BoxRec

Wladimir loses against Fury = Oh well boooo , Wladimir was past his prime and old !

Vitali strugled against past prime Lewis who was actualy in his worst shape = Why no one complains about that Lewis was old and past his prime? They keep say that Lewis was "lucky" , actualy it was Vitali who was lucky because he fought against past prime fat Lewis !

Even past prime fat Lewis was able to give hardest fight for Vitali , it shows how GOOD LEWIS WAS.

He would knock them both cold in his prime :)

The reason many consider Lewis to be lucky against Vitali was because he was losing the fight to a guy who was a late replacement and a virtual unknown and was saved because of Vitali's cut. And as for Vitali being lucky, it isn't as if he had ducked Lewis or any other champion for that matter. He took the fight on short notice and was actually winning until the doctor stopped it. It wasn't his fault Lewis was 38 when they fought. He was still the lineal champion at the time.

I'm not sure how that's comparable to Wladimir, who lost after nine years as champion against the number one ranked challenger. I'm not saying that justifies Wlad's loss--it was a very winnable fight for him, even at 39--however, it isn't the same circumstance as Lewis' fight with Vitali.

Oh, and its also not like Lewis ducked Vitali on a rematch or anything......

conty22 wrote:Wladimir loses against Fury = Oh well boooo , Wladimir was past his prime and old !

Vitali strugled against past prime Lewis who was actualy in his worst shape = Why no one complains about that Lewis was old and past his prime? They keep say that Lewis was "lucky" , actualy it was Vitali who was lucky because he fought against past prime fat Lewis !

Even past prime fat Lewis was able to give hardest fight for Vitali , it shows how GOOD LEWIS WAS.

He would knock them both cold in his prime :)

I drew a parallel between Lewis and Fury recently, that was scoffed at in the British & Irish forums here recently.

Both men by age 27 had already been the British & Commonwealth champion, and became world heavyweight champions. Lewis won the WBC at age 27 against Tony Tucker. Fury won the lineal championship at 27. Lewis won the Commonweath by defeating Razor Ruddock at age 27. Fury won the Commonweath at age 23 and again at age 26. Lewis won the British title at age 26 and Fury won it at age 21. Lewis won the EBU at age 20, Fury won it at age 26. Very similar events.

Fury at age 27 versus Lewis at at 27, I think would have been a complete and total smash of a fight to watch. Most disagreed with me, by cutting Fury completely to ribbons saying that Lewis at age 27 was far and away superior and would have destroyed Fury. I think it is rather nostalgic to boost the abilities and strengths of fighters from earlier eras. Lewis, in my view, didn't become the man we all remember and considered great until defeating Holyfield. Fury, like Lewis, is a work in progress and we won't see his best years for quite some time (if he decides to stay in the business as long as Lewis did).

However, I do agree there is a bias when it comes to Klitschko fans and all-around heavyweight fans in general. How Klitschko was hyped to be this indestructible force, that he was the Larry Holmes and Joe Louis of our time, and how he was dead locked for the top ten of all time, and then he lost the way he did. And the excuses came out. And the criticisms of Fury came out. I hate to see Fury win again, even more convincingly in a rematch, only for people to proclaim it as "evidence" that Klitschko got old, rather than admit that Fury improved and fought a better fight.

HomicideHenry wrote:

conty22 wrote:Wladimir loses against Fury = Oh well boooo , Wladimir was past his prime and old !

Vitali strugled against past prime Lewis who was actualy in his worst shape = Why no one complains about that Lewis was old and past his prime? They keep say that Lewis was "lucky" , actualy it was Vitali who was lucky because he fought against past prime fat Lewis !

Even past prime fat Lewis was able to give hardest fight for Vitali , it shows how GOOD LEWIS WAS.

He would knock them both cold in his prime :)

I drew a parallel between Lewis and Fury recently, that was scoffed at in the British & Irish forums here recently.

Both men by age 27 had already been the British & Commonwealth champion, and became world heavyweight champions. Lewis won the WBC at age 27 against Tony Tucker. Fury won the lineal championship at 27. Lewis won the Commonweath by defeating Razor Ruddock at age 27. Fury won the Commonweath at age 23 and again at age 26. Lewis won the British title at age 26 and Fury won it at age 21. Lewis won the EBU at age 20, Fury won it at age 26. Very similar events.

