BoxRec

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑06 Nov 2018, 17:14 The losses to a past it Lewis and to Byrd are part of Vialy's resume. Vitaly has no major wins. Therefore, even without the Holyfield fight, Bowe has a better resume.
With it, (and again it should count since it did indeed happen) Bowe's is much better.

DrDuke wrote: ↑06 Nov 2018, 17:09

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑06 Nov 2018, 16:52 And that is what some people just don't get. They think a lot of WBS title defenses means a lot. It doesn't. Bowe and many, many guys could have made those WBS title defenses.
One win over Holyfield is more important than 50 wins against stiffs.
Vitaly is the one with a thin resume. Dominating a division, (which he didn't even do) doesn't mean much if the competition is not good.
Take out Holyfield, and Bowe still has a better resume. Put him in (which obviously you should since it happened) and Bowe is head and shoulders better than Vitaly.

Bowe obviously had more raw talent, than Vitali, as well as the skills and I'd even pick Riddick to win Vitali, but without Holyfield wins his resume is about the same as Vitali's one, to call it better in this case is quite delusional.

Controversial wrote: ↑06 Nov 2018, 17:32 Mike Tyson didn’t beat anyone as good as Holyfield,
does that mean Bowe has a better resume than Tyson and Tyson has a resume on the par with Vitali?

DrDuke wrote: ↑06 Nov 2018, 17:17

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑06 Nov 2018, 17:14 The losses to a past it Lewis and to Byrd are part of Vialy's resume. Vitaly has no major wins. Therefore, even without the Holyfield fight, Bowe has a better resume.
With it, (and again it should count since it did indeed happen) Bowe's is much better.

And what major wins did Bowe have, except Holyfield? Maybe Golo... Oh, shite...

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑06 Nov 2018, 17:48

Controversial wrote: ↑06 Nov 2018, 17:32 Mike Tyson didn’t beat anyone as good as Holyfield,
does that mean Bowe has a better resume than Tyson and Tyson has a resume on the par with Vitali?

Holy field is on another level from the rest. I'd have Tyson ahead of bowe but they're close enough to debate. Vitali isn't in that conversation

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑06 Nov 2018, 17:45

DrDuke wrote: ↑06 Nov 2018, 17:09

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑06 Nov 2018, 16:52 And that is what some people just don't get. They think a lot of WBS title defenses means a lot. It doesn't. Bowe and many, many guys could have made those WBS title defenses.
One win over Holyfield is more important than 50 wins against stiffs.
Vitaly is the one with a thin resume. Dominating a division, (which he didn't even do) doesn't mean much if the competition is not good.
Take out Holyfield, and Bowe still has a better resume. Put him in (which obviously you should since it happened) and Bowe is head and shoulders better than Vitaly.

Bowe obviously had more raw talent, than Vitali, as well as the skills and I'd even pick Riddick to win Vitali, but without Holyfield wins his resume is about the same as Vitali's one, to call it better in this case is quite delusional.

What makes it on to take away two wins over a top 40 all time fighter? That's a fun game for you to play.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑06 Nov 2018, 21:06

DrDuke wrote: ↑06 Nov 2018, 17:17

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑06 Nov 2018, 17:14 The losses to a past it Lewis and to Byrd are part of Vialy's resume. Vitaly has no major wins. Therefore, even without the Holyfield fight, Bowe has a better resume.
With it, (and again it should count since it did indeed happen) Bowe's is much better.

And what major wins did Bowe have, except Holyfield? Maybe Golo... Oh, shite...

None I would call major. His best was probably Tony Tubbs when he was just an up and coming fighter. Better than anything Vitaly ever did.
Most importantly you can't just pretend the Holyfield fights didn't happen and Klitschko's fights with Lewis and Byrd didn't happen. They did. They were the most important fights of their careers. Bowe rose to the occasion. Vitaly flunked big time.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑07 Nov 2018, 03:15 Joshua's fights with Klitschko and Povetkin were pretty exciting and would qualify as good if not great fights.

Controversial wrote: ↑07 Nov 2018, 05:02

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑07 Nov 2018, 03:15 Joshua's fights with Klitschko and Povetkin were pretty exciting and would qualify as good if not great fights.

It’s not uncommon for people to remember the past as being better, the fact is even the greatest fighters in history were in dull fights..

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑07 Nov 2018, 11:46

Controversial wrote: ↑07 Nov 2018, 05:02

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑07 Nov 2018, 03:15 Joshua's fights with Klitschko and Povetkin were pretty exciting and would qualify as good if not great fights.

