Look let's be realistic here. Wlad/Vitali/Lewis would dominate any era of HW boxing

[url]

This content is protected

[/url]
Contender
ESB Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 75

This content is protected

Re: Look let's be realistic here. Wlad/Vitali/Lewis would dominate any era of HW boxi
Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me. Please don't quit, I can school you all day. You love to point out individual examples, when statistics and trends speak a much more complete language. Power is an important part of boxing, not the only part, moron.

I clearly CLEARLY stated more then just power. Didn't I moron? and again with the numbers.
If you want to quote stats give me the formula for skill,heart,class etc of fighters and I will accept the numbers.
The sad thing is, if there was a stat for these, you would still refuse to accept them.
LOL at yet another fail from you!
No, once again you show you only know how to "maul" logic and facts. You know nothing about boxing and need to stop posting, stop perpetuating lies that only distract from the real reasons ATG's like Ali should be recognized as the best, not deluded fan boy "world is round" posting that just make you look stupid.

What logic and facts are you presenting?? numbers?? LOL
numbers which can be manipulated?? LOLIf you're trying win this argument with numbers then quote them LOL
I've given this time and again, if you're too stupid to remember them, not my problem. You've get to give you're own stats.

Let me translate "world is round because that's what I choose to believe". Ali dominated a HW era that would mostly be considered cruiserweight in this era. Its debatable whether today's cruiserweights are better than his HW era.

The fact remains he still dominated his era which makes what you said nonsense. Not the first time though

Uhm, that almost makes sense, no. You really are just plain stupid aren't you. Did you ever even get a GED?

Again, I've offered logical proof that you are a deluded fanboy, you've only offered your personal opinion that boxing is majically immune to the laws of progress

Where?How can I logically refute "logic"..lo
Thanks, you've shown that you can't.

lI have, you are simply too simpleminded to accept it. Again let me translate your last sentence "facts don't matter because my nut hugging opinions about prior era ATG's are included.

You keep saying "facts" what facts? Where are these facts? All I see is drivel and nonsense..
Because you are too stupid to accept reality, not my problem.

 

None of them have ducked mandatories. You don't know this as you have no clue about boxing or reality. And, since they are basically universally considered dominant by those with any semblance of boxing knowledge, I'd say you're off your meds again.

Gee, except they somehow were not the champs and LL and the K's were. Well, sure, but then Ali was weaker than that oh so stout Amos Lincoln.

Lennox was stripped of his IBF belt for refusing to fight Byrd?Who exactly did Muhammed Ali duck to be considered in this?
Thanks for agreeing with me, glad you're turning the corner from total stupidity.

Hahaha you need to reread again.
He quit trying to resist his trainer's superior will. My point is this is an irrelevant point, as irrelevant as the one on the top of your head.

Superior will? Angelo Dundee has said numerous times he couldn't make Ali do anything
No, factually inferior, he wanted to quit, was browbeat by trainer into going out. Factually inferior.

Great rational response, uhm, except you have no rational abilities and are clearly flatlining on the brain activity chart.

This doesn't make sense. His trainer has said he couldn't make Ali do anything. So "factually" you are wrong.
Proven per above moron

Except you have no rational evidence to make that claim, only your "na na world is round" delusions.

Wow, your stupidity is truly breathtaking. No moron, I was paraphrasing what you meant, YOU were saying you wanted to add subjective terms into unsubjective facts. Can't you even read? Go to English class.
Yes I have. You've once again failed to "explain" anything and only given delusional fan boy nostalgiaist non reasons. Come back to me when you actually have some facts.

Prove any of this? Go back and my quotes.

That's what I'm saying, you don't use statistic = facts because you don't have any. Only your mythical nuthuggin "world is round" views.

Wow. So because you have stats you argue that is fact?
statistical fallacy I think the word is.

his says it all, you are so braindead as to be unable to recognize facts or logic.

You have none.You have no evidence, only your subjective opinions. Learn what evidence is, I've provided it with other sports comparisons, and stats on size increases, ko effectiveness etc.

My opinion? Everything I have said is fact.You're stats on increase size? Quote me this,ko effective again quote me what you wrote I can't find it. But please "quote" me this so I can destroy it.