Fury at age 27 versus Lewis at at 27, I think would have been a complete and total smash of a fight to watch. Most disagreed with me, by cutting Fury completely to ribbons saying that Lewis at age 27 was far and away superior and would have destroyed Fury. I think it is rather nostalgic to boost the abilities and strengths of fighters from earlier eras. Lewis, in my view, didn't become the man we all remember and considered great until defeating Holyfield. Fury, like Lewis, is a work in progress and we won't see his best years for quite some time (if he decides to stay in the business as long as Lewis did).

However, I do agree there is a bias when it comes to Klitschko fans and all-around heavyweight fans in general. How Klitschko was hyped to be this indestructible force, that he was the Larry Holmes and Joe Louis of our time, and how he was dead locked for the top ten of all time, and then he lost the way he did. And the excuses came out. And the criticisms of Fury came out. I hate to see Fury win again, even more convincingly in a rematch, only for people to proclaim it as "evidence" that Klitschko got old, rather than admit that Fury improved and fought a better fight.

Lewis vs Wladimir = Lewis vs Grant 2

conty22 wrote:


Lewis vs Wladimir = Lewis vs Grant 2

I think that's rather unfair, considering Vladimir proved himself FAR AND AWAY better than Grant ever was. Grant only beat one man of consequence (Golota) and the rest of his career, prior to Lewis, was facing a series of hand picked dead men. He had no business being in that title position. Had Grant of fought anyone proven and tested, he would have fell to those persons, rather than Lewis. Grant, at the end of the day, proved himself to be in the mold of a Duane Bobick and other hopefuls whose bubble burst the moment they stepped it up.

Now, had Vladimir retired following Sanders and Brewster, I would say your argument would be valid. But he didn't, he avenged the loss to Brewster (unfortunately he didn't have the chance to do so against Sanders). The closest he ever came to losing besides those two (excluding Purrity) was Samuel Peter who dropped him three times. Klitschko, in the rematch, made him his own personal punching bag. So Klitschko, in a sense, is very much like Lennox Lewis in the regard that he rebounded marvelously and avenged his losses.

Klitschko became, in essence, a clone of Lennox under the tutelage of Emmanuel Stewart (and by extension Jonathan Banks). And the results of that tutelage showed. He either had 18 title defenses, or 23, depending on what you view to be a legitimate title. And no one could put a dent in the man's defenses, or so much as be able to win any rounds against him. If he had a so much as a black eye, it was considered a hard fight.

Sure, I give the fight to Lennox Lewis, because he was more fluid than Klitschko and he was more explosive. Lennox, whether you loved the guy or hated him, could dig down deep and brawl when called for it. Klitschko on the other hand never could. Not against guys equal in capability. So, sure, I would pick Lewis to defeat Vladimir, but let's not make Klitschko sound like a complete and utter clown like Grant. That is a complete slap to the face of a man who was the most dominate heavyweight of the passed decade.

conty22 wrote:Wladimir loses against Fury = Oh well boooo , Wladimir was past his prime and old !

Vitali strugled against past prime Lewis who was actualy in his worst shape = Why no one complains about that Lewis was old and past his prime? They keep say that Lewis was "lucky" , actualy it was Vitali who was lucky because he fought against past prime fat Lewis !

Even past prime fat Lewis was able to give hardest fight for Vitali , it shows how GOOD LEWIS WAS.

He would knock them both cold in his prime :)

good points, but vitaly was winning on points and prime vitaly was one bad ass moth/()/)Z/() .....wlad gets destroyed by lewis, but vitaly is on lewis level.

conty22 wrote:Wladimir loses against Fury = Oh well boooo , Wladimir was past his prime and old !

Vitali strugled against past prime Lewis who was actualy in his worst shape = Why no one complains about that Lewis was old and past his prime? They keep say that Lewis was "lucky" , actualy it was Vitali who was lucky because he fought against past prime fat Lewis !

Even past prime fat Lewis was able to give hardest fight for Vitali , it shows how GOOD LEWIS WAS.

He would knock them both cold in his prime :)

LOL, you are an idiot. Lewis coulnd't even knock Vitali down with his best punches. And are you triyng to say that Lewis was shot at 37 y.o after 14-years career, and Wlad is prime at 39 y.o. after 19-years career?

conty22 wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:

conty22 wrote:Wladimir loses against Fury = Oh well boooo , Wladimir was past his prime and old !

Vitali strugled against past prime Lewis who was actualy in his worst shape = Why no one complains about that Lewis was old and past his prime? They keep say that Lewis was "lucky" , actualy it was Vitali who was lucky because he fought against past prime fat Lewis !

