Lewis or Vitali?

I was reading another post there by onetwoforever about Lewis being an all time great he makes a very good point about the fight with Vitali. Not many people knew how good Vitali was when Lewis fought him and Lwis was expected to win easily beacuase he was a class above. So Lewis got very little credit for winning the fight even though he smashed Vitali up completely no other heavyweight has come close to doing that. Vitali became a great champ afte rLewis retired and now people know how good he was so Lewis should get more credit for that win. Imo Lewis is the second best of all time only Ali is better but some people do not have Lewis number 2 so maybe he desrves higher from those people for beating Vitali he was also at his worst that night and not in peak condition he had to take the fight at very short notice so the win showed his class to be able to beat a guy like Vitali when he was at his worst.

But I was shocked to see people that think Vitali would have won that fight if it had not been stopped did you see the guys face?? He was getting completely smashed up he was very lucky the ref stopped it or Lewis would have knocked him out he was coming on much stronger than Vitali who was starting to struggle.

The ref was spot on to stop that fight those cuts were the worst I have seen Vitalis career could have been over if it was stopped but imagine the fight was not stopped who do people think would have won? Me? I reckon Lewis would have knocked him out soon after he was coming on strong and catching Vitali with to many big shots the guy needed 60 stitches this shows how badly he was getting smashed.

Can we all please saying Lewis took the fight at short notice, by definition if Lewis took it at short notice so did Vitali so cannot be used to either excuse or heap additional praise on the performance of either guy.

I think if they fought LEwis would win by TKO, oh wait...

Lewis, (the worst version of him) smashed the best version of Vitali so hard he got stopped. This is fact, doesn't matter that Vitali gave a good account of himself. This argument is redundant.

Lewis by KO for me, by a straight right or uppercut.

Seanusarrilius wrote:I think if they fought LEwis would win by TKO, oh wait...

Lewis, (the worst version of him) smashed the best version of Vitali so hard he got stopped. This is fact, doesn't matter that Vitali gave a good account of himself. This argument is redundant.

Sot on mate but some people think Vitali would have won this fight if it went on this is why I am asking the question.

it was a good excuse though jeff... he implied that his training was for a short podgy fella and ended up fighting andre the giant. Or, as i interpreted it 'I didn't train at all because kirk johnson was rubbish and made then made the mistake of fighting someone good as a replacement'

Having opened up the cuts, Lewis had no real need to try and win the fight on points, he was a smart fighter and knew that the fight would get stopped in his favour sooner rather than later.

I understand people debate it Waingro, just don't know why. When they imagine a LEwis v Vitali fight, do they do so when Lewis is almost forty and overweight? OR when he and Vitali were primed. Cos Lewis STOPPED HIM when he was forty and would have busted him up to a stoppage win in 8 when in his prime.

Don't hear about people banging on about Zaveck getting a Berto rematch, he looked pretty good up until Berto smashed his face to pieces too. Come to think of it Mitchell won the first two rounds before Katsidis broke him apart.

milkyboy wrote:it was a good excuse though jeff... he implied that his training was for a short podgy fella and ended up fighting andre the giant. Or, as i interpreted it 'I didn't train at all because kirk johnson was rubbish and made then made the mistake of fighting someone good as a replacement'

I've never said Vitali didn't get the same amount of prep time as Lewis but i have said if both were given a full camp knowing they were fighting we would have seen the same Vitali who fought out his skin, but we would have seen a better version of Lennox. And as Ghosty says the cut was terrible and was only a matter of time, Vitali knew this so went for it.

Without the cut, Vit would have won, probably by KO. As rowley correctly said (he is occassionally correct btw lol) Vit by definition had short notice to prepare for Lewis. Cant recall who he was supposed to fight but you can be certain it wasn't someone with the calibre Lewis and definately not as tall or rangey. On that night Vit was the better boxer.

Seanusarrilius wrote:I understand people debate it Waingro, just don't know why. When they imagine a LEwis v Vitali fight, do they do so when Lewis is almost forty and overweight? OR when he and Vitali were primed. Cos Lewis STOPPED HIM when he was forty and would have busted him up to a stoppage win in 8 when in his prime.

