Peak Ali vs Peak Vitali Klitschko

RiseToTheTop · 17-02-2012 1:24pm

There is never 5.5 inches difference between Ali and Vitali.

walshb · 17-02-2012 1:31pm

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

There is never 5.5 inches difference between Ali and Vitali.

I agree.

sxt · 23-02-2012 2:47am

Someone said it on a different thread .There are some people that are talking about the Klits that could not tell the difference between the brothers !

sxt · 23-02-2012 2:50am

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

There is never 5.5 inches difference between Ali and Vitali.

Yeah just 5 inches of height , 30 ilbs of muscle , someone much stronger , more powerful , with much better boxing technique, and oh, a brilliant chin!

RiseToTheTop · 23-02-2012 2:28pm

Where do you come up with all these "better boxing technique" crap???

5 inches of height??? Jesus ****ing Christ.

walshb · 23-02-2012 2:41pm

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

Where do you come up with all these "better boxing technique" crap???
.

Agree

That to me is odd. I don't get it. I have watched men today, and watched the heavies from the 70s? Where is this better technique?

And, even with the Klits, where is it?

Massive size with talent to use that size. Ok, I agree here, but where is the better technique?

Oh, and not just "better technique," "much better technique." What??

cowzerp · 23-02-2012 2:48pm

walshb wrote: »

Agree

That to me is odd. I don't get it. I have watched men today, and watched the heavies from the 70s? Where is this better technique?

And, even with the Klits, where is it?

Massive size with talent to use that size. Ok, I agree here, but where is the better technique?

Oh, and not just "better technique," "much better technique." What??

I think he is talking about doing the basics right, Vitali certainly does the simple stuff better than George did-George is more of a brawler and if he was not such a monster would not win much at all

As you know George is 1 of my favourite fighters ever, but technician he was not, 2nd part of his career he was more so.

walshb · 23-02-2012 2:55pm

cowzerp wrote: »

I think he is talking about doing the basics right, Vitali certainly does the simple stuff better than George did-George is more of a brawler and if he was not such a monster would not win much at all

As you know George is 1 of my favourite fighters ever, but technician he was not, 2nd part of his career he was more so.

But I think he's applying it across the board. To the whole lot. Yes, one could pick out a man here and there in either era and say this.

BTW, I believe his reference was in relation to Ali and Klit. No way, no way. Technique is subjective. I would pick Ali as a far better technician in every sense, and a better athlete too in comparison to the Klits.

The Klits are quite stiff and robotic in their approach, position and movement. Formean to me looks a lot looser and fluid; and as for technique, what is this "much better" reference. Overall, George's boxing technique is as good as any man today at HW. Prime Foreman and past it Foreman.

Reread his post #55: Yes, he is saying that the Klits have a "much better" boxing technique than Muhammad Ali. I don't know. I'm flummoxed!

cowzerp · 23-02-2012 3:09pm

Only way i can see him meaning that and possibly agree is if he is looking at it from an olympic Boxing boxing point of view, On computers then Vitali would be more suited.

In Pro Boxing i would disagree but they where both elite at using their physical attributes.

sxt · 25-02-2012 1:16am

walshb wrote: »

But I think he's applying it across the board. To the whole lot. Yes, one could pick out a man here and there in either era and say this.

BTW, I believe his reference was in relation to Ali and Klit. No way, no way. Technique is subjective. I would pick Ali as a far better technician in every sense, and a better athlete too in comparison to the Klits.

The Klits are quite stiff and robotic in their approach, position and movement. Formean to me looks a lot looser and fluid; and as for technique, what is this "much better" reference. Overall, George's boxing technique is as good as any man today at HW. Prime Foreman and past it Foreman.

Reread his post #55: Yes, he is saying that the Klits have a "much better" boxing technique than Muhammad Ali. I don't know. I'm flummoxed!

The ability to control and dominate, every opponent you ever fight , not get hit often , rarely loose rounds ever , and systematically breaking down and easily stopping nearly every boxer you face with clinical and accurate punches, involves having a pretty good boxing technique

The technique of boxers from the 70's are alot different to the klits , alot of the fighters back then were brawlers , or just slug it out to the end fighters

The klits could slug it out but it leaves the result somewhat up in the air...