Even past prime fat Lewis was able to give hardest fight for Vitali , it shows how GOOD LEWIS WAS.

He would knock them both cold in his prime :)

I drew a parallel between Lewis and Fury recently, that was scoffed at in the British & Irish forums here recently.

Both men by age 27 had already been the British & Commonwealth champion, and became world heavyweight champions. Lewis won the WBC at age 27 against Tony Tucker. Fury won the lineal championship at 27. Lewis won the Commonweath by defeating Razor Ruddock at age 27. Fury won the Commonweath at age 23 and again at age 26. Lewis won the British title at age 26 and Fury won it at age 21. Lewis won the EBU at age 20, Fury won it at age 26. Very similar events.

Fury at age 27 versus Lewis at at 27, I think would have been a complete and total smash of a fight to watch. Most disagreed with me, by cutting Fury completely to ribbons saying that Lewis at age 27 was far and away superior and would have destroyed Fury. I think it is rather nostalgic to boost the abilities and strengths of fighters from earlier eras. Lewis, in my view, didn't become the man we all remember and considered great until defeating Holyfield. Fury, like Lewis, is a work in progress and we won't see his best years for quite some time (if he decides to stay in the business as long as Lewis did).

However, I do agree there is a bias when it comes to Klitschko fans and all-around heavyweight fans in general. How Klitschko was hyped to be this indestructible force, that he was the Larry Holmes and Joe Louis of our time, and how he was dead locked for the top ten of all time, and then he lost the way he did. And the excuses came out. And the criticisms of Fury came out. I hate to see Fury win again, even more convincingly in a rematch, only for people to proclaim it as "evidence" that Klitschko got old, rather than admit that Fury improved and fought a better fight.

Lewis vs Wladimir = Lewis vs Grant 2

McCline vs Wlad = McCline vs Grant, according to you logic?

HomicideHenry wrote:

conty22 wrote:Wladimir loses against Fury = Oh well boooo , Wladimir was past his prime and old !

Vitali strugled against past prime Lewis who was actualy in his worst shape = Why no one complains about that Lewis was old and past his prime? They keep say that Lewis was "lucky" , actualy it was Vitali who was lucky because he fought against past prime fat Lewis !

Even past prime fat Lewis was able to give hardest fight for Vitali , it shows how GOOD LEWIS WAS.

He would knock them both cold in his prime :)

I drew a parallel between Lewis and Fury recently, that was scoffed at in the British & Irish forums here recently.

Both men by age 27 had already been the British & Commonwealth champion, and became world heavyweight champions. Lewis won the WBC at age 27 against Tony Tucker. Fury won the lineal championship at 27. Lewis won the Commonweath by defeating Razor Ruddock at age 27. Fury won the Commonweath at age 23 and again at age 26. Lewis won the British title at age 26 and Fury won it at age 21. Lewis won the EBU at age 20, Fury won it at age 26. Very similar events.

Fury at age 27 versus Lewis at at 27, I think would have been a complete and total smash of a fight to watch. Most disagreed with me, by cutting Fury completely to ribbons saying that Lewis at age 27 was far and away superior and would have destroyed Fury. I think it is rather nostalgic to boost the abilities and strengths of fighters from earlier eras. Lewis, in my view, didn't become the man we all remember and considered great until defeating Holyfield. Fury, like Lewis, is a work in progress and we won't see his best years for quite some time (if he decides to stay in the business as long as Lewis did).

Lewis is ridiculously overrated nowdays. Sure, he was great fighter, top-10 HW in my opinion, but he was nowhere near as good as his fanboys pretend him to be, especially pre-Steward version.

Boxing Writer wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:

conty22 wrote:Wladimir loses against Fury = Oh well boooo , Wladimir was past his prime and old !

Vitali strugled against past prime Lewis who was actualy in his worst shape = Why no one complains about that Lewis was old and past his prime? They keep say that Lewis was "lucky" , actualy it was Vitali who was lucky because he fought against past prime fat Lewis !

Even past prime fat Lewis was able to give hardest fight for Vitali , it shows how GOOD LEWIS WAS.

He would knock them both cold in his prime :)

I drew a parallel between Lewis and Fury recently, that was scoffed at in the British & Irish forums here recently.

