitali is one of the better of the numerous title holders over the last 20 odd years. He didnt look effective but got the job done. He was big, strong, had a decent chin and had an ungainly but effective style.
Hes not technically as good as Vlad but was more effective overall due to his much better chin.
This assessment isnt passionate support but an objective assessment of Vitali's worth as a fighter

As I said in my original post, Vitali was a good fighter with a seemingly great record, built against marginal opposition. Since he fought so few world class opponents it’s hard for any objective observer to judge how good he actually was, but he was certainly NEVER a champion.

And no, the overweight Sanders that he beat was not the same one that blitzed his brother, who also gets way too much credit for his accomplishments. Wlad may be generally considered the best HW in the world, but he hasn’t proven that he is the best. Why are there so many boxing fans willing to anoint fighters who win one of the trinkets as “the best” rather than expecting them to actually beat the best in their division? Without any unification there can’t be a true #1.

I can agree with what you're saying about Vitali and how he built a resume based off (on the whole) marginal opposition. There is no question about this........Though a few posts down you talk about Lennox having beat the best of his era (Tyson, Holy, etc, etc).......That is just not an accurate statment........He barely beat Holyfield (I still say Holy won their second match).....but the true reality is LL beat two clearly faded / past-their-prime's Holyfield and Tyson -

Hell Holyfield was just as old as Muhammad Ali when he lost to Leon Spiks (and close to Ali's age when he lost to Trevor Berbick)......does anyone seriously try and suggest Leon beat Ali at his best....or that Berbick beat the best of his era??....of course not. (heck Ali even had several years off for his body to completely heal/ rest....to boot....Which made him a relatively younger 37-39 year old in some physical aspects).

Lewis barely beat Holy in the first match?? Rubbish. Lewis won at least 10 of the rounds, and the draw outcome is widely seen as one of the most controversial verdicts ever.
Lewis still won the rematch, though it was close. HBO scored the fight for Lewis- and all you holyfield lovers know it.

Decagon wrote:Even the faded versions of Holyfield and Tyson were the best of Lewis's era, just as the faded versions of Moore, Louis and Walcott were the best of Marciano's era and the faded versions of Sharkey, Schmeling, Baer and Braddock were the best of Louis's era.

Well put Dec. Besides Ali and Frazier, what other ATG HW beat another ATG that was close to their prime? In fact, even without the faded Tyson and Holyfield, Lewis’s competition was still light years better than Vitali’s. I even think that Ruiz and Byrd had much better resume’s than Vitali.

The Great John L wrote: Well put Dec. Besides Ali and Frazier, what other ATG HW beat another ATG that was close to their prime? In fact, even without the faded Tyson and Holyfield, Lewis’s competition was still light years better than Vitali’s. I even think that Ruiz and Byrd had much better resume’s than Vitali.

They may have a better resume but they neither Ruiz nor Byrd carried a fraction of the physical threat that Vitali did. No way could they have given Lewis the tussle Vitali did. How would either Byrd or Ruiz even have competed with Lewis?

In 2003 Vitali lacked any wins that might have established himself as being as worthy of a shot as Byrd or Ruiz. Beating Larry Donald, Vaughn Bean, Herbie Hide, etc are certainly good wins but none of these wins establish Vitali as the top contender because Ruiz and Byrd beat better opponnents.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:In 2003 Vitali lacked any wins that might have established himself as being as worthy of a shot as Byrd or Ruiz. Beating Larry Donald, Vaughn Bean, Herbie Hide, etc are certainly good wins but none of these wins establish Vitali as the top contender because Ruiz and Byrd beat better opponnents.

Byrd and Ruiz were hanging on to the pseudo-titles that Don King had gotten them in 2003. So they had taken themselves out of contention. You can hardly blame Vitali for that who had won the eliminator tournament for the WBC's mandatory spot.

Besides, there is not one win on either Ruiz or Byrd's record that I find impressive, abut there are rather embarassing losses (Ruiz to a light-heavyweight who lost his subsequent 3 fights at 175, and Byrd who totally uncompetitive with Vlad, getting spanked like a schoolboy -- twice). While Vitali did impress against LL. In an all-time ranking I'd have not only Vitali above Ruiz and Byrd but also Tua and Rahman. Had they been with Don King at the right times of their careers, for sure they would have gotten (and kept) a couple of belts too.

The faded Tyson that Lewis fought was definitely not among the best of the era and in fact is not one of Lewis's better wins. Tyson was not even particularly deserving of a title shot in 2002. Byrd, the Klitschkos, Ruiz even Holyfield were better than Tyson in 2002.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:The faded Tyson that Lewis fought was definitely not among the best of the era and in fact is not one of Lewis's better wins. Tyson was not even particularly deserving of a title shot in 2002. Byrd, the Klitschkos, Ruiz even Holyfield were better than Tyson in 2002.

Tyson could still beat alot of fringe contenders in 2002.
The following year he KO'd Ettiene in one round, and beleive it or not Brian Neilson was a top 20 ranked fighter in Tysons fighter prior to Lewis.

Sure they were not at a Ruiz/Byrd level but still top 20 at the time.
Tyson was a faded fighter no doubt, but he was hardly at 'losing to bum level', like he was by 2005.

Lewis did indeed beat an aged Holyfield and likewise Leon Spinks and Trevor Berbick beat Ali while Ezzard Chales beat Joe Louis, etc, etc. The fights don't seem relevant when assessing who is better due to Holyfield's decline.

dr_devious wrote:They may have a better resume but they neither Ruiz nor Byrd carried a fraction of the physical threat that Vitali did. No way could they have given Lewis the tussle Vitali did. How would either Byrd or Ruiz even have competed with Lewis?

I am by no means a Ruiz fan, but his jab right hand and hug style would have given Lewis some problems. I think Lewis would have eventually been able to stop him, but not before getting pretty frustrated in a very ugly and boring fight. Styles make fights, and while Ruiz’s style wasn’t much to watch, it probably would have been quite effective at keeping him in the fight against Lewis.

Either that or Lewis would have splattered Ruiz in 19 seconds like Tua did

dr_devious wrote:Either that or Lewis would have splattered Ruiz in 19 seconds like Tua did

Always possible, but I don't think that Ruiz had quite perfected his “unique style” prior to being squashed by Tua.