Did anyone accept VITALI as the legitimate heavyweight champion when he beat Sanders?

[RAMPAGE0017]

People seem very mixed on the subject, but Ring magazine did award him their belt. I for one think he deserved it.. his only real logical competition at the time was Johnson and Sanders, and he beat them both. And Sanders vacated the WBO title in order to fight Vitali, so I suppose that can be looked at as a unification of the sorts.

What are your thoughts?

And why are people often so mixed on this subject?

[JoeyP]

No--I didn't because they leap frogged Byrd at the time. Byrd was on a huge winning streak and was 1-2 for quite awhile. As I recall, he was suppose to get a shot at Lewis but Lewis dropped the title so Byrd fought Holyfield for it. Byrd had a win over VK so how he could be leap frogged at that time was a joke. The Ring jumped the gun on this one.


JoeyP

[mike464]

no

[1-Ton]

Despite the loss, Vitali won the respect of many in the Lewis fight. Byrd was overlooked, perhaps unfairly, due to his relative inactivity at the time. I personally found it a bit confusing given that Byrd had beaten Vitali.

[RAMPAGE0017]

No--I didn't because they leap frogged Byrd at the time. Byrd was on a huge winning streak and was 1-2 for quite awhile. As I recall, he was suppose to get a shot at Lewis but Lewis dropped the title so Byrd fought Holyfield for it. Byrd had a win over VK so how he could be leap frogged at that time was a joke. The Ring jumped the gun on this one.


JoeyP


Yeah, I didn't think of that.. Byrd does have a W over Vitali. Althought Byrd wasn't necessarily a major threat to Vitali ( unless he injured himself during the fight again ), I guess it's debatable that he should have to get threw Byrd first. But on the other hand.... Sanders was number 2 heavyweight in the world at the time, right? Ring magazine awards their belts based on the outcome of a fight between the number 1 and 2 ranked fighters of a division.

[mike464]

lol. Byrd 'beat' Vitali....RIIIIIGHT! Let's get our facts right shall we? Byrd was getting his ass whooped!!!!!! And Vitali quit with a shaoulder injury.

Better to fight @ 100% and win than lose when injured I guess people still can't understand that though. :Syou know nothing

[1-Ton]

lol. Byrd 'beat' Vitali....RIIIIIGHT! Let's get our facts right shall we? Byrd was getting his ass whooped!!!!!! And Vitali quit with a shaoulder injury.

Better to fight @ 100% and win than lose when injured I guess people still can't understand that though. :S

I agree with you, and that may have something to do with Vitali being the Ring champion. But, despite the circumstance, still a "W" for Byrd.

[Brighton bomber]

I am a Vitali fan but I didn't think he was the true champion. He was in my opinion the best fighter at heavyweight and I beleive had the ability to be the unified champion but potential doesn't mean a thing. A fighter doesn't become a champion by having the potential but by acheiveing his potential.

[JoeyP]

lol. Byrd 'beat' Vitali....RIIIIIGHT! Let's get our facts right shall we? Byrd was getting his ass whooped!!!!!! And Vitali quit with a shaoulder injury.

Better to fight @ 100% and win than lose when injured I guess people still can't understand that though. :S




Ok--Let's get ouf facts straight---Byrd won that fight and got the W--thats all that counts. VK QUIT. I don't care what happened the 10 rounds before that. VK quit. Byrd won. End of story.

JoeyP

[JoeyP]

Yeah, I didn't think of that.. Byrd does have a W over Vitali. Althought Byrd wasn't necessarily a major threat to Vitali ( unless he injured himself during the fight again ), I guess it's debatable that he should have to get threw Byrd first. But on the other hand.... Sanders was number 2 heavyweight in the world at the time, right? Ring magazine awards their belts based on the outcome of a fight between the number 1 and 2 ranked fighters of a division.



If I recall---VK was 1, Byrd was 2, and Sanders was 3. VK leapfrogged Byrd in the rankings based on a loss to Lewis. Byrd had been 1 for awhile and was on quite a win streak at that time.

[RAMPAGE0017]

If I recall---VK was 1, Byrd was 2, and Sanders was 3. VK leapfrogged Byrd in the rankings based on a loss to Lewis. Byrd had been 1 for awhile and was on quite a win streak at that time.


How's that possible? Wladimir was pretty much universally recognized as the " heir to the throne " and then he get's shockingly defeated by Sanders. I don't see how Byrd could've been number 2.

[teetop]

Of course. Who else at that time would be considered champ besides the winner of that clash?

[Asterion]

He wasn't Lineal. But I recognize him as a former Champ just like Marvin Hart is also a former Champ. Well, more than a Champ, Klit was an important Claimant, like Maher, Hart, Burns...

[JoeyP]

How's that possible? Wladimir was pretty much universally recognized as the " heir to the throne " and then he get's shockingly defeated by Sanders. I don't see how Byrd could've been number 2.


I'll have to check my old Ring mags from that time--but I'm pretty sure I'm right. I'll get back to you this evening.


JoeyP

[Scar]

Yes. He already gave the legitimate champion(Lewis) HELL and was running after him for almost a year to get a rematch and blew away Kirk Johnson when he had to. So yes, he DID become the legitimate champion.

[Asterion]

How's that possible? Wladimir was pretty much universally recognized as the " heir to the throne " and then he get's shockingly defeated by Sanders. I don't see how Byrd could've been number 2.

Nope, Byrd was #2, trust me.

The Ring decided that the winner of Vitali/Sanders was going to be their new Champ because:

-It was a fight for the WBC belt, and Sanders was also the WBO beltholder who had to relinquish it.