Both men by age 27 had already been the British & Commonwealth champion, and became world heavyweight champions. Lewis won the WBC at age 27 against Tony Tucker. Fury won the lineal championship at 27. Lewis won the Commonweath by defeating Razor Ruddock at age 27. Fury won the Commonweath at age 23 and again at age 26. Lewis won the British title at age 26 and Fury won it at age 21. Lewis won the EBU at age 20, Fury won it at age 26. Very similar events.

Fury at age 27 versus Lewis at at 27, I think would have been a complete and total smash of a fight to watch. Most disagreed with me, by cutting Fury completely to ribbons saying that Lewis at age 27 was far and away superior and would have destroyed Fury. I think it is rather nostalgic to boost the abilities and strengths of fighters from earlier eras. Lewis, in my view, didn't become the man we all remember and considered great until defeating Holyfield. Fury, like Lewis, is a work in progress and we won't see his best years for quite some time (if he decides to stay in the business as long as Lewis did).

Lewis is ridiculously overrated nowdays. Sure, he was great fighter, top-10 HW in my opinion, but he was nowhere near as good as his fanboys pretend him to be, especially pre-Steward version.

He is pretty underrated , many casual fans have no IDEA who Lewis is. In his prime he was better than Vitali & Wladimir.

Boxing Writer wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:

conty22 wrote:Wladimir loses against Fury = Oh well boooo , Wladimir was past his prime and old !

Vitali strugled against past prime Lewis who was actualy in his worst shape = Why no one complains about that Lewis was old and past his prime? They keep say that Lewis was "lucky" , actualy it was Vitali who was lucky because he fought against past prime fat Lewis !

Even past prime fat Lewis was able to give hardest fight for Vitali , it shows how GOOD LEWIS WAS.

He would knock them both cold in his prime :)

I drew a parallel between Lewis and Fury recently, that was scoffed at in the British & Irish forums here recently.

Both men by age 27 had already been the British & Commonwealth champion, and became world heavyweight champions. Lewis won the WBC at age 27 against Tony Tucker. Fury won the lineal championship at 27. Lewis won the Commonweath by defeating Razor Ruddock at age 27. Fury won the Commonweath at age 23 and again at age 26. Lewis won the British title at age 26 and Fury won it at age 21. Lewis won the EBU at age 20, Fury won it at age 26. Very similar events.

Fury at age 27 versus Lewis at at 27, I think would have been a complete and total smash of a fight to watch. Most disagreed with me, by cutting Fury completely to ribbons saying that Lewis at age 27 was far and away superior and would have destroyed Fury. I think it is rather nostalgic to boost the abilities and strengths of fighters from earlier eras. Lewis, in my view, didn't become the man we all remember and considered great until defeating Holyfield. Fury, like Lewis, is a work in progress and we won't see his best years for quite some time (if he decides to stay in the business as long as Lewis did).

Lewis is ridiculously overrated nowdays. Sure, he was great fighter, top-10 HW in my opinion, but he was nowhere near as good as his fanboys pretend him to be, especially pre-Steward version.

Tell me one champion ... 38 years old , worst shape ever and he was able to beat HALL OF FAME fighter called Vitali Klitschko !

Mike Tyson (24) lost against average Douglas !

Even if Lennox was losing first two rounds badly against Vitali , since 3rd round Lewis started land those powerfull shots.

And we could see in six round that Lewis had it under control , he landed that uppercut and Vitali was just holding ..

conty22 wrote:

Boxing Writer wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:

I drew a parallel between Lewis and Fury recently, that was scoffed at in the British & Irish forums here recently.

Both men by age 27 had already been the British & Commonwealth champion, and became world heavyweight champions. Lewis won the WBC at age 27 against Tony Tucker. Fury won the lineal championship at 27. Lewis won the Commonweath by defeating Razor Ruddock at age 27. Fury won the Commonweath at age 23 and again at age 26. Lewis won the British title at age 26 and Fury won it at age 21. Lewis won the EBU at age 20, Fury won it at age 26. Very similar events.

Fury at age 27 versus Lewis at at 27, I think would have been a complete and total smash of a fight to watch. Most disagreed with me, by cutting Fury completely to ribbons saying that Lewis at age 27 was far and away superior and would have destroyed Fury. I think it is rather nostalgic to boost the abilities and strengths of fighters from earlier eras. Lewis, in my view, didn't become the man we all remember and considered great until defeating Holyfield. Fury, like Lewis, is a work in progress and we won't see his best years for quite some time (if he decides to stay in the business as long as Lewis did).