Ali vs Foreman or frazier could have gone either way

kryogen · 25-02-2012 10:29am

I think the match up for Ali is unfavoruable so give this to Vitali.

Someone mentioned his height, its pretty clear if you have watched the Klitschko brothers a lot, or seen them together a few times that Vitali is about 3 inches taller. It really is clear as day, at the Haye fight Vitali was standing behind Wlad and was visibly taller for anyone who needs a fresh memory of them?

Ali didnt hit hard enough to trouble Vitali in my book, Vitali has a great defense and a great chin. Just can't see how Ali wins the fight (of course you would never rule him out completely cause its Ali).

Boxing is all about styles, who matches up well with who etc, and for me, Vitali matches up well against Ali. someone mentioned Vitali's peak being 25-29 years of age? I think thats a little bit on the young side, the experience he gained etc made him a better boxer at 31-35 ish then when he was younger.

He is so hard to beat, just cant see how Ali wins.

This Lewis fight irritates me, a bad cut can happen to anyone, absolutely anyone when fighting a guy with the kind of Power Lewis had. Vitali was 2 rounds up in the fight and Lewis was fading fast in that fight, in another couple of rounds without the cut I think Vitali puts Lewis down.

Prime Lewis could have been a different story, but there was clearly one dominant fighter in that fight and it wasnt the winner.

walshb · 25-02-2012 3:29pm

kryogen wrote: »

IPrime Lewis could have been a different story, but there was clearly one dominant fighter in that fight and it wasnt the winner.

That is far too generous. I had Vitali ahead by a rd, possibly two rds. The judges had it by 2 points. No way was he dominating. Lewis was well in that fight, and the exchanges were tough, heavy and ebb and flow!

Vitali was doing very well, and deserved to be ahead, but you could not say he was dominanting Lewis.

cowzerp · 25-02-2012 3:58pm

walshb wrote: »

That is far too generous. I had Vitali ahead by a rd, possibly two rds. The judges had it by 2 points. No way was he dominating. Lewis was well in that fight, and the exchanges were tough, heavy and ebb and flow!

Vitali was doing very well, and deserved to be ahead, but you could not say he was dominanting Lewis.

2 rounds up at least-the judges if anything would have been more in favour of the more local fighter, Vitali was out skilling and out fighting Lewis and Lewis to me was better With age than in his younger years where Vitali would have easily beat him, like the time Bruno was dominating him till his weak chin got caught

walshb · 25-02-2012 4:16pm

cowzerp wrote: »

2 rounds up at least-the judges if anything would have been more in favour of the more local fighter, Vitali was out skilling and out fighting Lewis and Lewis to me was better With age than in his younger years where Vitali would have easily beat him, like the time Bruno was dominating him till his weak chin got caught

Better with age, possibly, but not aged 38. It's as plain as the nose on your face that the Lewis who fought Vitali was not as fast, fit or as good as the one from the mid to late 90s. It's clear, yet he still beat Vitali, and held his own quite well.

And, how would Vitali easily beats Lewis from say 1991 or 1992 or 1993? How? What from Vitali's record would suggest that.

Show me a dominant Vitali performance against an opponent remotely as big and talented as a 1991 or 1992 or 1993 Lennox Lewis?

cowzerp · 25-02-2012 4:27pm

walshb wrote: »

And, how would Vitali easily beats Lewis from say 1991 or 1992 or 1993? How? What from Vitali's record would suggest that.

Show me a dominant Vitali performance against an opponent remotely as big and talented as a 1991 or 1992 or 1993 Lennox Lewis?

Easily, Lewis back then was like a really poor version of Vitali, and 10 times more negative too,Vitali had more power and was a better boxer with a better chin.

Lewis looks better than he is due to beating 2 washed up legends in Tyson and Holyfield

walshb · 25-02-2012 4:40pm

cowzerp wrote: »

Easily, Lewis back then was like a really poor version of Vitali, and 10 times more negative too,he had more power and was a better boxer with a better chin.

