How would boxing have been effected if bridgerweight had been introduced at some point in the past?

Very condescending to say that I'm "missing context" when I've already read your prior posts before the one I responded to, and when I've posted in the thread before I ever replied to you.

1. I already said that there's no telling how much Usyk and Holyfield would've been affected if they hadn't been able to start Cruiserweight, I don't think they'd be able to accomplish the same feats that they have without the division.

2. In accordance with my prior point, I simply don't know. Removing an entire weight division would cause an insane amount of ripples, which I can't guess on the trajectory of. I have no idea which way the talent would go, I have no idea if they'd succeed when going up or down in weight, and I have no idea how any of it would happen.

It's very ironic to tell me that I'm "missing context" when you just asked me questions that would've been answered had you taken the time to read my post.

 

But that is the very context. The OP is talking about inserting a full division and asking how we think it would affect things. Those ripples are exactly what we are talking about here.

So my belief is that the difference would be minimal, the greats would still be great, those who weren't would be competing for minor titles.

You started from a position of defence which made it difficult to have an open discussion. You limited my post to two possible choices which you determined to both be wrong, you said I've not watched cruiserweights, the whole exchange has been strange. The only explanation for that is you missing the context.

 

Yes, I know that's what we're talking about... I don't know why you felt the need to reiterate all that to me.

That's fine. We can disagree.

My "defensive" position was brought on from your "offensive" position, "Great cruisers are not great fighters, but great fighters can be great cruisers." I openly said that I didn't follow what you were saying, tried to approximate to accomplish more than just asking a question, but still left it open for you to respond to- I did not "limit" you to two choices, I approximated what you could've been trying to say, and all it took was for you to clarify your position. I said, "Statements like this make it seem like you haven't watched anything at Cruiserweight." not "You haven't watched anything at Cruiserweight."

Or... That your position is unclear? Both me and Mark were confused by your statement, and instead of explaining what you were trying to say, you immediately just said "Then let's just leave it there." and "You've misunderstood my post." Is it that hard to clarify what you're trying to say?

 

So this is multi layered.

First and foremost, yes i left it there with Mark, he's not capable of intelligent debate, any lengthy interactions will tell you this. I'm not even convinced hes a real poster.

Secondly, I wasn't offensive, I said I didn't think bridgerweight would make much difference as I didn't think cruiserweight made much difference.

Thirdly way in which you approached the conversation wasn't conducive to an open debate. You weren't really trying to debate a point, but more trying to defend your position when it was never under attack.

 

1. But you didn't clarify with me for, what reason?

2. I don't think you were, I put them in quotations because of that, I don't think that my question was "defensive", either. Me saying that I didn't follow, trying to postulate on what you were saying, and then talking about what I believed was not a "defensive" position. Also, the belief you refer to here is not what I was replying to, I showed that much.

3. I approached the conversation confused on what you were trying to say... Yeah I wasn't trying to debate a point, I didn't know what point you were even trying to make. I said that I didn't follow, why would I try to start debating against an argument that wasn't clear?

You don't really seem to be picking up what I'm putting down so I guess I'll just leave it here. Have a good day.

 

I didn't clarify with you for 3 reasons: wrong, still wrong, you haven't watched anything at Cruiserweight. Not conducive language like I said.

You were being highly defensive which made the debate difficult to get off the ground.

But it was clear had you taken the time to read my first post in the thread.

Well what are you putting down? Does having bridgerweight earlier make a difference or not?

 

I haven't seen him much on Classic. I don't typically block anybody till they've gotten on my nerves at least a couple times- But I'm definitely not trying to talk to him again anytime soon.

I'll just go watch some of The Rifleman, take some of the nerves off.