-Sanders had defeated the #1 in Wlad.

-Byrd was inactive or involved in controversial decisions at the time.

[RAMPAGE0017]

Nope, Byrd was #2, trust me.

The Ring decided that the winner of Vitali/Sanders was going to be their new Champ because:

-It was a fight for the WBC belt, and Sanders was also the WBO beltholder who had to relinquish it.

-Sanders had defeated the #1 in Wlad.

-Byrd was inactive or involved in controversial decisions at the time.


If Wlad was #1, and Sanders defeated him, then that makes Sanders #1, right? I just don't see where Byrd fits into the equation other than the fact that he had a belt. And Ring doesn't award the belts out unless the divisions number one and two competitors fight. And seeing as how Sanders never legitimately lost the WBO title, that should pretty much make his fight with Klitschko a unification. Sanders deserves props for that, too.... he basically told the WBO to go fuck themselves in order to actually make things happen in the HW division.

[Asterion]

If Wlad was #1, and Sanders defeated him, then that makes Sanders #1, right?

Not always. If Sanders had been a Top10 contender before fighting Wlad, and then defeated Wlad...then he could have been #1. But Sanders was unranked. Beating the #1 doesn't always make you the #1.

If Sprott defeated Wlad tomorrow, would you rank Sprott as #1?


I just don't see where Byrd fits into the equation other than the fact that he had a belt. And Ring doesn't award the belts out unless the divisions number one and two competitors fight.

Ehh, read the rules. The Ring awards their belt to the winner of fights between #1 and #2 contenders and also -in some cases determined by them- between #1 and #3.

One of this cases was Vitali-Sanders, others were Vasquez-Larios and Calzagher-Lacy.


And seeing as how Sanders never legitimately lost the WBO title, that should pretty much make his fight with Klitschko a unification. Sanders deserves props for that, too.... he basically told the WBO to go fuck themselves in order to actually make things happen in the HW division.

I agree.

[RAMPAGE0017]

Not always. If Sanders had been a Top10 contender before fighting Wlad, and then defeated Wlad...then he could have been #1. But Sanders was unranked. Beating the #1 doesn't always make you the #1.

If Sprott defeated Wlad tomorrow, would you rank Sprott as #1?

Point taken. I guess it's a pretty open debate, but didn't Ring actually rank Sanders in the top 2 after defeating Wladimir?




Ehh, read the rules. The Ring awards their belt to the winner of fights between #1 and #2 contenders and also -in some cases determined by them- between #1 and #3.

Alright, but in that case, even IF Sanders was only ranked third in the division, that still makes the fight for Ring's title legit. And let's be honest.. after Vitali stepped on Johnson, Sanders was pretty much the only real threat out there.... and everyone knew that Ruiz and Byrd would most likely have been crushed as well, so I guess they wanted to save everyone the headache of having to actually wait for a full unification. But all in all, I have to say.... this was one of the most unusual points in the division's history.

[Asterion]

Alright, but in that case, even IF Sanders was only ranked third in the division, that still makes the fight for Ring's title legit. And let's be honest.. after Vitali stepped on Johnson, Sanders was pretty much the only real threat out there....

That's why I said, on my first post, that I consider Vitali the man at HW during 2004/2005. Not Lineal Champ, but Champ just like Marvin Hart or Tommy Burns were Champs. And like Ezzard Charles during 1949-1950 or Larry Holmes between 1979-1980 (before defeating shot Louis and shot Ali).

I'm sure and I remember that Byrd was #2 at that time, but he was barely winning fights (Oquendo, Golota, McCline were close or controversial) and Don King wasn't risking his beltholders against Vitali.

[RAMPAGE0017]

That's why I said, on my first post, that I consider Vitali the man at HW during 2004/2005. Not Lineal Champ, but Champ just like Marvin Hart or Tommy Burns were Champs. And like Ezzard Charles during 1949-1950 or Larry Holmes between 1979-1980 (before defeating shot Louis and shot Ali).

I'm sure and I remember that Byrd was #2 at that time, but he was barely winning fights (Oquendo, Golota, McCline were close or controversial) and Don King wasn't risking his beltholders against Vitali.


Wow.. I'm surprised Byrd was ranked that high.

[RAMPAGE0017]

So to those of you who didn't consider Vitali the legit champion, what did Vitali have to do further in order for you to have considered him the true champ?

[Thread Stealer]

No.

I didn't consider him the true champ despite what The Ring magazine or HBO said.

I would have made Vitali a favorite in a rematch over Byrd and the other top heavyweights at the time.

But that's why guys fight. It's not about speculation.

[Bad_Intentions]

no.

[RAMPAGE0017]

No.

I didn't consider him the true champ despite what The Ring magazine or HBO said.

I would have made Vitali a favorite in a rematch over Byrd and the other top heavyweights at the time.

But that's why guys fight. It's not about speculation.


So basically a win over Byrd would have made him legit, in your opinion? And just out of curiousity, aside from Byrd.. who else did you consider to be a " top " heavyweight?

[Thread Stealer]

So basically a win over Byrd would have made him legit, in your opinion? And just out of curiousity, aside from Byrd.. who else did you consider to be a " top " heavyweight?

Yeah, Byrd. Probably Ruiz (ugh) as well. After losing to Roy, he beat Rahman, who was coming off a draw (which should have been a win) over Tua. Tua was on a good streak before fighting fat Rahman.