 

The sad thing is, if there was a stat for these, you would still refuse to accept them.
LOL at yet another fail from you!
No, once again you show you only know how to "maul" logic and facts. You know nothing about boxing and need to stop posting, stop perpetuating lies that only distract from the real reasons ATG's like Ali should be recognized as the best, not deluded fan boy "world is round" posting that just make you look stupid.

Fail? You didn't even answer my question just stated what you believe. Idiot? Yes.I've given this time and again, if you're too stupid to remember them, not my problem. You've get to give you're own stats.

Let me translate "world is round because that's what I choose to believe". Ali dominated a HW era that would mostly be considered cruiserweight in this era. Its debatable whether today's cruiserweights are better than his HW era.

You're stats don't prove a thing. In your own words "different era"...LOLUhm, that almost makes sense, no. You really are just plain stupid aren't you. Did you ever even get a GED?

Again, I've offered logical proof that you are a deluded fanboy, you've only offered your personal opinion that boxing is majically immune to the laws of progress

LOL again you're reponse is in the lines of "I believe this and that". Honestly you're not even brilliant as you make out to be.Where is this proof? I keep asking for it yet you never give it to meThanks, you've shown that you can't.

lI have, you are simply too simpleminded to accept it. Again let me translate your last sentence "facts don't matter because my nut hugging opinions about prior era ATG's are included.

You're so called facts are statistics but you don't count Marciano statistics because "different era"......
:roflBecause you are too stupid to accept reality, not my problem.

OH reality now ? aye



Have to finish this tomorrow. Do some research in the mean time. Gather ya numbers etc etc

 

Little boy sp's stupidity is just astounding. Since he's largely stopped making any type of arguments, I'll just start putting my overall thesis up here and respond to any new arguments that arrive.

Old ATG's should be respected as great for many reasons, I have Ali and Louis #'s 1 and 2 respectively for these reasons. However, it is for pfp and in era accomplishments, and import to boxing and history they deserve those designations. Its laughable to say they could contend with modern HW's H2H for the below reasons.

1. Progress. It happens. When you look at all sports with a quantifiable result, today's athletes are blowing past the old ones. In sports as diverse as swimming, sprinting, and javelin throwing, the old records are being shattered. In all the innumerable sports out there, I'm not aware of a single record that wasn't set mid 80's or later. Those sports all have about as much relation to each other as they do to boxing, so it would defy all reason for boxing not to progress as those sports have
2.Size. Per #1, it's likely (although not certain, per size limitations mentioned here), that even middleweights of today would easily defeat middleweights of 40 years ago. However, HW is even more pronounced, because the is no size limitation in HW boxing, as opposed to other classes. HW's have been getting dramatically larger, just like the athletes in the sports where quantifiable results are better. So, again, it makes no sense that the same process is happening in boxing as with sports where quantifiable results are getting better, but somehow the result isn't better as well
3. Statistical analysis of size on performance. Other website document this. Old time greats fought much smaller boxers, generally, but when they did fight larger boxers they had less success. Ali's ko ratio against fighters who would be designated cruiserweight today was a good rate, in the 70's. Against 200 and up it was 40ish percent, against 215 it was a featherfisted 33%. Frazier and even the renowned ko artist Shavers had similar numbers. Shavers ko ratio against 215 and up fighters was about the level of Chris Byrd. Shavers was a power only fighter, Byrd was power last fighter, to show how much performance has gotten better. Meanwhile, LL and the K's ko percentage again 215 boxers is 75% and higher. There is no reason to think Ali could have coped with the size and power of todays fighters and every reason to think he couldn't have.