Lewis looks better than he is due to beating 2 washed up legends in Tyson and Holyfield

I really dispute the claim that Vitali had more power at any point in either man's career. Lewis was two things back then, clearly faster, and certainly fitter. Two key components that lacked when he met, and beat Vitali in the nougties. Also, I don't see Vitali knocking out Lewis. It too hail maty shots to do this to Lewis. Vtali never commited to those types of shots.

cowzerp · 25-02-2012 6:35pm

I don't believe Lewis was any better at any stage of his career than his last fight, he tired because he was been bashed, most people don't tire when dominating fights, this was a dogged fight and both where working very hard, mostly with Vitali on top, and Lewis fading, he only retired as he knew Vitali had him beat and that was after promising a rematch.

Lewis was at his best in his last few years, I'm sure of this, he was very average in the younger years.

walshb · 25-02-2012 6:51pm

cowzerp wrote: »

I don't believe Lewis was any better at any stage of his career than his last fight.

Well, that is you view, one I think that would be really in the minortiy. The vast majority of fight fans I believe would argue that Lenox Lewis when he fought Vitali was not near his best. He was 38 at that time, having been in many fights, some quite tough ones too. I would also add that I reckon many who rate Vitali better would also conceded that Lewis at 38 wasn't near his best.

RiseToTheTop · 25-02-2012 8:33pm

Holyfield wasn't past it when he met Lewis, he had just come off 2 superb performances off a (past prime, but still good) Mike Tyson.

Lewis beat Tua too, not an easy fight by any stretch.

Lewis is out and out the biggest fighter who Vitali ever faced, and will ever face.

tryingmybestt · 25-02-2012 9:09pm

The results are in:

The winner is ALI !

cowzerp · 25-02-2012 9:35pm

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

Holyfield wasn't past it when he met Lewis, he had just come off 2 superb performances off a (past prime, but still good) mike Tyson .

both Tyson and Holyfield where finished, just because Holyfield kept going does not mean he was not past it, Holyfield was banned for having a dodgy heart before that, god fixed it :rolleyes:

RiseToTheTop · 25-02-2012 9:36pm

Different doctors have different opinions.

Do you have evidence that Holyfield was finished?

walshb · 25-02-2012 9:36pm

If Holyfield was past it when he met Lewis, then Lewis was past it when he met Vitali.

I believe Holyfield was past it when he met Lewis.

BTW, there is IMO a difference between being past it and being finished.

Ali in 1976 was past it. In 1980 he was finished, to use one example.

Holyfield when he met lewis was past it, he was not finished.

plasmaguy · 26-02-2012 12:50am

This is a no brainer for me.

Ali would win, easily enough.

He was one of the fastest if not the fastest Heavyweight of all time, yet still had an imposing physique, a solid Jab, and knockout power, and he fought some massive men not far off the size of the Klitchkos. Their size might save them for a round or two longer, but that's it. Once he got into his rhythm, Ali was pretty much unbeatable, and that was in a very tough and competitive era of boxing, compared to today.

The Klitchskos are slow and fairly useless in close. Ali would have the speed, experience and skill to take care of them. They wouldn't last to the 8th round.

As for hitting power, I reckon Foreman and Earnie Shavers probably hit harder than the Klitschkos, in fact I'm certain of it.

kryogen · 26-02-2012 1:09am

Whatever side you come down on, there is no way in hell you can say Ali would win this easily. Nobody would out point or knock out Vitali Klitschko easily.

walshb · 26-02-2012 10:47am

kryogen wrote: »

Whatever side you come down on, there is no way in hell you can say Ali would win this easily. Nobody would out point or knock out Vitali Klitschko easily.

I wouldn't say easily either, but the best Ali from the 60s would find that rhythm and would figure Vit out. He has too much hand and foot speed combined. I see a clear UD. Not easy, but folks left in no doubt who won.

plasmaguy · 26-02-2012 10:02pm

Vitali - bigger, stronger, but less mobile, poor close in like a lot of big fighters. Fights the same fight pretty much every fight regardless of opponent. World Champ by default in an uncompetitive era.