Don't hear about people banging on about Zaveck getting a Berto rematch, he looked pretty good up until Berto smashed his face to pieces too. Come to think of it Mitchell won the first two rounds before Katsidis broke him apart.

This is very true. People forget forget that Lewis was at his worst that night he said so himself. He was the heavyiest he had ever been and had not trained for fighting Vitali. If Lewis could smash him up like that when he was at his worst I do not know why people think Vitali would win or why there should have been a rematch? Vitali was very lucky there was no rematch Lewis would have got into much better shape and given him another beating.

Lewis hit hard, but he didn't stop all his opponents. Given that VK has never been knocked out, its pushing it to state that without the cut, he would definitely have gone on to ko vk. He might have done, but given he was blowing like a rent boy, its not inconceivable he could have been ko'd himself. If i was a betting man, i'd err to lewis going on to win the fight, but i wouldn't bet big on it.

Why do people seem to think Kirk Johnson was some kind of Hobbit? He was a genuine HW and, despite not being one of the greatest fighters ever to lace 'em up, he wasn't some pub brawler that they'd enticed into the ring with offers of a lifetime supply of pork scratchings. Yes, he has a different style to Vitali but as far as I'm aware, his gameplan would have worked along similar lines to Vitali (namely, using his fists to throw punches to head and body with a view to either outscoring Lewis or rendering him unable to continue). Not really THAT difficult for fighters to adapt is it?

Az says "on that night, Vit was the better boxer" Really? If he was the better boxer, he'd have been able to take full advantage of an overweight, lacksadaisical Lewis. As it was, he failed to dispatch his man unlike Rahman did in their first fight (and it's arguable that Lewis was just as unmotivated for that one). Also, if Vitali was the better boxer, why was he unable to get his head out of the way of Lewis's gloves or was his plan to allow Lewis to cut him so badly the fight would be stopped thus making Vitali the moral (but not the ACTUAL) winner?

The multitude of excuses I hear about Lewis is insane. Why is it that everytime he has a bad performance or gets KTFO there's an excuse. Underprepared against Rahman and lucky punch. Ditto McCall or the ref stopped it too early. Underprepared against Vit.

Rahman aimed and threw the punch which landed and had the desired effect. Nothing lucky about that. Perhaps Rahman should have said he was over-confident in their rematch. Many would have barfed at that and rightfully so.

Against McCall same excuses. Punched with his eyes closed. What nonsense. Listen to the between round exchanges between Mc and Manny. McCall spotted a weakness. Said what he was going to do and did it. I also find it amazing how many people said Lewis gained revenge when McCall had a mental breakdown, probably before the fight for whatever reason. The man was a few trees short of a rainforest anyway.

And not Vit. Short notice excuse...forgetting that Vit also had short notice. Lewis has a weakness with a boxer with a good jab. See Bruno fight.

Had he won the fight Vitali could claim to be the better boxer seeing as he lost don't think you could argue that, there are instances when you have controversial decisions or stoppages but this was not one them.

azania wrote:The multitude of excuses I hear about Lewis is insane. Why is it that everytime he has a bad performance or gets KTFO there's an excuse. Underprepared against Rahman and lucky punch. Ditto McCall or the ref stopped it too early. Underprepared against Vit.

Rahman aimed and threw the punch which landed and had the desired effect. Nothing lucky about that. Perhaps Rahman should have said he was over-confident in their rematch. Many would have barfed at that and rightfully so.

Against McCall same excuses. Punched with his eyes closed. What nonsense. Listen to the between round exchanges between Mc and Manny. McCall spotted a weakness. Said what he was going to do and did it. I also find it amazing how many people said Lewis gained revenge when McCall had a mental breakdown, probably before the fight for whatever reason. The man was a few trees short of a rainforest anyway.

And not Vit. Short notice excuse...forgetting that Vit also had short notice. Lewis has a weakness with a boxer with a good jab. See Bruno fight.