Responses to these facts. Nostagliaists typically respond in one of 4 ways
1 Single examples, whether of a fight a modern fighter lost, or something a modern fighter did that (they say) Ali didn't do. Immature posters like sp love this, which is usually completely irrelevant. Any single example you can give, I can apply to Ali (look at the past thread posts here with sp and loudon). If you find one that I can't apply to Ali, good for you, then I'll give you a single example of dominance for WK (etc) that doesn't apply to Ali (Ali had to rely on biased judges to get him his many of his best wins, WK never did, etc). Ultimately, though, single example's are meaningless, and do nothing to contradict the broad picture painted by the logic and stats above. It is the context of the era that matters.
2. Prime. Ali was never beaten in his prime". This is circular logic, I can do the same thing with LL or the K's when I want.
3. "What's good for one sport isn't good for another". Well, I'm open to learn why not. Just give me some statistical evidence or logical, comparative arguments. NOTE: "Ali has way better footwork, and is just faster and better than the k's that's a fact" is not evidence, it is an unsubstantiated opinion. Posters like sp love to say that is evidence, but its only repeating an item of faith. You can believe that Ali would be the K's and LL as an item of faith, there's nothing wrong with that. Just accept that all factual evidence and logic points to the contrary.
4. Smilies. When all else fails, nostagiaists love using smilies,

So, if these facts outrage you, please comment. I will repeat the facts above and respond to any new arguments. By responding, you are helping keep this great topic at the forefront of the posts, and thus helping educate boxing fans. By keeping this thread at the top, you are helping detoxify fans of the self serving blather given by old trainers and commentators used to demean current boxers and laud old timers for all the wrong reasons. For true appreciation of the sport, we need to speed this detox process and help fans come to grips with the truth.

 

andrewa1,

You do that, and while you're exposing my complete lack of knowledge, maybe you could explain how Wlad had better footwork than Ali at his peak?

 

Little boy sp's stupidity is just astounding

My stupidity? Time and time again in this thread you keep saying "you dont know what you're talking about,you dont know boxing" when it has emerged you really don't have a clue at all. See below

None of them have ducked mandatories. You don't know this as you have no clue about boxing or reality

It's fact Lennox Lewis dropped his IBF belt because he didn't fight mandatory Chris Byrd.

Your credibility is in ruins.



1. Progress. It happens. When you look at all sports with a quantifiable result, today's athletes are blowing past the old ones. In sports as diverse as swimming, sprinting, and javelin throwing, the old records are being shattered. In all the innumerable sports out there, I'm not aware of a single record that wasn't set mid 80's or later. Those sports all have about as much relation to each other as they do to boxing, so it would defy all reason for boxing not to progress as those sports have.

How do we measure progress in boxing? I'm stunned. Do you want to name constant boxing records that are being broken?
It was Wladimir Klitschko who said "I use to go in there and try to land a good punch. But now I realize boxing is like chess" this was also how the old timers thought but as you can tell by the quote he had 'modern' philosophy in the beginning and how that worked for him.
There was nothing "modern" about his former trainer Emmanuel Steward who once said about boxing "We need to get back to basics"

Again nothing to prove this argument except "It happens there it must happen here". You can't truly measure progress in boxing idiot.

2.Size. Per #1, it's likely (although not certain, per size limitations mentioned here), that even middleweights of today would easily defeat middleweights of 40 years ago. However, HW is even more pronounced, because the is no size limitation in HW boxing, as opposed to other classes. HW's have been getting dramatically larger, just like the athletes in the sports where quantifiable results are better. So, again, it makes no sense that the same process is happening in boxing as with sports where quantifiable results are getting better, but somehow the result isn't better as well

Size in other sports is only due to weight lifting and diet. And I say size is good height to weight ratio; eg.Tua or Ibeachui. Although when it comes to diet, boxing since Jack Johnson days have always maintained a really good diet. Secondly since when does weight lifting make a big difference in boxing? I have not seen anything to prove this but I'll again quote the current HW champion Wladimir Klitschko; "There is no weightlifting because it doesn't help you go 12 rounds.The cardiovascular work makes your muscles smaller, but endurance goes up"..hmm whos right angry andrew or WK.


3. Statistical analysis of size on performance. Other website document this. Old time greats fought much smaller boxers, generally, but when they did fight larger boxers they had less success. Ali's ko ratio against fighters who would be designated cruiserweight today was a good rate, in the 70's. Against 200 and up it was 40ish percent, against 215 it was a featherfisted 33%. Frazier and even the renowned ko artist Shavers had similar numbers. Shavers ko ratio against 215 and up fighters was about the level of Chris Byrd. Shavers was a power only fighter, Byrd was power last fighter, to show how much performance has gotten better. Meanwhile, LL and the K's ko percentage again 215 boxers is 75% and higher. There is no reason to think Ali could have coped with the size and power of todays fighters and every reason to think he couldn't have.