Vitali jumped too much in The Ring's rankings IMO. He went from #10 to #4 for LOSING to Lennox Lewis. How many guys go up 6 rankings for giving a tough fight by losing fairly to the champion? Then he went from #4 to #1 for beating Kirk Johnson, a guy who was in the middle (or lower end) of the top 10 and whose last fight against a heavyweight of note (old Savarese does not count), he DQ'd his way to defeat.

More fights were needed to establish a true champion, but the Ring jumped the gun, probably anxious to annoint anyone the heavyweight champion.

[RAMPAGE0017]

Yeah, Byrd. Probably Ruiz (ugh) as well. After losing to Roy, he beat Rahman, who was coming off a draw (which should have been a win) over Tua. Tua was on a good streak before fighting fat Rahman.

Vitali jumped too much in The Ring's rankings IMO. He went from #10 to #4 for LOSING to Lennox Lewis. How many guys go up 6 rankings for giving a tough fight by losing fairly to the champion? Then he went from #4 to #1 for beating Kirk Johnson, a guy who was in the middle (or lower end) of the top 10 and whose last fight against a heavyweight of note (old Savarese does not count), he DQ'd his way to defeat.

More fights were needed to establish a true champion, but the Ring jumped the gun, probably anxious to annoint anyone the heavyweight champion.


After Sanders whooped Wladimir, Ring probably figured that Vitali was the only likely heir apparent at the time.... and they were probably right.

[jimmie]

No cause I didnt rank Sanders in the top 3 or even 5 he hadnt beat anyone aside from that 1 fight with Wlad and that wasnt enough for me. I had Klitschko ranked 2nd in my ratings because he looked good vs Lewis and destroyed Kirk Johnson which at that time was a big deal. Byrd was number 1 and they didnt fight each other.

[rekcutnevets]

I would have given him the nod with one win over another claimant.

While losing to Lewis, Vitali proved that he was a top contender. Afterwards, he defeated Johnson, Sanders and Danny Williams. These wins were enough to hold on to his top contender status, but not enough to claim king of the division status. He really needed a win over someone like Byrd to claim the title.

Wladimir lost to Sanders, and Brewster then didn't look too great againtst Williamson. Wladimir has since gone on and won his next 5 fights. His wins over Peter, Byrd, and Brock are more impressive than the fighters Vitali had beaten in his last three outings.

So I will accept Wladimir now, but not his brother before him.

[Thread Stealer]

After Sanders whooped Wladimir, Ring probably figured that Vitali was the only likely heir apparent at the time.... and they were probably right.

What does figuring that someone is the likely heir apparent have to do with ranking a guy too highly? Jumping up six rankings from #10 to #4 for fairly losing a tough fight to the champion, and then going from #4 to #1 for beating a middle or lower-end top 10 guy is too much.

[Thom]

I would've picked a healthy incarnation of him over anyone in the division at the time, but he never established himself as "the man." HBO and RING made asses of themselves by declaring him king of the division before he really accomplished anything.

[RAMPAGE0017]

What does figuring that someone is the likely heir apparent have to do with ranking a guy too highly? Jumping up six rankings from #10 to #4 for fairly losing a tough fight to the champion, and then going from #4 to #1 for beating a middle or lower-end top 10 guy is too much.


They may have ran him up the rankings pretty quick, and yes, Lewis beat him fair and square, but you've gotta admit.. it's highly unlikely that Byrd or Ruiz could've beaten him. And if Byrd can't beat Wladimir, then he sure as hell can't beat Vitali.

And are you sure Kirk wasn't rated higher than that? He was still seen as a leading contender, even with his horrible showing against Ruiz.

[Thom]

They may have ran him up the rankings pretty quick, and yes, Lewis beat him fair and square, but you've gotta admit.. it's highly unlikely that Byrd or Ruiz could've beaten him. And if Byrd can't beat Wladimir, then he sure as hell can't beat Vitali.

And are you sure Kirk wasn't rated higher than that? He was still a very hyped-up fighter, even with his horrible showing against Ruiz.


I agree with that sentiment, but it's not relevant. You can't just go around awarding accolades to fighters based on how good you think they are. The have to earn it in the ring.

[Thread Stealer]

They may have ran him up the rankings pretty quick, and yes, Lewis beat him fair and square, but you've gotta admit.. it's highly unlikely that Byrd or Ruiz could've beaten him. And if Byrd can't beat Wladimir, then he sure as hell can't beat Vitali.

And are you sure Kirk wasn't rated higher than that? He was still seen as a leading contender, even with his horrible showing against Ruiz.

Exactly. I would've made Vitali a favorite over Ruiz and Byrd in a rematch, but you can't call a guy a champion just because you think he'd win but hasn't done it. Who's to say that Vitali doesn't suffer another injury against Byrd in a rematch? Vitali wasn't the only guy to suffer a bad shoulder injury against Byrd, and his body wasn't the most sturdy anyway after all his years of fighting. How do we know that Ruiz doesn't hug his way to victory? Sure we don't think it's likely, but that's why they fight and there are upsets. How many people thought it was likely that Rahman would beat Lewis, Baldomir would beat Judah, or Douglas over Tyson?

I think Kirk Johnson was in the middle or lower end of the top 10. I'll have to check the issues later.

[A-50]

Vitali Klitschko would have destroyed that joke John Ruiz and he already was having an easy time with Byrd before the injury. He would have beat Brewster too when he was WBO champion.

[RUSKULL]

I concidered Vitali the champ at the time since he beat the WBO champ and picked up the WBC strap all with one fight.

As far as Byrd is concerned, he arguably lost to Oquendo, Golota & even McCline, so it's hard to imagine that he would've had much of a chance at Vitali. Byrd's earlier "win" vs. Vitali was due to Vit injuring his shoulder while he was ahead on the cards.