Mate he knocked Bruno out Bruno was not in his class. Lewis started slowly in that fight but that was because he was not warmed up properly beforehand so it took him longer to get into his rythm but when he did he landed huge punches on Bruno who was out on his feet the ref had to stop it to save him from more punishment. I like Bruno but lets be honest he was not in the same class as Lewis who is an all time great.

azania wrote:Without the cut, Vit would have won, probably by KO. As rowley correctly said (he is occassionally correct btw lol) Vit by definition had short notice to prepare for Lewis. Cant recall who he was supposed to fight but you can be certain it wasn't someone with the calibre Lewis and definately not as tall or rangey. On that night Vit was the better boxer.

This short notice rubbbish, not like he was sitting on the sofa, he was training for an undercard fight! Idiotic to suggest he only worked half as hard in training, yeah boxers only do half the work unless they know they are fighting Lewis.

DAVE667 wrote: his gameplan would have worked along similar lines to Vitali (namely, using his fists to throw punches to head and body with a view to either outscoring Lewis or rendering him unable to continue).

no pulling the wool over your eyes dave... you've got this boxing lark sussed fella

See Bruno fight...the one where he ended up leaving Bruno sagging in Mickey Vann's arms? Sick of people listening to TRUSS's guff about Lewis being outjabbed by Bruno and believing it to be fact. How many of those jabs actually got though? Lewis catches a large percentage on his gloves.

Re McCall and his advice...doesn't detract from the fact that he threw the punch with his eyes closed.

Why is it when an aging overweight, unmotivated Lewis ends up cutting a man so badly he ends up to 50+ stitches in his face, there's an excuse? Lewis aimed and threw the punch which landed and had the desired effect...as did the mulititude of punches he subsequently threw which widen the cut, leading to the stoppage...but of course, Lewis gets no credit for this ability. Why is it when he finally stops messing around and stops both Rahman AND Bruno...he gets no credit? Makes ME wanna barf to be perfectly honest.

Let me please note: I am not defending LEwis losses, he lost, fair and square. But he beat Vitali . . . fair and square.

If you watched the fight you would see vitali was the better boxer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BH6LvUS__M

We also have to remember that even though Lewis was not in his prime neither was Klitschko. klitschko became an unstoppabe fighter just before he retired and when he came back from rtirement. In 2003 he was largely unknown and not in his prime.

DAVE667 wrote:See Bruno fight...the one where he ended up leaving Bruno sagging in Mickey Vann's arms? Sick of people listening to TRUSS's guff about Lewis being outjabbed by Bruno and believing it to be fact. How many of those jabs actually got though? Lewis catches a large percentage on his gloves.

Re McCall and his advice...doesn't detract from the fact that he threw the punch with his eyes closed.

Why is it when an aging overweight, unmotivated Lewis ends up cutting a man so badly he ends up to 50+ stitches in his face, there's an excuse? Lewis aimed and threw the punch which landed and had the desired effect...as did the mulititude of punches he subsequently threw which widen the cut, leading to the stoppage...but of course, Lewis gets no credit for this ability. Why is it when he finally stops messing around and stops both Rahman AND Bruno...he gets no credit? Makes ME wanna barf to be perfectly honest.

HERE HERE!

Don't test us boys, two of the old grumpy bbc 606ers are going to flatten all you 'what if' idiots

milkyboy wrote:

DAVE667 wrote: his gameplan would have worked along similar lines to Vitali (namely, using his fists to throw punches to head and body with a view to either outscoring Lewis or rendering him unable to continue).

no pulling the wool over your eyes dave... you've got this boxing lark sussed fella

To be honest Milky, I dunno why these other guys mess about in there. I see guys wearing waistcoats carrying snooker cues and I think, "That's not gonna work mate" Sometimes I think I may be watching the wrong channel but I've yet to receive conclusive proof of this

Seanusarrilius wrote:Let me please note: I am not defending LEwis losses, he lost, fair and square. But he beat Vitali . . . fair and square.

we're not debating who won the record says who won. We are debating who was the better fighter that night.