How about you get the percent of decent fighters rather then bums?
Sam Peters for instance has a decent KO% yet if you disregard all the push overs and take down the stats of all his decent competition he has 1KO from 10 or 11 fights and even that KO is due to Maskeav being end of his career. Rightfully statistic's don't prove a thing because the same thing can be said about David Tua.

Statistic fallacy. You're not clever nor bright. You continually spew the same things over and over when it's not even right.

What I have said above is all FACT and backed up word for word.
You haven't presented anything FACTUAL in regards to boxing but rather other sports but you're too dumb to see that so I'll have to point it out.


Won't even bother with the rest..ya dumb and you have no credibility.

 

andrewa1,

So what if Ali got dropped? It wouldn't matter to me if Wlad had never been knocked out at all, because Ali was an all-around better fighter. There's no way Wlad could have coped with Ali's footwork, and if you'd watched actual footage like you claim, then you'd know this.

Give me a breakdown then, show me some proof to back up your ridiculous claim. Explain to me in your opinion, how Wlad has better footwork?

Ha! Everytime I ask you a simple question, you ignore it, and then pretend that you've answered it.

PROVE TO ME HOW BOXING HAS IMPROVED AS A WHOLE.

Runners can run faster now than what they could before.

So I guess that must mean then, that all modern boxers:

Must have better timing?
Must have better footwork?
Must have more stamina?
Must have better reflexes?
Must be able to hook better?
Must be able to jab better?
Must be able to slip punches better?
Must be able to block, parry and roll better?
Must have more speed?
Must be able to throw better combinations?
Must be stronger?
Must be tougher?
Must have better work rate?
Must have better chins?

All of the above MUST be true, because we know that Usain Bolt can run faster than Carl Lewis and Michael Johnson.

It should be EASY for you to name the top ten all time fighters from the following weight classes:

LW
LMW
HW
MW
LHW
WW

etc

I think someone's a little scared to do this simple task.

Ask any member on this forum to name the top 20/30 fighters of all time, and lets see how many modern guys make the list.

I'll start a thread and ask if you wish?

ANSWER THE ABOVE QUESTION. :good

DO IT ON H2H BASIS THEN. That's fine.

Show me what you've got.

How would modern day WW's have done against SRR and SRL for example?

How would modern day LMW's have done against Tommy Hearns etc?

How would modern day LW's have done against Duran etc?

How would modern day MW's have done against Hagler and Monzon etc?

How would modern day LHW's have done against the likes of Foster and Spinks etc?

Let's see your H2H lists.

While you're doing that, could you also explain to me, how a 5'10, 220 pound Mike Tyson had so much success at heavy, when the majority of his opponents held physical advantages over him?

Thanks!

 

You are deluded, Wlad gets ktfo he isn't in the same league

 

andrewa1,

Ali wasn't remotely more skillful, and wasn't remotely faster than Wlad?

Please explain.

You haven't answered anything at all.

All you have said, is the following:

"Boxing has improved" - but you can't give any examples or evidence how.

and

"A guy who's got physical advantages over his opponent, will always prevail."

 

andrewa1,

Because throwing a javelin is the same as slipping punches and countering etc? atsch

There's more weight classes today.

So what if HW's are getting bigger?

So Joe Frazier and Mike Tyson etc would have NO CHANCE against today's heavies?

There are a few more weight classes now.

But you're saying that old time fighters fought generally smaller fighters?

What are you talking about?

Were WW's back in the day much smaller than today's WW's etc?

Why do you keep banging on about Ali's knock out ratio?

He was at his best when he was younger before the ban, but he never fought to get guys out of there like someone like Foreman.

In boxing you have fighters, and you have boxers.

Ali only fought when he was really forced to, like Roy Jones.

They were both predominantly boxers.

You are a fool of the highest order!

LL had a higher knockout ratio, so in your world that tells you that there's no way Ali could have beaten LL?

Why don't you tell us how LL and Wlad could have coped with Ali's footwork?

Oh wait, I know, it's because they were BIGGER!