[RUSKULL]

Ruiz also lost to Golota IMO and actually did drop a decision to Toney only to get his belt back when Toney tested positive for steriods. Therefore it's hard to really take Huggy Bear seriously as a "champ".

[H .]

It was interesting how the Ring pushed Vitali up so quickly even though he had losses to Byrd and Lewis. Perhaps they saw him as a man who had never been "beaten" since he was winning at the time of those two stoppages? I'm not saying it's right, but I don't see why else the Ring gave Vitali so much credit so fast.

[RAMPAGE0017]

Exactly. I would've made Vitali a favorite over Ruiz and Byrd in a rematch, but you can't call a guy a champion just because you think he'd win but hasn't done it. Who's to say that Vitali doesn't suffer another injury against Byrd in a rematch? Vitali wasn't the only guy to suffer a bad shoulder injury against Byrd, and his body wasn't the most sturdy anyway after all his years of fighting. How do we know that Ruiz doesn't hug his way to victory? Sure we don't think it's likely, but that's why they fight and there are upsets. How many people thought it was likely that Rahman would beat Lewis, Baldomir would beat Judah, or Douglas over Tyson?

I think Kirk Johnson was in the middle or lower end of the top 10. I'll have to check the issues later.


Well, let me ask you this.... if Vitali didn't earn the spot as #1 heavyweight in the world, then who did? Neither Ruiz, nor Byrd accomplished anything as much as what Vitali accomplished in the short time which he did.

[RAMPAGE0017]

I agree with that sentiment, but it's not relevant. You can't just go around awarding accolades to fighters based on how good you think they are. The have to earn it in the ring.


Why not? It's being done at this very moment. Can you name me one good reason why Sam Peter is number 2 heavyweight in the world, even though he hasn't accomplished nearly as much as someone like Ruslan Chagaev?

It's also being done with Wladimir currently at #1, even though Wladimir doesn't have anything over any other current belt holder, aside from the fact that people think he's better.

[Thread Stealer]

Well, let me ask you this.... if Vitali didn't earn the spot as #1 heavyweight in the world, then who did? Neither Ruiz, nor Byrd accomplished anything as much as what Vitali accomplished in the short time which he did.

Why not? It's being done at this very moment. Can you name me one good reason why Sam Peter is number 2 heavyweight in the world, even though he hasn't accomplished nearly as much as someone like Ruslan Chagaev?

It's also being done with Wladimir currently at #1, even though Wladimir doesn't have anything over any other current belt holder, aside from the fact that people think he's better.

There's a difference between being the #1 contender, and being THE CHAMPION.

Wlad is not The Ring champion even though he'd be a favorite over the other top heavyweights out there.

[RAMPAGE0017]

There's a difference between being the #1 contender, and being THE CHAMPION.

Wlad is not The Ring champion even though he'd be a favorite over the other top heavyweights out there.

See, that's my point though.... Vitali did fight a top 3 heavyweight, and won the Ring belt. And this particular heavyweight was a title holder himself. But, you already stated that you felt that he should've defeated atleast Byrd in order to truly be recognized as the true champion, and I was just curious as to your stance on the subject. But the fact is.. if Sanders was a top 3 heavyweight, then Vitali did legitimately win the Ring title.

[joeboxer]

i'd say Vitali was number one ranked...but the champ slot was vacant.

[Thom]

Why not? It's being done at this very moment. Can you name me one good reason why Sam Peter is number 2 heavyweight in the world, even though he hasn't accomplished nearly as much as someone like Ruslan Chagaev?

It's also being done with Wladimir currently at #1, even though Wladimir doesn't have anything over any other current belt holder, aside from the fact that people think he's better.

I have no problem with him being ranked #1. The issue here as I understand it is Vitali's status as THE Heavyweight champ. As I wrote earlier, I believe that Vitali was the best fighter in the division for a time but he never proved it in the ring. As far as I'm concerned, Lewis was the last legit champ in the weight class.

As for Wlad, it's the same deal. I believe that he's the top fighter in the division, but I don't think that he should be recognized as THE HW champ, and he isn't by anyone that I'm aware of. He's just ranked #1.

[Bigcat]

Heylll NO..........

[Gabriel R.]

To me, he was the most convincing of the four title holders at that time. It's a matter of definition if this is the criteria for being the legitimate champion or if it's not. However, I considered him the best in the division, but unfortunately he couldn't prove it often enough. Fights with guys like Rahman, Brewster, Peter or a rematch with Byrd would have been important. So I can well understand if people didn't see him as the legitimate champion.

[RAMPAGE0017]

To me, he was the most convincing of the four title holders at that time. It's a matter of definition if this is the criteria for being the legitimate champion or if it's not. However, I considered him the best in the division, but unfortunately he couldn't prove it often enough. Fights with guys like Rahman, Brewster, Peter or a rematch with Byrd would have been important. So I can well understand if people didn't see him as the legitimate champion.


I didn't think Peter was that well established at the time.

[Jaaames]

It really had nothing to do with the Lennox fight.... Remember, Corrie Sanders had to drop the belt that he took from Wlad in order to fight Vitali.... I think that's why vitali got the ring magazine title...

[KobeIsGod]

not the undisputed champ but clearly the #1 hw kinda how wlad is seen right now.

[thesandman]

Well, let me ask you this.... if Vitali didn't earn the spot as #1 heavyweight in the world, then who did? Neither Ruiz, nor Byrd accomplished anything as much as what Vitali accomplished in the short time which he did.

