Ring magazine is officially lost it

It doesn't really have to be that complicated. At the very least just put the prime versions of the 2 said fighters in a ring and gloves of their choosing that were legal for their respective time. 15 or 12 rounds. And if you want to be a bit more specific the rules can be your average standard boxing rules that have been in place for decades with an average referee that breaks up clinches and looks for other things like a headbutt or a lowblow. No 3 knockdown rule because that sucks

 

It's too late for that now, Kamikaze! All that I have left is the Code. It's all any of us have left!

 

But if we'd known, all those years ago, that we were setting off on the road we followed...That we'd be beating up Janitor for a few Likes on an internet street corner...I dunno, man. It's ****ed up, d'you hear me, Kamikaze? We were so young, then, all of us...

 

Hush now brother- we’ve got a job to finish, no kindness in not putting down an animal you can’t nurse to health.... When the time comes don’t let my words freeze you up- do the right thing and end this nightmare...

 

Come to think of it, though, can we really consider people who call Mayweather the best ever to be "kids" in any meaningful, moral sense?

 

My resolve is steeled. This ends tonight.*


* Or ten years from now, if somebody bumps it.

 

"a certain degree of common sense"

When your basis of discussion is time travel? Is time actually anything? That is not such a silly question as it at first seems. I have read some very interesting philosophical dissertations on what time is. It might be something mental which our thinking creates to make sense of movements. Over my head, but they make a good case. What is certainly common sense about time is that "The moving finger writes and having writ moves on"

"Ali is better than James J. Corbett"

Very, very few wouldn't reach this conclusion looking at their records. Judging from film isn't necessary.

"Hagler"

Hagler was certainly always a middle. Fitz might have been a pocket heavy. His weight was in dispute and if he was 180 lbs., as many asserted, how much smaller is he at close to 6' than the shorter Marciano at 184 or the not much taller Dempsey at 187. Does anyone dispute that those men could punch at heavy?

Also Hagler did not ever KO heavyweights. Fitz did and often. And big ones in some cases. Ed Dunkhorst was close to 6' 4". Photos of him sparring with Jeffries show he is much, much larger than Jeff, who was 215 to 220. Boxrec gives his weight for Fitz at 260. Jeffries, who sparred with him, claimed he was weighed at 287. In the event, Fitz took him out with a left hook in the second. Dunkhorst was completely out and had to be carried to his corner. Fitz and other onlookers were worried until he came around minutes later. Dunkhorst was a journeyman of the time, but with a reputation for good durability. He had gone the distance with Maher, Choynski, and Armstrong, among others. Only Fitz apparently put him out cold. His other stoppages were TKO's.

So I don't think Hagler is a good comp at all for Fitz.

Cross-trainer in an earlier post summed up the problems with all the variables of time travel fantasy fights much better than I could.

Cross-trainer also hit the nail on the head about historians dealing with history, not with fantasy guesswork. I have read a lot of American historians but I never read one who speculated on how Lincoln would have dealt with the Great Depression or how FDR would have dealt with the Civil War or slavery.

Only boxing history seems dominated to such a "weird" degree, as Cross-trainer put it, by this type of guesswork opinions.

 

These laudatory citations are only the beginning. Soon, @Kamikaze, soon...the entire forum will consist of my vague musings about time travel and modal-realist universes where Hamed wrote the standard boxing textbook. The boxing forum you once knew, where people actually talk about boxing, will be a thing of the past! It'll all be theory stacked on theory, mixed with pseudphilosophy! Like an online university English department! Muahahaha...

 

Oh dear, Montgomery Burns has invaded our beloved fight-space!

 

Why are you brining up Hagler and Fitz I never compare them?

 

Be on guard Jan did not earn his survive this long on such a hostile forum without learning the "tricks"

 

You brought up Hagler in a discussion of Fitz and what Fitz could do at heavyweight. Don't blame me. I am just pointing out I see no comparison.

Fitz might well have been an athletic outlier who defies comparison with almost anyone.

 

No it doesn't, because that is an era that we have very tangible evidence about.

There was a global sport running in parallel, in the case of the hard man biographers, which demonstrated their insignificance.

There is no such thing as taking refuge in lack of evidence.

If there is no evidence, then there is no evidence.

It is that simple.

You can't use "I don't know" as evidence of positive claims.

You can however, use it as evidence that you don't know.

This is essentially where most arguments for the existence of God collapse!

 

? Please quote what you are referring to.

 

It ended the moment that you assumed the burden of proof!