 

andrewa1,

The above paragraph contains NOTHING of any substance. You're just rambling.

Ali was never beaten before the ban, which your average boxing fan would class as his prime.

Wlad was knocked out by fighters who weren't elite, in his mid 20's.

But it doesn't matter anyway.

When doing a hypothetical match up, you analyze each fighters advantages and disadvantages etc. You consider everything, and allow for certain circumstances.

Your brain tells you that because Doug Jones caused Ali some trouble when he was young, it means he couldn't have beaten Wlad.

You think because Cooper dropped Ali, and Wlad could hit harder, that means that Wlad would definitely have won etc.

You never allow for circumstances.

I could spin it and say that Foreman hit harder than Brewster etc, and Ali knocked him out.

Glen Johnson and Tarver knocked out Roy Jones.

But we know that Ruiz at 220 pounds, hit much harder than those two. So why couldn't he beat Roy?

Styles make fights, and you have no idea what that means.

No, you're not open.

You've no idea what the world logic means.

An unsubstantiated opinion?

Go and watch some footage you CLOWN and then do a comparison.

You haven't given any factual evidence!

None WHATSOEVER!

Your whole theory is

Swimming records have been broken, therefore boxing must have improved.

Your tiny brain can't comprehend the difference between throwing a javelin, swimming and sprinting, to the scientific art of boxing, that is made up of a HUGE VARIETY OF SKILLS AND TECHNIQUES, THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED ON THROUGH GENERATIONS!

You haven't got any FACTS!

Stop MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF and go and watch some actual fight footage. :good

 

Wrong.

Styles make fights. Tyson, Dempsey, and Frazier beat Wlad 9 out of 10 times.

Jack Johnson, Ali, and Joe Louis beat Vitali 9 out of 10 times.

Ali outboxes the hell out of Lewis and prime Tyson knocks him out.

Larry Holmes is even money with any fighter in history.

 

All 3 are great boxers that I respect. They'd be competitive in any era, no doubt about it. However, I don't agree that they would dominate any era.

Wlad, hasn't been able to make most people forget his KO losses to guys who wouldn't stand out in any era. He has not avenged those lost nor has he really proven he could take on true heavyweight punchers. Rahman was past his best. The limited Peter gave him hell in their first fight and was shot in the second. David Haye tried to KO a much biger guy without throwing one damn combination... I don't know what that fight proved... With the evidence I have, I would expect Wlad to taste the canvas in any era. He's got the physical attribute, the skills and the heart to be competitive, but he's not made for war.

Vitali is an H2H nightmare for anyone, in any era. However, he didn't dominate his era so why would we expect him to dominate every era ? His body betrayed him in two of his biggest fight, the same would've probably happened against other great boxers.

Lewis in my opinion could definitly dominate most eras. There are no perfect boxers... anyone would get beaten over a lenghty career facing top opposition. The fact that Lewis avenged his loss convincingly puts him higher than most. Could he dominate the 70's ? I don't know but you wouldn't have to try so hard to convince me. Would he beat Ali in the late 60's ? I don't think so, but it's not a crazy idea...


Edit : answer to TJ Max :

Your comment on Holmes is interesting... It is true that I'd give Holmes more than a chance agains't most boxers I may think of. I also agree about Ali ouboxing Vitali, I'd also add that he would've TKOed him on cuts. Ali would dance around vitali and potshot him with the left. Ali was great at opening cuts. I don't see Johnson winning, though... I'd pick Lewis to KO Tyson, but I may be wrong on that one.

 

Loudon, your stupidity is almost equal to sp's but ultimately he has you beat. So I've looked over everyone's posts, and 1. I find it amusing that you actually insult yourself several times in several ways, (most amusingly your use of smilies) and 2 all of your counter opinions fall into the three categories of denial I've listed before. Loudon, you are all about #1 "single examples" and #2 "prime" fallacies. You also do #3, "what's good for one sport isn't good for another", but once again you fail to present any kind of rational argument, just "na na" and "smilie". SP, little sad friend, you do exactly the same, although you add one aspect I forgot to mention, i.e. the entire era sucks so statistical analysis is irrelevant. Again, you have no proof to back that assertion up, all evidence is to the contrary, but you can believe that, just accept it is an item of faith and all logical evidence is to the contrary.