Ali - Devastating handspeed and combinations which Klitchscho more than likely would have no defence against. Quicker and more mobile around the ring, almost impossible to corner or pin down. Able to take severe punishment as well. Enormous stamina and fitness. Fought in an era of incredibly hard men who hit as hard as Vitali, could take more punishment than Vitali, and were more skillful than Vitali.

I don't think Klitchscho would have ranked in the top 10 in the 1970s.

kryogen · 28-02-2012 2:19am

It would be my opinion that you underrate Vitali in that case

Dohnny Jepp · 28-02-2012 5:31pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

could take more punishment than Vitali, and were more skillful than Vitali.

I don't think Klitchscho would have ranked in the top 10 in the 1970s.

Who could take more punishment?

Which 10 would be keeping him out of the top 10?

RiseToTheTop · 28-02-2012 6:12pm

You could make a legit claim for Vitali maybe not being in the top 5 in the 70's (Ali, Frazier, Holmes, Norton, Shavers, Foreman, Lyle) but the top 10??

walshb · 28-02-2012 6:51pm

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

You could make a legit claim for Vitali maybe not being in the top 5 in the 70's (Ali, Frazier, Holmes, Norton, Shavers, Foreman, Lyle) but the top 10??

Vit beats Lyle and Norton most times. Apart from Ali, Holmes and Foreman, Klit is a big threat across the board, and a threat to these too. I pick all three to beat Klit most times.

RiseToTheTop · 28-02-2012 7:23pm

I wonder if Vitali could take a punch from Shavers though.

walshb · 28-02-2012 7:31pm

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

I wonder if Vitali could take a punch from Shavers though.

Never know really, but I think Shavers may struggle to land a clean and flush punch anyway. Shavers and Norton are just not rounded enough or chinny enough to beat Klit, not that Klit will KO them, but he has that capability, and with this in mind, and the size difference, I think Vitali beats them almost all the time.

RiseToTheTop · 28-02-2012 9:22pm

Can I ask this question:

People say Vitali will go down as an ATG, just below 50% of below believe he would beat George Foreman, 33% of people in a poll believe he would beat Ali.

But what is your evidence? His biggest, out and out, fight was against a faded, 38 year old overweight Lennox Lewis. I'm not discussing him not getting the win against Lewis. But lets say he did for this post. Lennox was still not the man he once was and he was still faded, overweight and 38 years old.

The rest of Vitali's resume is IMO below average. Apart from Lewis, (who was 38) he didn't once fight an other fighter who could be an ATG. Also, before Lewis, when he had a record of 32-1, he didn't fight 1 of the best fighters of the late 80's/90's who career were coming to an end. (Tyson, Holyfield.) Or top 5 fighters (Tua, Hasim Rahman). That would suggest his 32-1 record wasn't what you'd think it would be.

After Lewis, he fought Kirk Johnson, Corrie Sanders and Danny Wiliams before he had to leave the sport. His last 3 fights (Chisora, Adamek, Solis) have arguably (bar Lewis) been the most high profile and best of his entire career. The only other good fighter, IMO, who he faced since his comeback has been Chris Arreola. (who, not Vitali's fault, was overweight and very overweight, visually looked far from class opposition on the night.)

Vitali may look world class, he may look like the ATG's did when fightning, but only against the opposition he has faced. Foreman (based on his prime) knocked out Frazier, Norton, Ron Lyle, George Chuvalo, all good opposition. (well he obliterated Frazier and Norton.)

I can't see how many people would think he'd beat a prime Ali or prime George Foreman. Ali's resume (Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Shavers, Lyle, etc) and Foreman's resume (best fighters above) are much, much, much better than Vitali's IMO, league's ahead, and I doubt you can find a person who'd agree otherwise. That is why I am so reluctant to put Vitali up there. He is very, very unproven as an ATG in my eyes.

walshb · 28-02-2012 10:11pm

I would have to agree that Vitali's victims are just not at all that good, and no, nothing to do with them being known, OR Klit being too good. They are just not good. I mean, any top HW of the 80s would destroy them. Tubbs, Thomas, Berbick, Whiterspoon, Biggs, Tucker, Douglas, Smith, and even Bruno and Mason would IMO be too much. Dokes as well, and Weaver.