So he was in his prime immediately after the Lewis fight, convenient considering he lost but beating Danny Williams is the best measure for an unstoppable fighter. If you're not in your prime at 32 I very much doubt you're going to miraculously improve overnight.

If Vitali was the better boxer he wouldn't have lost, he wouldn't have let Lewis open up a huge cut and he wouldn't have let him subsequently work on it and make it worse would he?

DAVE667 wrote:Why do people seem to think Kirk Johnson was some kind of Hobbit? He was a genuine HW and, despite not being one of the greatest fighters ever to lace 'em up, he wasn't some pub brawler that they'd enticed into the ring with offers of a lifetime supply of pork scratchings. Yes, he has a different style to Vitali but as far as I'm aware, his gameplan would have worked along similar lines to Vitali (namely, using his fists to throw punches to head and body with a view to either outscoring Lewis or rendering him unable to continue). Not really THAT difficult for fighters to adapt is it?

Az says "on that night, Vit was the better boxer" Really? If he was the better boxer, he'd have been able to take full advantage of an overweight, lacksadaisical Lewis. As it was, he failed to dispatch his man unlike Rahman did in their first fight (and it's arguable that Lewis was just as unmotivated for that one). Also, if Vitali was the better boxer, why was he unable to get his head out of the way of Lewis's gloves or was his plan to allow Lewis to cut him so badly the fight would be stopped thus making Vitali the moral (but not the ACTUAL) winner?

So when a boxer gets cut its because the other guy is better than his is it? I remember Hatton being cut many times but the cuts weren't so bad to stop the fight. Getting cut is unfortunate. Un/lucky also. But making that cut worse takes skill. Lewis displayed enough skill to open up the cut further. Credit to him. But to say he was the better boxer because Vit was cut is far from the truth.

More excuses of lewis being lacksadaisical. What other adjective will be used? Lewis was up for the fight, getting outboxer and out punched until he got lucky.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So he was in his prime immediately after the Lewis fight, convenient considering he lost but beating Danny Williams is the best measure for an unstoppable fighter. If you're not in your prime at 32 I very much doubt you're going to miraculously improve overnight.

If Vitali was the better boxer he wouldn't have lost, he wouldn't have let Lewis open up a huge cut and he wouldn't have let him subsequently work on it and make it worse would he?

Ghosty, I'm gonna forgive you stealing my argument based on the fact that it's such a brilliant and compelling one, it should be repeated over and over until these ninny's stop blathering on about it being an unfair stoppage/lucky punch

Lucky as in throwing a punch that was meant to cause damage?

So Rahman and McCall weren't lucky but Lewis was, convenient contradiction as always.

Seanusarrilius wrote:

azania wrote:Without the cut, Vit would have won, probably by KO. As rowley correctly said (he is occassionally correct btw lol) Vit by definition had short notice to prepare for Lewis. Cant recall who he was supposed to fight but you can be certain it wasn't someone with the calibre Lewis and definately not as tall or rangey. On that night Vit was the better boxer.

This short notice rubbbish, not like he was sitting on the sofa, he was training for an undercard fight! Idiotic to suggest he only worked half as hard in training, yeah boxers only do half the work unless they know they are fighting Lewis.

And Lewis was preparing to defend his title on the same bill against another boxer. Both had short notice. Why does it penalise Lewis but not Vit. Its either it penalises both or none.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Lucky as in throwing a punch that was meant to cause damage?

So Rahman and McCall weren't lucky but Lewis was, convenient contradiction as always.

Did Lewis throw the punch with the intention of cutting him? If so, how come he didn't throw the same type of 'cutting' punch on all other opponents? He must be the only boxer in history who thrown punches to deliberately cut an opponent. He threw the punch (not lucky that it landed). The luck was that the punch caused a huge cut.

No contradiction whatsoever. They both threw KO poiwer punches. McCall said what he was going to do between rounds.

Dave, would appear some fail to understand context so need constant reminders of reality.

DAVE667 wrote:See Bruno fight...the one where he ended up leaving Bruno sagging in Mickey Vann's arms? Sick of people listening to TRUSS's guff about Lewis being outjabbed by Bruno and believing it to be fact. How many of those jabs actually got though? Lewis catches a large percentage on his gloves.