It’s not uncommon for people to remember the past as being better, the fact is even the greatest fighters in history were in dull fights..

Well of course there were dull fights in the past. There were great, very good, average, bad fighters in almost any time period for the late 1800s for more than a 100 years. Sometimes there were more good fighters in a particular weight class than in another period.

I started following the sport in 1976. I have never assumed that the sport magically got better right when I became a fan. Many people do that though. If they became fan in the mid-1990s, or whenever then they tend to think that the fighters from that point onward are better.

People that really know the sport and the sport's history, know that isn't true. The world didn't get better the day we we born. The sport did suddenly get get way better once we became fans.

The quality of the heavyweight division has gone up and down over the years. In the early-mid 1970s it was awesome. Some of the other weight classes during that time were not that good. In other eras the middleweight division or some other division was great and the heavyweight division was not.

My point about good fights is this: We seldom hear people actually say that a heavyweight fight in the last 15 years or so was a great fight. All we hear about is the weights, heights, WBS title defenses etc.
If the era was actually pretty good, we would be hearing talking about specific fights and how good they were. Now Cojimar is desperately trying to find some, but come on. The fact is hardly anyone is talking about these. fights. People watch some of the great fights over and over.

Controversial wrote: ↑07 Nov 2018, 15:05

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑07 Nov 2018, 11:46

Controversial wrote: ↑07 Nov 2018, 05:02

It’s not uncommon for people to remember the past as being better, the fact is even the greatest fighters in history were in dull fights..

Well of course there were dull fights in the past. There were great, very good, average, bad fighters in almost any time period for the late 1800s for more than a 100 years. Sometimes there were more good fighters in a particular weight class than in another period.

I started following the sport in 1976. I have never assumed that the sport magically got better right when I became a fan. Many people do that though. If they became fan in the mid-1990s, or whenever then they tend to think that the fighters from that point onward are better.

People that really know the sport and the sport's history, know that isn't true. The world didn't get better the day we we born. The sport did suddenly get get way better once we became fans.

The quality of the heavyweight division has gone up and down over the years. In the early-mid 1970s it was awesome. Some of the other weight classes during that time were not that good. In other eras the middleweight division or some other division was great and the heavyweight division was not.

My point about good fights is this: We seldom hear people actually say that a heavyweight fight in the last 15 years or so was a great fight. All we hear about is the weights, heights, WBS title defenses etc.
If the era was actually pretty good, we would be hearing talking about specific fights and how good they were. Now Cojimar is desperately trying to find some, but come on. The fact is hardly anyone is talking about these. fights. People watch some of the great fights over and over.

It was just an observation. There is a lot of biased and double standards with fight fans, the fact is fights today are fresh in peoples memory, they are television across the world, shared in seconds, analysed in minute details as they happen. That didn't happen in the past and because of that a false perception can be given. When recalling past fighters people soon forget the bad things and only remember the good things. Ali was in some awful fights and was rarely the smaller man in most of them too. He was also finished at 35, as were many other ATGs, yet people ignore Wlad was fighting at the top level into his 40s. AJ got wobbled by Whyte, a 6'4" 17.6 stone guy who can punch and within seconds people are saying AJ has a glass jaw yet Norton got KO'ed by a 188lb fighter, Frazier was dropped, Louis was knocked out aged 22 etc...etc. Marciano is portrayed as some never to be seen again puncher, yet when you watch him versus Cockell he looked far from spectacular hitting a blown up LHW. Fight fans are fickle.

jamamb wrote: ↑07 Nov 2018, 05:03 joshua-whyte was good too

Duran1970 wrote: ↑09 Nov 2018, 12:16 Numerous times the rock on record says he would've handled Ali...
Ali even said that Marciano would have been the only fighter that had a chance against him..
It's called respect being shown...not like these prima donnas today who say they could beat anyone ever in history..
In another few weeks some people on this topic will say rocky is 5'7"....poor guy is losing an inch a week...lol...a 190 lb man with punching power of the rock is big enough to chop down a frail skinny 215 lb Wilder...size only matters if you know to use it...
There's one thing people seem to overlook...,..........
WILDER CANT FIGHT!!

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑10 Nov 2018, 18:34 Povetkin has fought and beaten some guys considerably taller than him such as Price and Wach. Perhaps these fights give an indication as to how a fight would have played out.