The 70s best of Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, Lysle would also be fat too good for any of Vit's victims.

Two thing here: And folks need to be honest. I think Vitali wouldpose big problems all the time for any champ in history. That I do believe, but as far as who he has beaten, I think it's ranks quite low. His biggest name, he lost.

Next biggest name to Lewis on Vitali's record? Does anyone know, or even care? How could you select from the list there is?

walshb · 28-02-2012 10:11pm

I would have to agree that Vitali's victims are just not at all that good, and no, nothing to do with them being not known, OR Klit being too good. They are just not good. I mean, any top HW of the 80s would destroy them. Tubbs, Thomas, Berbick, Whiterspoon, Biggs, Tucker, Douglas, Smith, and even Bruno and Mason would IMO be too much. Dokes as well, and Weaver.

The 70s best of Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Holmes, Quarry, Lyle etc would also be far too good for any of Vit's victims. Unless we take into account their superior technique;)

Two thing here: And folks need to be honest. I think Vitali would pose big problems all the time for any champ in history. That I do believe, but as far as who he has beaten, I think it ranks quite low. His biggest name, he lost.

Next biggest name to Lewis on Vitali's record? Does anyone know, or even care? How could you select from the list there is?

kryogen · 29-02-2012 12:23am

You can't really use the fact that there is nobody to oppose him or challenge him sufficiently in the HW division as a stick to beat him, its not his fault like!

The evidence of his ability is clear for all to see, as long as you are watching with a little bit of knowledge!

He easily makes the top 10 all time.

Where he lands in the top 10 list is up for debate, no interest in that right now though!

He would pose a problem for anybody in the history of the sport. I'm not saying he would definitely beat anybody who has ever laced up a pair of gloves, but he would certainly pose a threat to anyone.

cowzerp · 29-02-2012 1:35am

walshb wrote: »

I would have to agree that Vitali's victims are just not at all that good, and no, nothing to do with them being known, OR Klit being too good. They are just not good. I mean, any top HW of the 80s would destroy them. Tubbs, Thomas, Berbick, Whiterspoon, Biggs, Tucker, Douglas, Smith, and even Bruno and Mason would IMO be too much. Dokes as well, and Weaver.

Bren all these lads are bums, their not good fighters and never where.

walshb · 29-02-2012 12:58pm

kryogen wrote: »

You can't really use the fact that there is nobody to oppose him or challenge him sufficiently in the HW division as a stick to beat him, its not his fault like!

The evidence of his ability is clear for all to see, as long as you are watching with a little bit of knowledge!

He easily makes the top 10 all time.

Where he lands in the top 10 list is up for debate, no interest in that right now though!

He would pose a problem for anybody in the history of the sport. I'm not saying he would definitely beat anybody who has ever laced up a pair of gloves, but he would certainly pose a threat to anyone.

Yes, this is what I am saying. He has the talent and size. Not his fault that his foes are quite poor. He has the ability to be competitive in any era. Does not mean he has to be top ten? You say easily?

He is just outside mine, and to get into mine he would most likely have to get in ahead of a Lennox Lewis. I just cannot do that, no way.

walshb · 29-02-2012 1:00pm

cowzerp wrote: »

Bren all these lads are bums, their not good fighters and never where.

Well, what does that make Chisora, Williams, Adamek, Johnson, Haye, Peter etc? Because in my view the Tucker's and Biggs and Pinky's and Bruno's and Mason's and Berbick's and Dokes etc eat theses guys alive, as do Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Norton, Quarry, Ali, Lyle and some other 70s men. Plain and simple, the talent pool today and in recent Klit times is just quite poor. I reiterate, not Klit's fault. He to me is a man who would be competitive at any time in history.

cowzerp · 29-02-2012 1:40pm

walshb wrote: »

Well, what does that make Chisora, Williams, Adamek, Johnson, Haye, Peter etc? Because in my view the Tucker's and Biggs and Pinky's and Bruno's and Mason's and Berbick's and Dokes etc eat theses guys alive,.