Lewis is ridiculously overrated nowdays. Sure, he was great fighter, top-10 HW in my opinion, but he was nowhere near as good as his fanboys pretend him to be, especially pre-Steward version.

He is pretty underrated , many casual fans have no IDEA who Lewis is. In his prime he was better than Vitali & Wladimir.

But MUCH worse than Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis and Larry Holmes.

Boxing Writer wrote:

conty22 wrote:

Boxing Writer wrote:
Lewis is ridiculously overrated nowdays. Sure, he was great fighter, top-10 HW in my opinion, but he was nowhere near as good as his fanboys pretend him to be, especially pre-Steward version.

He is pretty underrated , many casual fans have no IDEA who Lewis is. In his prime he was better than Vitali & Wladimir.

But MUCH worse than Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis and Larry Holmes.

I disagree. There's not a single heavyweight of all time that Lennox is "much worse" than. Nor moderately worse. There is scarcely a heavyweight in history that Lennox is mildly worse than. Pound-for-pound, Lennox might be mild to moderately worse than Sugar Ray Leonard.

Douglas wasn't average. He an excellent fighter when he was focused. He just lacked motivation to stay in shape.

1. Golota quit vs grant
2. Wladimir is an ATG and there is no shame in losing after 10 years vs a excellent boxer
3. Tyson lost to mcbride, Douglas , Danny Williams
4. Tyson and Holyfield were way past their peak when Lewis beat them
5. Wladimir beats All HW today except fury

Ps Lewis >> wladimir most likely

But Lewis also had shocking defences mostly vs midgets

I always thought Vitali was the best Klitschko and way more exciting to watch of the two mummy's. I still consider Vitali undefeated since he was well in control and up on the cards in both fights stopped due to injury. But quitting on his stool against Byrd for a rotator cuff injury is a little on the puss side of things.

I think its a certain type of boxing fan, not just Klitschko fans.

Buster Douglas sudenly becomes this 'all time great unbeatable on his best night' type of fighter when explaining away Tysons loss.
'I still consider Vitali unbeaten'

Ridiculous

caldo2025 wrote:I always thought Vitali was the best Klitschko and way more exciting to watch of the two mummy's. I still consider Vitali undefeated since he was well in control and up on the cards in both fights stopped due to injury. But quitting on his stool against Byrd for a rotator cuff injury is a little on the puss side of things.

I think it was noted later that vitalis shoulder was a few more bumps away from permanent injury that would have ended his career. Can u really expect a man to jeopardise his helath and career and fight on with one arm in such a situation?

- What grade are you in Conty?

Nevermind, you fit in well on this board. When you grow up, maybe you'll understand why both Vitali and Wlad have better records than Lewis.

conty22 wrote:Wladimir loses against Fury = Oh well boooo , Wladimir was past his prime and old !

Vitali strugled against past prime Lewis who was actualy in his worst shape = Why no one complains about that Lewis was old and past his prime? They keep say that Lewis was "lucky" , actualy it was Vitali who was lucky because he fought against past prime fat Lewis !

Even past prime fat Lewis was able to give hardest fight for Vitali , it shows how GOOD LEWIS WAS.

He would knock them both cold in his prime :)

Klitschko haters' logic:

Wlad sucks because he lost at 39 after nearly a decade as champion, despite the fact that nearly every great fighter in history lost much younger, much worse, and much earlier in their title reign.

Vitali sucks because, after taking the fight on two weeks notice, he lost on cuts in a fight he was winning to a "way over the hill" Lewis. Despite the fact that one fight ago, after beating Tyson, Lewis was labeled by many as the best he had ever been.

fanman wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:I always thought Vitali was the best Klitschko and way more exciting to watch of the two mummy's. I still consider Vitali undefeated since he was well in control and up on the cards in both fights stopped due to injury. But quitting on his stool against Byrd for a rotator cuff injury is a little on the puss side of things.

I think it was noted later that vitalis shoulder was a few more bumps away from permanent injury that would have ended his career. Can u really expect a man to jeopardise his helath and career and fight on with one arm in such a situation?

I think that Larry Merchant said it best: After Klitschko quit, HBO commentator Larry Merchant said, "He doesn’t have the mentality of a champion. I can hardly believe what I just saw."

Of course, Vitali's camp is going to come out and claim that he was one bump away having the whole arm amputated DD after quitting like that on national TV. The boxing world was done with him until he won them back in the Lewis fight. His eye was hanging off his face in that fight and he wanted to keep fighting. He proved us wrong in that fight.