Re McCall and his advice...doesn't detract from the fact that he threw the punch with his eyes closed.

Why is it when an aging overweight, unmotivated Lewis ends up cutting a man so badly he ends up to 50+ stitches in his face, there's an excuse? Lewis aimed and threw the punch which landed and had the desired effect...as did the mulititude of punches he subsequently threw which widen the cut, leading to the stoppage...but of course, Lewis gets no credit for this ability. Why is it when he finally stops messing around and stops both Rahman AND Bruno...he gets no credit? Makes ME wanna barf to be perfectly honest.

Yep, the same Bruno who got spanked by every single world class opponent he faced. Who got outjabbed by a fat Witherspoon, massacred by Tyson, mullerred by Smith, saved by a very kind ref who held him up against Jumbo Cummings.

Even more skill from McCall. He beat Lewis with his eyes closed. Wonderful performance.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Lucky as in throwing a punch that was meant to cause damage?

So Rahman and McCall weren't lucky but Lewis was, convenient contradiction as always.

Did Lewis throw the punch with the intention of cutting him? If so, how come he didn't throw the same type of 'cutting' punch on all other opponents? He must be the only boxer in history who thrown punches to deliberately cut an opponent. He threw the punch (not lucky that it landed). The luck was that the punch caused a huge cut.

No contradiction whatsoever. They both threw KO poiwer punches. McCall said what he was going to do between rounds.

The punch was thrown to inflict damage, whether that be a cut or otherwise, it was thrown with bad intentions. The real luck for Lewis was facing an opponent who couldn't capitalise on his shortcomings that night, knowing he was so badly cut Vitali had to end it there and then which he didn't have the skill to do.

Seanusarrilius wrote:Let me please note: I am not defending LEwis losses, he lost, fair and square. But he beat Vitali . . . fair and square.

Not saying he didn't win fair and square. I'm saying that during the fight he was outboxed for the majority of it...until Vit got cut and fight got stopped.

azania wrote:

Seanusarrilius wrote:

azania wrote:Without the cut, Vit would have won, probably by KO. As rowley correctly said (he is occassionally correct btw lol) Vit by definition had short notice to prepare for Lewis. Cant recall who he was supposed to fight but you can be certain it wasn't someone with the calibre Lewis and definately not as tall or rangey. On that night Vit was the better boxer.

This short notice rubbbish, not like he was sitting on the sofa, he was training for an undercard fight! Idiotic to suggest he only worked half as hard in training, yeah boxers only do half the work unless they know they are fighting Lewis.

And Lewis was preparing to defend his title on the same bill against another boxer. Both had short notice. Why does it penalise Lewis but not Vit. Its either it penalises both or none.

Jesus you are stupid sometimes. I am saying it doesn't penalize Vitali or Lewis and i am countering someone using it as an excuse for Vitali losing. Vitali lost because he wasn't good enough, fact.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Lucky as in throwing a punch that was meant to cause damage?

So Rahman and McCall weren't lucky but Lewis was, convenient contradiction as always.

Did Lewis throw the punch with the intention of cutting him? If so, how come he didn't throw the same type of 'cutting' punch on all other opponents? He must be the only boxer in history who thrown punches to deliberately cut an opponent. He threw the punch (not lucky that it landed). The luck was that the punch caused a huge cut.

No contradiction whatsoever. They both threw KO poiwer punches. McCall said what he was going to do between rounds.

The punch was thrown to inflict damage, whether that be a cut or otherwise, it was thrown with bad intentions. The real luck for Lewis was facing an opponent who couldn't capitalise on his shortcomings that night, knowing he was so badly cut Vitali had to end it there and then which he didn't have the skill to do.

if lewis threw a punch and knocked vitali out then yes I would say he aimed to do that. But he never aimed to cut vitali so it was lucky that he was cut.