From end of 01 to end of 04, here are those guys records.



Vitlay

Dec 01 - W TKO Ross Purrity
FEb 02 - W TKO Vaughn Bean
Nov 02 - W TKO Larry Donald
Jun 03 - L TKO Lennox Lewis
Dec 03 - W TKO Kirk Johnson
April 04 - W TKO Corrie Sanders
Dec 04 - W TKO Danny Williams

BYRD

Aug 01 - W UD David Tua
June 02 - W TKO Jeff Pegues
Dec 02 - W UD Evander Holyfield
Sep 03 - W UD Fres Oquendo
April 04 - D Andrew Golota
Nov 04 - W SD Jameel McCline


Ruiz

Dec 01 - D Evander Holyfield
Jul 02 - W DQ Kirk Johnson
Mar 03 - L UD Roy Jones JR
Dec 03 - W UD Hasim Rahman
April 04 - W TKO Fres Oquendo
Nov 04 - W UD Andrew Golota.



So quite rightly, Vitlay was about middle of the top 10 before he fought Lewis.

A loss to him, and win over Kirk Johnson propels you up the rankings????

Byrd and Ruiz both beat more top 10 rated guys. I don't care how, you have to go on official results.

They deserved to be ranked at least as high as Vitlay on achievements at that point in time. But those guys certainly didn't rank as high on ability to sell magazines. Why do you think Vitlay shot up the rankings like that?

[AJAX]

It's because how Vitaly beat them. Vitaly destoyed Johnson in 2 rounds when most people at the time thought it would be a close fight.He battered Sanders badly and made Williams do the funky chicken dance a couple times before KOing him badly. when Byrd and Ruiz always won close disputed decisions and had very boring fights.

[Heavyrighthand]

It's because how Vitaly beat them. Vitaly destoyed Johnson ..........battered Sanders badly ............made Williams do the funky chicken dance.

That brings up another discussion, altogether;

When ranking a fighter, do you determine his ranking only by the fighters he has defeated........or..........do you also take into account the manner in which he beat his opponents, as in how decisive the victory was.......????????

[AJAX]

That brings up another discussion, altogether;

When ranking a fighter, do you determine his ranking only by the fighters he has defeated........or..........do you also take into account the manner in which he beat his opponents, as in how decisive the victory was.......????????

well technically you shouldn't but trying to figure out out how the ABC's come up with rankings is mind boggling at best. So I think this can be taken into account as seeing as there is no structurd point system.

[Ramshall1]

not the undisputed champ but clearly the #1 hw kinda how wlad is seen right now.

:thumbsup

[Lance_Uppercut]

He was a good titleholder, but NEVER the World HW Champion.

[Asterion]

That brings up another discussion, altogether;

When ranking a fighter, do you determine his ranking only by the fighters he has defeated........or..........do you also take into account the manner in which he beat his opponents, as in how decisive the victory was.......????????


You obviously have to consider the performance. Result + Performance.

The Ring does it.

Vitali deserves much more credit for his win against Kirk Johnson than Ruiz.

[Heavyrighthand]

You obviously have to consider the performance. Result + Performance.

The Ring does it.

Vitali deserves much more credit for his win against Kirk Johnson than Ruiz.

I think they do take the manner of the win into account, but then again, in my personal opinion, that can make the rankings too subjective and a matter of personal opinion, which it should not be. I think they should make the ranking determination guidelines as far removed form personal opinion, as possible. It will obviously be somewhat speculative, but it shoud be as concrete/cut and dried, as they can make it.

[thesandman]

You obviously have to consider the performance. Result + Performance.

The Ring does it.

Vitali deserves much more credit for his win against Kirk Johnson than Ruiz.

WHOOOAAAA back there.

Johnson weighed 238 against Ruiz.

He weighed 260 against Vitlay :-(


If you want to start playing that game, then Ruiz deserves more credit IMO. Even though it was bogus the way he got the DQ, Johnson was a frickin whale against Vitlay.

[AJAX]

WHOOOAAAA back there.

Johnson weighed 238 against Ruiz.

He weighed 260 against Vitlay :-(


If you want to start playing that game, then Ruiz deserves more credit IMO. Even though it was bogus the way he got the DQ, Johnson was a frickin whale against Vitlay.

yes, but he's KO'd in round 2 so stamina wasn't the factor

[thesandman]

yes, but he's KO'd in round 2 so stamina wasn't the factor

I'm not talking about stamina.

I'm talking about how fat he was. How little preparation he'd obviously put in.

How much he was actually prepared to TRY. Coming in to fight in that shape just shows that he basically just rocked up for the paycheck, with no intention of trying to win.

You seriously think that all being 260 effects is stamina????? How about speed, mobility etc?

Fuck, how could vitlay miss him at that weight?

[cuchulain]

No--I didn't because they leap frogged Byrd at the time. Byrd was on a huge winning streak and was 1-2 for quite awhile. As I recall, he was suppose to get a shot at Lewis but Lewis dropped the title so Byrd fought Holyfield for it. Byrd had a win over VK so how he could be leap frogged at that time was a joke. The Ring jumped the gun on this one.


JoeyP

Byrd lost to Wlad, Twice.

And he was being schooled by Vitali (8 rounds to 1) in their fight, until Vitali tore his shoulder and lost (technically)


Byrd's chance would have been very slim against a healthy Vitali.