Now, read my thesis carefully, and if you have a brain, which I know you don't, you'll realize you've done nothing to counter the following (actually, sp and Loudon, all this isn't really for you, you've already demonstrated a complete and utter lack of intellect that renders you incapable of understanding below, this is for the less zealot reader, who may have been misguided by biased media and trainers, but are self aware and intelligent enough to be persuaded by logic and truth):


Old ATG's should be respected as great for many reasons, I have Ali and Louis #'s 1 and 2 respectively for these reasons. However, it is for pfp and in era accomplishments, and import to boxing and history they deserve those designations. Its laughable to say they could contend with modern HW's H2H for the below reasons.

1. Progress. It happens. When you look at all sports with a quantifiable result, today's athletes are blowing past the old ones. In sports as diverse as swimming, sprinting, and javelin throwing, the old records are being shattered. In all the innumerable sports out there, I'm not aware of a single record that wasn't set mid 80's or later. Those sports all have about as much relation to each other as they do to boxing, so it would defy all reason for boxing not to progress as those sports have
2.Size. Per #1, it's likely (although not certain, per size limitations mentioned here), that even middleweights of today would easily defeat middleweights of 40 years ago. However, HW is even more pronounced, because the is no size limitation in HW boxing, as opposed to other classes. HW's have been getting dramatically larger, just like the athletes in the sports where quantifiable results are better. So, again, it makes no sense that the same process is happening in boxing as with sports where quantifiable results are getting better, but somehow the result isn't better as well
3. Statistical analysis of size on performance. Other website document this. Old time greats fought much smaller boxers, generally, but when they did fight larger boxers they had less success. Ali's ko ratio against fighters who would be designated cruiserweight today was a good rate, in the 70's. Against 200 and up it was 40ish percent, against 215 it was a featherfisted 33%. Frazier and even the renowned ko artist Shavers had similar numbers. Shavers ko ratio against 215 and up fighters was about the level of Chris Byrd. Shavers was a power only fighter, Byrd was power last fighter, to show how much performance has gotten better. Meanwhile, LL and the K's ko percentage again 215 boxers is 75% and higher. There is no reason to think Ali could have coped with the size and power of todays fighters and every reason to think he couldn't have.

Responses to these facts. Nostagliaists typically respond in one of 4 ways
1 Single examples, whether of a fight a modern fighter lost, or something a modern fighter did that (they say) Ali didn't do. Immature posters like sp love this, which is usually completely irrelevant. Any single example you can give, I can apply to Ali (look at the past thread posts here with sp and loudon). If you find one that I can't apply to Ali, good for you, then I'll give you a single example of dominance for WK (etc) that doesn't apply to Ali (Ali had to rely on biased judges to get him his many of his best wins, WK never did, etc). Ultimately, though, single example's are meaningless, and do nothing to contradict the broad picture painted by the logic and stats above. It is the context of the era that matters.
2. Prime. Ali was never beaten in his prime". This is circular logic, I can do the same thing with LL or the K's when I want.
3. "What's good for one sport isn't good for another". Well, I'm open to learn why not. Just give me some statistical evidence or logical, comparative arguments. NOTE: "Ali has way better footwork, and is just faster and better than the k's that's a fact" is not evidence, it is an unsubstantiated opinion. Posters like sp love to say that is evidence, but its only repeating an item of faith. You can believe that Ali would be the K's and LL as an item of faith, there's nothing wrong with that. Just accept that all factual evidence and logic points to the contrary.
4. Smilies. When all else fails, nostagiaists love using smilies,

So, if these facts outrage you, please comment. I will repeat the facts above and respond to any new arguments. By responding, you are helping keep this great topic at the forefront of the posts, and thus helping educate boxing fans. By keeping this thread at the top, you are helping detoxify fans of the self serving blather given by old trainers and commentators used to demean current boxers and laud old timers for all the wrong reasons. For true appreciation of the sport, we need to speed this detox process and help fans come to grips with the truth.

 

Man you are phatetic...you just look like a big nuthugger!!!

I will give you a simple example: Wlad got Ko by 3 mediocres fighters and Lewis by 2. :deal