I think you put the Rahman loss down to just Lewis being very careless. But the Bruno performance and loss to McCall theres no real excuses for. Lewis was actually outjabbed for a large part of the fight its silly to stuff like he was just playing around or not warmed up properly. He got it done in the end so fair dues but not a particularly impressive display in what was probably the biggest fight of his career at that point, so I dont buy he wasnt taking it seriously or clowning around.

McCall said exactly how he was going to get Lewis to his corner and went out and did it. Im not sure what kind of excuses can be made for Lewis in this bout.

Im a little surprised to see more people have picked Vitali to win their match up at this point, had it continued. I can see arguments for both but I think the cut warranted a stoppage. I would have liked to see a rematch, but can appreciate why Lewis chose to retire. He knew Vitali was a tough fight and had no way of knowing that Vitali would go on to be the next top heavyweight so from the perspective of Lewis the incentive wasnt really there at that stage in his career.

Seanusarrilius wrote:

azania wrote:

Seanusarrilius wrote:

azania wrote:Without the cut, Vit would have won, probably by KO. As rowley correctly said (he is occassionally correct btw lol) Vit by definition had short notice to prepare for Lewis. Cant recall who he was supposed to fight but you can be certain it wasn't someone with the calibre Lewis and definately not as tall or rangey. On that night Vit was the better boxer.

This short notice rubbbish, not like he was sitting on the sofa, he was training for an undercard fight! Idiotic to suggest he only worked half as hard in training, yeah boxers only do half the work unless they know they are fighting Lewis.

And Lewis was preparing to defend his title on the same bill against another boxer. Both had short notice. Why does it penalise Lewis but not Vit. Its either it penalises both or none.

Jesus you are stupid sometimes. I am saying it doesn't penalize Vitali or Lewis and i am countering someone using it as an excuse for Vitali losing. Vitali lost because he wasn't good enough, fact.

He lost because he had a cut. he never lost because he was losing the fight. Big difference

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Lucky as in throwing a punch that was meant to cause damage?

So Rahman and McCall weren't lucky but Lewis was, convenient contradiction as always.

Did Lewis throw the punch with the intention of cutting him? If so, how come he didn't throw the same type of 'cutting' punch on all other opponents? He must be the only boxer in history who thrown punches to deliberately cut an opponent. He threw the punch (not lucky that it landed). The luck was that the punch caused a huge cut.

No contradiction whatsoever. They both threw KO poiwer punches. McCall said what he was going to do between rounds.

The punch was thrown to inflict damage, whether that be a cut or otherwise, it was thrown with bad intentions. The real luck for Lewis was facing an opponent who couldn't capitalise on his shortcomings that night, knowing he was so badly cut Vitali had to end it there and then which he didn't have the skill to do.

Lewis didn't throw the punch to cut Vit. The cut was a lucky break for Lewis. Cuts happen all the time. There's no telling when it will happen. The cut hindered Vit. It wasn't as if he was fighting a guy who was crying with his gloves by his side and Vit couldn't capitalise or fightiing a small HW who was teetering on the bring of a KO (Holy 1) but couldn't or didn't have the skills to finish the job.

lovely_london wrote:

Seanusarrilius wrote:

azania wrote:

Seanusarrilius wrote:

azania wrote:Without the cut, Vit would have won, probably by KO. As rowley correctly said (he is occassionally correct btw lol) Vit by definition had short notice to prepare for Lewis. Cant recall who he was supposed to fight but you can be certain it wasn't someone with the calibre Lewis and definately not as tall or rangey. On that night Vit was the better boxer.

This short notice rubbbish, not like he was sitting on the sofa, he was training for an undercard fight! Idiotic to suggest he only worked half as hard in training, yeah boxers only do half the work unless they know they are fighting Lewis.

And Lewis was preparing to defend his title on the same bill against another boxer. Both had short notice. Why does it penalise Lewis but not Vit. Its either it penalises both or none.

Jesus you are stupid sometimes. I am saying it doesn't penalize Vitali or Lewis and i am countering someone using it as an excuse for Vitali losing. Vitali lost because he wasn't good enough, fact.

He lost because he had a cut. he never lost because he was losing the fight. Big difference

He should have been good enough to avoid Lewis' punches then, he lost fair and square.