[RAMPAGE0017]

Everybody's made good points on both sides so far, but I dunno.... Wladimir was seen as the top heavyweight in the world ( after Lewis ) at the time, and got convincingly spanked by Sanders. So not only did Sanders have a win over one of the very top fighters at the time, but it also made him a title holder, so it seems like it should be enough to consider Vitali the legit champ ( IMO, anyway ) since he not only beat a champ, but also won the WBC title in the process. As for Byrd, he may have been on a win streak, but like others have said he had a lot of dubious decisions. And Ruiz was fresh off of his loss to Roy Jones, so it's understandable that many didn't look upon those two as a " threat ".

[JoeyP]

Byrd lost to Wlad, Twice.

And he was being schooled by Vitali (8 rounds to 1) in their fight, until Vitali tore his shoulder and lost (technically)


Byrd's chance would have been very slim against a healthy Vitali.


Byrd's second loss to WK has nothing to do with this. Also--it really doesn't matter WHY or HOW Byrd beat VK, it's just the fact that he did. So it has to be taken into consideration.

[Heavyrighthand]

Byrd's second loss to WK has nothing to do with this. Also--it really doesn't matter WHY or HOW Byrd beat VK, it's just the fact that he did. So it has to be taken into consideration.

That's how I see it, too. Byrd got the win over Vitali, and so Byrd should be given the ranking boost from it, regardless of how decisive, or not, the win was.

A win is a win, to me.

[RAMPAGE0017]

That's how I see it, too. Byrd got the win over Vitali, and so Byrd should be given the ranking boost from it, regardless of how decisive, or not, the win was.

A win is a win, to me.

Yeah, a win is a win, but he shouldn't get a boost in the ranks just because Vitali himself had climbed up the rankings. After all.. he did lose to Wladimir right after he fought Vitali.

[DamonD]

I have more of an issue with how The Ring handled Sanders' ranking than Vitali's...

Sanders was semi-retired, completely unranked, then after beating Wladimir he's suddenly #3. Then he takes on Vitali, has an 8th round tough TKO loss, getting stopped on his feet and never getting knocked down...and blammo, they completely drop him out of their top 10.

Total yo-yo stuff.

[RAMPAGE0017]

I have more of an issue with how The Ring handled Sanders' ranking than Vitali's...

Sanders was semi-retired, completely unranked, then after beating Wladimir he's suddenly #3. Then he takes on Vitali, has an 8th round tough TKO loss, getting stopped on his feet and never getting knocked down...and blammo, they completely drop him out of their top 10.

Total yo-yo stuff.


You have to also take into account that he won the WBO title, as well. At the very LEAST he should have been put into the top 4.

[cuchulain]

Byrd's second loss to WK has nothing to do with this. Also--it really doesn't matter WHY or HOW Byrd beat VK, it's just the fact that he did. So it has to be taken into consideration.


Yes it DOES matter how he lost when trying to determine how a future bout would go.

If a 'nobody' is playing Pete Sampras and is losing two sets two zero and it's five zero in the third, and Pete goes over on his ankle, tears it and can't continue, he loses and the 'nobody ' wins, technically.

But Eveyone knows how he win and few would expect him to beat a healthy Sampras.

Byrd lost eight rounds. He couldn't get near Vitali. Because of Byrd's considerable skills, he avoided the fate of ALL bBUT ONE previous Vitali opponent, being KOd.

For that I give him credit, but hoping for another Vitali injury in a second bout is a risky strategy.

Vitali was the top dog when he beat Sanders, but only for a short time.

[Thread Stealer]

See, that's my point though.... Vitali did fight a top 3 heavyweight, and won the Ring belt. And this particular heavyweight was a title holder himself. But, you already stated that you felt that he should've defeated atleast Byrd in order to truly be recognized as the true champion, and I was just curious as to your stance on the subject. But the fact is.. if Sanders was a top 3 heavyweight, then Vitali did legitimately win the Ring title.

Vitali legitimiately won based on their rules (#1 vs. #3 in some instances), but Vitali jumped too high in the ratings. Putting up a tough fight but losing (fairly) to the champion shouldn't get you a jump of 6 spots.

[JoeyP]

It's my understanding that he actually jumped up several places after LOSING to Lewis. Over fighters who hadn't lost! I think that's the most amazing thing. I think he was 8-10 and then LOST to Lewis and suddenly he is a top 5 and then he takes over #1 by beatingKirk---all the while leapfrogging Byrd who he did lose to. VK has been rewarded more than anyone in recent memory by losing a fight--and losing by TKO at that.

JoeyP

[JoeyP]

Yes it DOES matter how he lost when trying to determine how a future bout would go.

If a 'nobody' is playing Pete Sampras and is losing two sets two zero and it's five zero in the third, and Pete goes over on his ankle, tears it and can't continue, he loses and the 'nobody ' wins, technically.

But Eveyone knows how he win and few would expect him to beat a healthy Sampras.

Byrd lost eight rounds. He couldn't get near Vitali. Because of Byrd's considerable skills, he avoided the fate of ALL bBUT ONE previous Vitali opponent, being KOd.

For that I give him credit, but hoping for another Vitali injury in a second bout is a risky strategy.

Vitali was the top dog when he beat Sanders, but only for a short time.



The thing is, I'm not trying to determine how a future fight would go. I am basing rankings and who deserves what by IN THE RING decisions. He lost the fight. No matter how you spin it, no matter how you can try to explain it away he lost. If you quit, there's nothing technical about it. Not only did he lose to Byrd, he also received a huge bump in the ranking when he LOST to Lewis. Leapfrogging guys who had not lost in the same time frame. I still hold to my point that because Byrd had not lost in a while, and because he did have a win over VK, and because he remained a top ranked 1 or 2 over quite a bit of time, there's no way The Ring should have given out their belt without Byrd at least being involved someway. A healthy VK beats a healty Byrd the majority of the time--but that's why they fight--let them prove it in the ring.

