Was Muhammad Ali's 60s era really that strong?

So we went from a over matched 6'3 fighter who at least had a jab...to a 5'11 guy with no jab to set NOTHING up and no footwork who will get busted open with the first few shots that land who weighs 70 pounds less?

 

Yeah but Joshuas not lineal lol. Thats his argument to winning or losing

 

Well i'll tell you what he'll fit right in with that logic with the Dinos, Herols, Dagos and Cecils. That's for SURE!

 

Dude we already covered this, I didn't list Vitali AT ALL on that long list I posted.

You then replied with my making it sound like Vitali got outboxed. I LITERALLY ONLY SAID HE LOST. NO MENTION OF HOW OR WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WERE MENTIONED.

TRUE OR FALSE, VITALI LOST THE BYRD FIGHT.

 

Explain how boxing techniques have changed for the better since the 60s.

 

The 60's weren't great but Ali lost what was regarded as his best attribute - his footwork - and then dominated the strongest Heavyweight era in history. 60's Ali would have given anyone that work.

 

Forget what you are talking about with champions. I never mentioned that. You were as shown in a conversation about size not being such a factor and Andrew said you hadnt mentioned them and you said to him about Vitali not being a champ but went on to say he lost to Byrd, in reference to a smaller fighter beating a bigger fighter. I pointed out to you that, that particular loss wasnt the case of the bigger fighter being dominated or beaten but due to injury in a fight Vitali was winning, rather than it being to your theme of bigger/smaller fighters scoring clear victories.
I have shown you both of our posts and there were no lies from me

 

Why do you say it was the strongest era? I think it was competitive but had there been say a L Lewis dominating with ease or a W Klitschko dominating with ease, people would argue it was not strong

 

I don't care what whether you mentioned it or not ****er. You have to tell the circumstances that the quote was said in.

Damn you are ****ing thick. The only fight that would be a title transfer would be Vitali losing to Byrd, you get that? In Vitali's other loss he didn't have a ****ing title.

I only listed the champs who were seen as the MAIN CHAMP in their losses. Vitali wasn't seen as a main champ of the division ever. Holding one title does not make a fighter a main champ.

I never said they were "clear victories" many of those victories that list (on both sides of the argument) were not clear wins.

So yes out of your own confusion you inadvertently lied.

 

The 70s are clearly the strongest era for heavyweights. In general everyone was either a puncher or boxer (style). Some both like Jerry Quarry. L Lewis and Klitschko both got stopped multiple times. They do NOT make it out of the 70s without a knockout loss.

 

Telling the circumstances is exactly what you didnt do, which led us here

It is you who is too thick to realise that I never questioned anything about that, as said to you numerous times. But you are too stupid to comprehend that. Once again, I never mentioned anything about titles or transfers. For the 100th time, I mentioned how in your dispute you noted Vitali had referenced a loss Vitali suffered to a smaller fighter in Byrd, and I pointed out that it wasnt like Vitali was being dominated or knocked out, but that it was a retirement loss due to an injury in a fight he was ahead in.
Is that clear to you now. Will I have to write this out for you again? It must be painful for people around you, having to explain things to you several times

Once again never said anything about that thicko. Here again to make it clear for you, though I doubt it will sink in
It is you who is too thick to realise that I never questioned anything about that, as said to you numerous times. But you are too stupid to comprehend that. Once again, I never mentioned anything about titles or transfers. For the 100th time, I mentioned how in your dispute you noted Vitali had referenced a loss Vitali suffered to a smaller fighter in Byrd, and I pointed out that it wasnt like Vitali was being dominated or knocked out, but that it was a retirement loss due to an injury in a fight he was ahead in.
Is that clear to you now. Will I have to write this out for you again? It must be painful for people around you, having to explain things to you several times

Once again, I wrote, I know what you wrote and filled in what I wrote. You really cant grasp it can you?

Once again, you make this statement but have never been able to show me where this alleged lie supposedly is, even when asked.
I even listed all of our posts and tied you up in knots and you are still here getting owned lol

 

I find it hilarious when people say that.

The boxers today aren't even better than the fighters in the early 00's let alone the 90's and 80's.

Boxing isn't a sport that you can play like soccer or track and field. You nerds need to get over with yourself with these absurd generalizations.

 

Muhammad Ali was non-existent in 60's... Stupid thread.

 

Y