Seanusarrilius wrote:

azania wrote:

Seanusarrilius wrote:

azania wrote:Without the cut, Vit would have won, probably by KO. As rowley correctly said (he is occassionally correct btw lol) Vit by definition had short notice to prepare for Lewis. Cant recall who he was supposed to fight but you can be certain it wasn't someone with the calibre Lewis and definately not as tall or rangey. On that night Vit was the better boxer.

This short notice rubbbish, not like he was sitting on the sofa, he was training for an undercard fight! Idiotic to suggest he only worked half as hard in training, yeah boxers only do half the work unless they know they are fighting Lewis.

And Lewis was preparing to defend his title on the same bill against another boxer. Both had short notice. Why does it penalise Lewis but not Vit. Its either it penalises both or none.

Jesus you are stupid sometimes. I am saying it doesn't penalize Vitali or Lewis and i am countering someone using it as an excuse for Vitali losing. Vitali lost because he wasn't good enough, fact.

His skin was too tender hence he lost. Nothing to do with him not being good enough.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Lucky as in throwing a punch that was meant to cause damage?

So Rahman and McCall weren't lucky but Lewis was, convenient contradiction as always.

Did Lewis throw the punch with the intention of cutting him? If so, how come he didn't throw the same type of 'cutting' punch on all other opponents? He must be the only boxer in history who thrown punches to deliberately cut an opponent. He threw the punch (not lucky that it landed). The luck was that the punch caused a huge cut.

No contradiction whatsoever. They both threw KO poiwer punches. McCall said what he was going to do between rounds.

The punch was thrown to inflict damage, whether that be a cut or otherwise, it was thrown with bad intentions. The real luck for Lewis was facing an opponent who couldn't capitalise on his shortcomings that night, knowing he was so badly cut Vitali had to end it there and then which he didn't have the skill to do.

Lewis didn't throw the punch to cut Vit. The cut was a lucky break for Lewis. Cuts happen all the time. There's no telling when it will happen. The cut hindered Vit. It wasn't as if he was fighting a guy who was crying with his gloves by his side and Vit couldn't capitalise or fightiing a small HW who was teetering on the bring of a KO (Holy 1) but couldn't or didn't have the skills to finish the job.

There was me thinking Vitali lost.

Yep. He lost legitimately also.....via a cut.

Theres an element of fortune/randomness about cuts. If they happen, and you win the fight, then fair enough. But if you are behind on the cards, then people will naturally look at the performance aswell as just the result. Which is what sparks most of the debate in the Lewis fight.

Although the result would be the same if Lewis had won a shut out over Vitali as opposed to cuts when behind on the cards would not have changed, theres an obvious difference. Just like a fighter who pulls out a last gasp knock out when way behind on the cards will always raise questions. For example I think Hearns beats Leonard more often than not on the basis of their fights, notwithstanding the record favours Leonard. Its the performance not the results that lead me to this belief.

azania wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:Why do people seem to think Kirk Johnson was some kind of Hobbit? He was a genuine HW and, despite not being one of the greatest fighters ever to lace 'em up, he wasn't some pub brawler that they'd enticed into the ring with offers of a lifetime supply of pork scratchings. Yes, he has a different style to Vitali but as far as I'm aware, his gameplan would have worked along similar lines to Vitali (namely, using his fists to throw punches to head and body with a view to either outscoring Lewis or rendering him unable to continue). Not really THAT difficult for fighters to adapt is it?

Az says "on that night, Vit was the better boxer" Really? If he was the better boxer, he'd have been able to take full advantage of an overweight, lacksadaisical Lewis. As it was, he failed to dispatch his man unlike Rahman did in their first fight (and it's arguable that Lewis was just as unmotivated for that one). Also, if Vitali was the better boxer, why was he unable to get his head out of the way of Lewis's gloves or was his plan to allow Lewis to cut him so badly the fight would be stopped thus making Vitali the moral (but not the ACTUAL) winner?