JoeyP

[cuchulain]

It's my understanding that he actually jumped up several places after LOSING to Lewis. Over fighters who hadn't lost! I think that's the most amazing thing. I think he was 8-10 and then LOST to Lewis and suddenly he is a top 5 and then he takes over #1 by beatingKirk---all the while leapfrogging Byrd who he did lose to. VK has been rewarded more than anyone in recent memory by losing a fight--and losing by TKO at that.

JoeyP
Joey, sometimes a boxer's standing goes up with a loss, depending on how they perform, especially if it's to the undisputed best on the planet and they are leading at the point of stoppage (on cuts with half the fight gone).

RING may have felt, based on Vitali's record and his performance that no-one other than Lewis (who had retired, rather than rematch him) would be favoured to beat him head to head, hence their ranking.

[JoeyP]

Joey, sometimes a boxer's standing goes up with a loss, depending on how they perform, especially if it's to the undisputed best on the planet and they are leading at the point of stoppage (on cuts with half the fight gone).

RING may have felt, based on Vitali's record and his performance that no-one other than Lewis (who had retired, rather than rematch him) would be favoured to beat him head to head, hence their ranking.


Ok--fine--give me a few more examples then of how someone in the HW division moved up in rankings by losing to the current champ. Could it be a remote possibility that they felt VK would sell more magazines?

Look--I agree that right after Lewis retired VK was the best in the division. But crowning him because I THINK that he would win is completely unfair to the rest of the other belt holders at the time, esp when one of those beltholders does in fact have a win over VK.

Joey

[cuchulain]

Ok--fine--give me a few more examples then of how someone in the HW division moved up in rankings by losing to the current champ. Could it be a remote possibility that they felt VK would sell more magazines?

Look--I agree that right after Lewis retired VK was the best in the division. But crowning him because I THINK that he would win is completely unfair to the rest of the other belt holders at the time, esp when one of those beltholders does in fact have a win over VK.

Joey


I'm not going to debate this any more. We've reached an impasse.

I understand your position perfectly and it's just as valid as mine.

You could make the case either way (and between us, we have).

I was trying to explain what might have been in the minds of the RING guys (always a difficult thing to do) when they made their list.

I believe Vitali was the top dog for a little while and would have done much more but for injuries. I believe that it's ludicrous to suggest that he feared Rahman (as some on these threads have) when he took on Lennox. Vitali would probably have KO'd Rahman earlier than Lennox did.

I understand and respect your points.


Regards.

[Heavyrighthand]

Ok--fine--give me a few more examples then of how someone in the HW division moved up in rankings by losing to the current champ. Could it be a remote possibility that they felt VK would sell more magazines?

Look--I agree that right after Lewis retired VK was the best in the division. But crowning him because I THINK that he would win is completely unfair to the rest of the other belt holders at the time, esp when one of those beltholders does in fact have a win over VK.

Joey

I agree, he should not have gained ANY rankings boost by losing to Lewis, even if it was a valliant effort he put up. A loss is a loss, and should not be rewarded with any rise in ranking, whatsoever. That's how I see it.

But I think Vitali got his big rankings boost by taking out Johnson, who was a top three contender at the time he was beaten by Vitali. Not absolutely sure, but I think that is correct.


The Johnson win got him a boost in rankings, and then Vitali beating Sanders made him THE man, cause after Sanders KOed Wlad, Sanders was the man to beat. And Vitali certianly beat the hell out of him.

[RAMPAGE0017]

I believe that it's ludicrous to suggest that he feared Rahman (as some on these threads have) when he took on Lennox.


I always thought that was pretty laughable, myself. But only the most hardcore of Klitschko detractors will state that Vitali was afraid of Rahman.

[thesandman]

But I think Vitali got his big rankings boost by taking out Johnson, who was a top three contender at the time he was beaten by Vitali. Not absolutely sure, but I think that is correct.

I think the whole thing stinks to be honest.

The Lewis / Johnson fight wasn't even going to be sanctioned by the WBC, as Johnson was perceived as being a not worthy opponent.

Then all of a sudden he's in a title eliminator, and it boosts Vitlay up the rankings -as does a loss to Lewis??



The Ring (IMO) boosted Vitlay up the rankings because

a) he put up a good fight v Lewis
b) this attracted media and fan interest in him
c) he was probably the best, but who really knows.


IF the ring put Vitlay up the rankings so quickly based on nothing more than gut feel and wishing, then they are no better than the ABC's they hammer about their dodgy rankings.

[RAMPAGE0017]

I think the whole thing stinks to be honest.

The Lewis / Johnson fight wasn't even going to be sanctioned by the WBC, as Johnson was perceived as being a not worthy opponent.

Then all of a sudden he's in a title eliminator, and it boosts Vitlay up the rankings -as does a loss to Lewis??



The Ring (IMO) boosted Vitlay up the rankings because

a) he put up a good fight v Lewis
b) this attracted media and fan interest in him
c) he was probably the best, but who really knows.


IF the ring put Vitlay up the rankings so quickly based on nothing more than gut feel and wishing, then they are no better than the ABC's they hammer about their dodgy rankings.

As far as the rankings go, I think you have the WBC to blame for that more than you do The Ring. After Vitali fought Lewis, the WBC just started running people way up in their rankings, starting with Kirk Johnson, then when Sanders vacated the WBO, the WBC automatically put him in title contention so he could fight Vitali. I guess it's safe to say that they wanted to keep the heavyweight picture revolving around their belt since Lewis' vacated it.