They don't though! I disagree and there is no reason to believe otherwise, chisora and Williams where British level anyway and Williams was ages ago after beating Tyson, ie a good name at the time to fight, chisora was a weak fight but his performance v helenius gave him credence, adamek Peter Johnson would sit right in with the other lads making up the numbers.

The fact you know them far better than you know today's crop is blinding you-most of them are better known for been victims of Tyson, if Vitali was around they would have been his victims and probably unknown.

walshb · 29-02-2012 2:11pm

cowzerp wrote: »

They don't though! I disagree and there is no reason to believe otherwise, chisora and Williams where British level anyway and Williams was ages ago after beating Tyson, ie a good name at the time to fight, chisora was a weak fight but his performance v helenius gave him credence, adamek Peter Johnson would sit right in with the other lads making up the numbers.

The fact you know them far better than you know today's crop is blinding you-most of them are better known for been victims of Tyson, if Vitali was around they would have been his victims and probably unknown.

Yes, Vitali may well have beaten them. That is not my point. My point is that they would be better opposition for him than what he has beaten and met, apart from Lewis. Clearly better. And they weren't just known because Tyson beat them. They were world class HW fighters. Tucker and Smith were known, and were much better than what Vitali has beaten. Dokes, for example, when he met and lost to Holyfield in a terrfic fight, he was past his best days, but still better then than the names on Vitali's record. The 80s crop to me were clearly superior to anything today. That view has NOTHING to do with where they're from, their colour, popularity etc, it is a view I have based on looking at them perform inside the squared circle.

Carl Williams took Holmes the full distance. 6 feet 4 inches and put on a very good show vs. Holmes. Tyson whacked him in one rd. Williams to me is a whole lot better than Chisora, Adamek, fat Solis, Johnson etc.

I have said it many times, Vitali has the talent and size to be competitve in any era. The separate discussion is who he has beaten. It makes for poor reading. One of the poorest of all the HW greats.

Do you believe Adamek, Kirk Johnson and Sam Peter would be able to possibly beat Tucker, Berbick, Tubbs, Thomas, Dokes, Whiterspoon, Biggs, and even Bruno AND a 1988 Holmes? I don't think they have any real hope. They are simply not good enough. Cooney and Spinks too I'd add in as too good for the names you mention.

Klit? Yes, I would give him a very good chance at beating any. That, again, is a separate issue.

cowzerp · 29-02-2012 2:18pm

Bren its like beating a dead horse!!
They where not world class, they where ok just like today's bunch-just because you say they where does not make it so, they where not up to much and world class is pushing it way too far, some of the 70's challengers where world class no doubt.

Tysons challengers where not great in any time, till he started losing that is, Holyfield, Lewis I mean.

Douglas was more or less just above journey man.

walshb · 29-02-2012 2:24pm

cowzerp wrote: »

Bren its like beating a dead horse!!
They where not world class, they where ok just like today's bunch-just because you say they where does not make it so, they where not up to much and world class is pushing it way too far, some of the 70's challengers where world class no doubt.

Tysons challengers where not great in any time, till he started losing that is, Holyfield, Lewis I mean.

Douglas was more or less just above journey man.

Well, they were world class according to the era. In your view they didn't look great, but they were for that time world class, just as the lads today are world class for today. No?

Douglas was no journeyman. Williams was the number one ranked challenger when Tyson fought him.

The best of the 80s are better by far than the best of today, and recent years. To me. But, you are right, it is a dead horse.

cowzerp · 29-02-2012 2:46pm

walshb wrote: »

Well, they were world class according to the era. In your view they didn't look great, but they were for that time world class, just as the lads today are world class for today. No?

Douglas was no journeyman. Williams was the number one ranked challenger when Tyson fought him.

The best of the 80s are better by far than the best of today, and recent years. To me. But, you are right, it is a dead horse.

So then their all world class then!

Douglas was massive under dog in the bookies and drew against Phil brown 7-20-0 and lost to David jaco a complete journey man
Morrison and Lewis both knocked him out.

Bonecrusher smith had lost 5 before Tyson and even Marcos Frazier beat him! And his next 3 fights he lost 2 and drew 1 so was not great by any means

Tucker Had beat about 30 nobodies then beat Douglas and got a shot at Tyson, he had 1 average fight before Tyson.

