Is Wladimir Klitschko a favorite over prime George Foreman and Sonny Liston H2H

I think he beats Liston by points but I think George brutally knocks him out. He had a hard time w snappy Sanders. George is gonna crush him.

 

When you include Thompson among Wlad's best wins, you're clearly at odds with what a convincing line-up should look like. And, in any event, none are what I'd really call historical standouts.

Indeed, it speaks to the shallowness of Wlad's era that Thompson's Ring rating was a token placement due to the dearth of available options for the #10 spot.

There's nothing so majorly impressive here to confidently claim Wlad beat better heavyweights than Louis and Liston - not in my opinion, at least.

 

Relying only on experts opinion without any other evidence is a logical fallacy.

 

From Chat GPT:
In summary, the text is a textbook example of the rhetorical strategy of appealing to authority. It uses credible sources, but its dogmatic tone pushes it towards being a logical fallacy by suggesting the debate is over because the experts have spoken.

 

Citing an expert doesn't end this or that debate. That's different than saying experts in their field don't have knowledge beyond that of an average layperson and their opinions carry no additional weight. If Tom Brady says Patrick Mahomes is a great quarterback I'm going to give Tom Brady's opinion more weight than Tom Hardy's opinion.

 

When you're using it as your only evidence for your claim then as the person I was debating was doing then yes that's a logical fallacy.

 

If that's what occurred I would tend to agree. I just reject the notion there isn't such a thing as a proper authority.

 

That's your opinion, and that's fine. But Thompson had little to no amateur pedigree, started boxing late and didn't really beat anyone.

So, it's a bit difficult for me to view him as a model of superiority over boxers from a prior era.

 

It becomes a fallacy when it's used to assert that a claim is true simply because an authority said it, thereby shutting down all other evidence or debate.

 

It's is not what occurred.

What was provided by @Spreadeagle was a significant counter-assertion to a claim that he was overrating Liston. His introducing the views of known experts in boxing in no way closed the debate.

 

No — Sonny Liston didn’t have many amateur fights at all.

Accounts vary, but most sources agree he had fewer than 10 amateur bouts before turning professional in 1953. He learned to box while in prison in Missouri, and after release he fought in a handful of amateur contests, winning the 1953 Chicago Golden Gloves tournament in the heavyweight division.

So compared to most heavyweight champions, who often had long amateur careers (like Joe Frazier, Muhammad Ali, or George Foreman), Liston’s amateur background was extremely short. He basically developed his skills as a pro.

(ChatGPT)

 

Are you malfunctioning again?

 

Maybe learn to read you hack. That's exactly what he did when I tried to press him on his points. Maybe if you spend less time writing long posts to try and show how smart you are and more time reading and understanding other people you'd get that. But I guess looking smart is more important then actually being smart.

 

You can't manage either, clearly.