[thesandman]

As far as the rankings go, I think you have the WBC to blame for that more than you do The Ring. After Vitali fought Lewis, the WBC just started running people way up in their rankings, starting with Kirk Johnson, then when Sanders vacated the WBO, the WBC automatically put him in title contention so he could fight Vitali. I guess it's safe to say that they wanted to keep the heavyweight picture revolving around their belt since Lewis' vacated it.

So far as Johnson goes I agree.

But The Ring always gob off about how independent they are of abc's, but they put up Sanders just like the WBC did?

Sounds off to me. Couldn't be because the fight was on HBO by any chance???????

[Lance_Uppercut]

He haven't had a World HW Champ since Lewis retired. Just a bunch of titleholders..

[RAMPAGE0017]

So far as Johnson goes I agree.

But The Ring always gob off about how independent they are of abc's, but they put up Sanders just like the WBC did?

Sounds off to me. Couldn't be because the fight was on HBO by any chance???????

Ring was probably a little overly influenced in the sense that they bought into Vitali pretty easily, but I can't really say that I think that Ring were wrong to give Sanders the boost in the rankings that they did. Sanders may have been previously unranked, but think about it.... he man-handled the top heavyweight in under 2 rounds, PLUS he won one of four major belts doing so. No matter what, that should atleast by him a spot in the top 4.

[FiveStoneFists]

The Ring has only added to the confusion, as has the inclusion of the WBO. In absence of a true linear champion, the title has to be unified, the new undisputed champion then becomes the new linear title. Undisputed traditionally means unifying the WBC, IBF and WBA titles. The Ring, although they have the best consensus rankings, is still subject to opinion and cannot enforce mandatories.

We have been looking at weightclasses and champions that have been far from undisputed. Mandatories are necessary, though some are below par quality level, to give deserving challengers a shot at the title. The Ring more often than not, has lead to scenario's where the #1 challenger does not get his right to challenge. Some of the (past and present) Ring champions are still idle when it comes to facing their mandatories, imo boxing is too protected.

The Ring does not make you the linear champion or undisputed champion. A unified champion is not the same as the undisputed champion (like I tend to read here nowadays), and to many fighters get hyped without even accomplishing anything. The manner in which Hatton for instance beat Castillo is significant (one of the better fights out there for Hatton at the time), but there is no doubt in my mind that Castillo was being overrated (especially by US fans), which subsequently means that Hatton is now again overrated/ overhated by them.

People who say the alphabet titles mean shit do not know what they are talking about either. The way a fighter comes to notoriety is by earning one of the alphabet belts in the first place, generally before they accomplish that, they are not even known or considered a threat. As long as it serves your agenda certain fighters are allowed to cherry pick their opponents, I think that this is the most harmful part of boxing plus relative inactivity (3 times a year should be a minimum, especially when considering a tune up fight). Give me throwback champions like Lewis, Tszyu and Hopkins - at least they fought the best anytime anywhere...

[PATSYS]

Vitali's claim to fame is giving an old overweight Lewis a tough fight :-(

[RAMPAGE0017]

The Ring has only added to the confusion, as has the inclusion of the WBO. In absence of a true linear champion, the title has to be unified, the new undisputed champion then becomes the new linear title. Undisputed traditionally means unifying the WBC, IBF and WBA titles. The Ring, although they have the best consensus rankings, is still subject to opinion and cannot enforce mandatories.

We have been looking at weightclasses and champions that have been far from undisputed. Mandatories are necessary, though some are below par quality level, to give deserving challengers a shot at the title. The Ring more often than not, has lead to scenario's where the #1 challenger does not get his right to challenge. Some of the (past and present) Ring champions are still idle when it comes to facing their mandatories, imo boxing is too protected.

The Ring does not make you the linear champion or undisputed champion. A unified champion is not the same as the undisputed champion (like I tend to read here nowadays), and to many fighters get hyped without even accomplishing anything. The manner in which Hatton for instance beat Castillo is significant (one of the better fights out there for Hatton at the time), but there is no doubt in my mind that Castillo was being overrated (especially by US fans), which subsequently means that Hatton is now again overrated/ overhated by them.

People who say the alphabet titles mean shit do not know what they are talking about either. The way a fighter comes to notoriety is by earning one of the alphabet belts in the first place, generally before they accomplish that, they are not even known or considered a threat. As long as it serves your agenda certain fighters are allowed to cherry pick their opponents, I think that this is the most harmful part of boxing plus relative inactivity (3 times a year should be a minimum, especially when considering a tune up fight). Give me throwback champions like Lewis, Tszyu and Hopkins - at least they fought the best anytime anywhere...

By saying that, that allows the sanctioning bodies full control over the sport. Look at the way the sport is right now.. it's in a position where the heavyweight division absolutely NEEDS an undisputed champion, because when it gets right down to it, none of the current champions have anything over the others. So what do the sanctioning bodies do? They wait years before a unification even happens. Corrie Sanders had to even vacate the WBO title in order to fight Vitali because they were busting his balls about mandatories.

And also, let's suppose that one day the sanctioning bodies all decided that they no longer wanted to unify their titles with another.. would that mean every division would no longer have a champion? That's why we can't ALWAYS depend on these assholes to make a champion for us, so we have to settle for the next best thing which is Ring. And even if you ever disagree with a decision that they make, you have to admit that most the time their ratings are reasonable. But as far as what you're saying about Ring not enforcing mandatories, I agree.. if they're going to award their belts out, they should have mandatory competitors, as well.