Originally Posted by choklab
I have threadbare logic because Larry Holmes says Liston (who he never met) was the best jabber in history?
This is one example. The point is that Liston is regarded as having one of the best jabs in history, has a foot-and-a-half reach advantage and you are saying that Rocky will slip 90% of these jabs and counter all of them. That is beyond preposterous, sorry.
Did or did not Muhammad ali say a middle age Rocky Marciano was hard to hit with a jab?
Liston had a great HARD jab. Ali had a faster more accurate jab than Liston.
If Ali (who not only met Marciano but did friendly sparring with Marciano) who as you say yourself repeatedly countered Liston says Rocky is hard to hit with the jab why is it thread bare logic to agree? If Ali had trouble jabbing Marciano anybody would have trouble jabbing Rocky. This would include Liston.
...if I understand you correctly, you are now saying that Liston will miss with 9/10 jabs and get countered on 10/10 jabs becuase an inactive Ali who sparred with an ancient Rocky for a fantasy computer fight said so?
Even if Ali said that he was at 100% for that spar, and if he said that Rocky was the hardest fighter he had ever met to hit a jab with and if we had some weird reason to believe him the type of ****ysis you are pedalling would STILL be nonsense. You're talking ****e. Total, unadulterated ****e. It's a perfect storm of ****e. The fighter you came to the forum to undermine - by you own admission - versus your favourite at HW. There's a ****e whirlpool in this thread and you're right in the middle of it. Shovelling ****e.
The type of numbers you are rambling about don't exist at a high level, never mind the highest level. You are trying to inflict them upon one of the best jabs in the division's history on behalf of a punching swarmer
. It's beyond ridiculous.