This is all factual and none at the time or after where world class.
And by that I mean actually world class. Ranked maybe but in weak era riddled with don king easy matches etc

walshb · 29-02-2012 2:54pm

Yes, both the 80s men and todays men were world class for their eras. I will back the 80s men all the time vs. the men today and from recent years.

Like it or not, Tucker and Thomas etc were the best around in the mid 80s. Just like Chisora and Adamek and Helenius and Povetkin are the best today.

walshb · 29-02-2012 3:00pm

cowzerp wrote: »

Tucker Had beat about 30 nobodies then beat Douglas and got a shot at Tyson, he had 1 average fight before Tyson.

Tucker didn't "get a shot" at Tyson. It was for the unified belt. Tucker was the IBF Heavyweight Champion Of The World, Spinks having been stripped of this belt.

As for the nobodies TNT beat, Who did Adamek, Johnson or Chisora ever beat to get to Klit?

RiseToTheTop · 29-02-2012 3:12pm

kryogen wrote: »

You can't really use the fact that there is nobody to oppose him or challenge him sufficiently in the HW division as a stick to beat him, its not his fault like!

The evidence of his ability is clear for all to see, as long as you are watching with a little bit of knowledge!

He easily makes the top 10 all time.

Where he lands in the top 10 list is up for debate, no interest in that right now though!

He would pose a problem for anybody in the history of the sport. I'm not saying he would definitely beat anybody who has ever laced up a pair of gloves, but he would certainly pose a threat to anyone.

How can you say this when he hasn't proved himself against top class opposition? The era is very poor, and he has been the best, but it doesn't "easily" make him top 10 of all time IMO.

Unless you count this era as one of the best???

cowzerp · 29-02-2012 3:34pm

walshb wrote: »

Yes, both the 80s men and todays men were world class for their eras. I will back the 80s men all the time vs. the men today and from recent years.

Like it or not, Tucker and Thomas etc were the best around in the mid 80s. Just like Chisora and Adamek and Helenius and Povetkin are the best today.

And i will lump them all in as not good enough to be the best, you have no basis for rating them better and i do have basis for not rating them any better, If anything todays challengers have better records to go by than the lads you mentioned who some have poor records.

Simple truth is that yopu rate this bunch for no reason at all because it's apparent they where not great Boxers.

walshb wrote: »

Tucker didn't "get a shot" at Tyson. It was for the unified belt. Tucker was the IBF Heavyweight Champion Of The World, Spinks having been stripped of this belt.

As for the nobodies TNT beat, Who did Adamek, Johnson or Chisora ever beat to get to Klit?

He did get the Shot! whatever way you spin it-Tucker was a nobody who beat nobody, and the 1 who you may say he beat was nothing either in Douglas.

I'm not saying the challengers now are great, you're making out that Tysons opponents where when i am after putting facts up to dispute this, they where average fighters and would be the same as Adamek etc if they where around now

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

How can you say this when he hasn't proved himself against top class opposition? The era is very poor, and he has been the best, but it doesn't "easily" make him top 10 of all time IMO.

Ok so Tyson and Marciano are out too in that case.

RiseToTheTop · 29-02-2012 9:30pm

Tyson? He KO'd his opponents in spectacular fashion. That is why Tyson looked so impressive.

Meanwhile Vitali just jabs, jabs, right hand. He KO's late. Caution first, entertainment second.

Plus when Tyson got to the champ, in Berbick, he beat him away in 2 rounds, Vitali lost to a faded Lewis. Also, Tyson was 26-0 when he got the title, Vitali was 33-2. (plus much older.)

Tyson KO'd Spinks; an Olympic Gold medallist, first LHW to ever win HW title, ended Larry Holmes unbeaten run, in 90 seconds. All of this before he turned 22. Vitali didn't accomplish feats anywhere this and he is 40. He is mainly knows for losing to Lewis and beating sub-par opposition, late on and very boringly, in subsequent years.

(I agree with you on Marciano, his opponents records were bad for most of his career.)

Peak Ali vs Peak Vitali Klitschko

Comments