So when a boxer gets cut its because the other guy is better than his is it? I remember Hatton being cut many times but the cuts weren't so bad to stop the fight. Getting cut is unfortunate. Un/lucky also. But making that cut worse takes skill. Lewis displayed enough skill to open up the cut further. Credit to him. But to say he was the better boxer because Vit was cut is far from the truth.

More excuses of lewis being lacksadaisical. What other adjective will be used? Lewis was up for the fight, getting outboxer and out punched until he got lucky.

What other one is there? Lazy seems just as suitable. Lewis was "up" for the fight? Was he really? Let's consider how he fought against the likes of Ruddock, Golota, Grant, Tua, Holyfield first time round, the Rahman rematch and even Tyson, those to me were fights where Lewis was "up for it" and then look at the performance he put in against Vitali. Lewis fights Vitali in the same way he fought Golota and you'd see a demolition of such magnitude, people would still hold the loss over Vitali to this day....oh wait, they still hold that loss against him. Crikey, imagine what it would be like if he'd be annihilated

However, I do think you're getting confused though Az, Chris Byrd was getting outboxed and outpunched until he got lucky.

Any way you look at it, Vitali Klitschko lost to Lennox lewis. Vitali was the younger, bigger fighter and STILL got beaten.

azania wrote:

Seanusarrilius wrote:

azania wrote:

Seanusarrilius wrote:

azania wrote:Without the cut, Vit would have won, probably by KO. As rowley correctly said (he is occassionally correct btw lol) Vit by definition had short notice to prepare for Lewis. Cant recall who he was supposed to fight but you can be certain it wasn't someone with the calibre Lewis and definately not as tall or rangey. On that night Vit was the better boxer.

This short notice rubbbish, not like he was sitting on the sofa, he was training for an undercard fight! Idiotic to suggest he only worked half as hard in training, yeah boxers only do half the work unless they know they are fighting Lewis.

And Lewis was preparing to defend his title on the same bill against another boxer. Both had short notice. Why does it penalise Lewis but not Vit. Its either it penalises both or none.

Jesus you are stupid sometimes. I am saying it doesn't penalize Vitali or Lewis and i am countering someone using it as an excuse for Vitali losing. Vitali lost because he wasn't good enough, fact.

His skin was too tender hence he lost. Nothing to do with him not being good enough.

Good Lord....and you accuse Lewis apologists of coming up with poor excuses?

Sorry Az, but im my "Boxing Top Trumps" of pi55 poor excuses for a loss, this now usurps Manny's "I had the wrong socks on"

People will cling onto anything to try and make their favourite boxer seem better. He gets lucky by cutting someone and they try to say it was skill. He was losing the fight yet they say he would have won if the fight went on longer even though he showed no signs of that.

fact is klitschko was winning the fight and if we're debating who was the better fight than klitschko wins. A stoppage by cuts ( a cut made in the 3rd round when klitschko dominated that round) is hardly a great win

Smashed Vitali up completely!!!!

Never one to use hyperbole our resident Wainy!!!

One point down on the HBO card and retired quicker than a straight guy at the blue oyster!!!!

It's a pickem without the cut for me........But I think ILewis knew which way the wind was blowing..

Prime Lennox wins by decision though..

lovely_london wrote:People will cling onto anything to try and make their favourite boxer seem better. He gets lucky by cutting someone and they try to say it was skill. He was losing the fight yet they say he would have won if the fight went on longer even though he showed no signs of that.

fact is klitschko was winning the fight and if we're debating who was the better fight than klitschko wins. A stoppage by cuts ( a cut made in the 3rd round when klitschko dominated that round) is hardly a great win

Absolute garbage.

Wlad: "Brother, it is time for us to train together for the next big fight."

Vitali: "Indeed Brother. Against Dereck Chisora, I intend to stick with my tried and trusted regime to ensure another great victory for the Klitschko family"

Wlad: "Yes Brother. Running, weights, sparring. All this will ensure sucess."

Vitali: "Little Brother, you forget most important thing."

Wlad: :What is it Brother? Diet, tactical awareness, psychological advantage?"

Vitali: "No, 'Nivea for Men' to combat the seven signs of aging."