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

You don’t have knowledge of medicine—or boxing, for that matter. You’re the guy who thinks a torn rotator cuff and torn tendons are interchangeable just because “they’re both in the shoulder lolz.”
And on top of that, you somehow believe cortisone and cortisol are the same thing, and that cortisone counts as a PED. That’s laughable.

 

1. A rotator cuff is a group of tendons. Tearing a rotator cuff is much worse than tearing a tendon.
2. Cortisone is broken down to cortisol. Cortisone is basically a vehicle to get cortisol into a body.
https://share.google/lKdnQZ9pp5UV6GBgJ
3. Corticosteroids are all PEDs and you can go to VADA or USADA for that.

I’d like an apology.

 

1. Overly simplistic. A rotator cuff tear can involve one or more of the "group of tendons" and is not inherently worse than tearing a single tendon. I'd wager that single tears within the rotator cuff group are the most common type of this injury.

2. Cortisone is not cortisol (and vice versa). Using them interchangeably is problematic since they have distinct roles and clinical uses. The linked diagram underpins this by illustrating them as distinct molecules. Moreover, you have, by linking this diagram, inadvertently or otherwise, demonstrated why cortisol is not a stimulant - Something you have implied in prior posts.

3. Another oversimplification. Not all PEDs are equal. Glucocorticoids (S9 per WADA) are not outright banned (like Anabolic Agents - S1 per WADA). Exemptions are allowed for restorative purposes and you have no basis to suggest otherwise in the case of Liston.


Your biggest error was stating that cortisone is "literally a fight or flight hormone" in your attempt to push it as some kind of stimulant (and this sets aside your confusing the inactive prodrug for the active hormone). Your statement is erroneous and first-year stuff.


Maybe you should have a think about what the actual "fight-or-flight" hormone is and come back to us... ... ...


I'll wait.

 

No iteration of Sonny Liston beats a peak Muhammad Ali.

 

The opinions of experts are literally the peak of evidence after solid statistics and research.

Citing a respected, knowledgeable expert to support your argument isn't a logic fallacy. That's not even what the fallacy means.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with citing an expert in a debate, research paper, etc. In fact, it only enhances your argument if multiple experts are co-signing what you're saying.

"An appeal to authority is the claim that a statement is true simply because an authority figure or expert believes it, which can be a logical fallacy if the authority is irrelevant, biased, or the claim is unsubstantiated by evidence. However, it is not always a fallacy; it is valid to cite credible experts in their relevant fields as evidence, as long as their opinions are based on evidence, consistent with other experts, and the authority's credentials are clear and verifiable"

https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/a...ways,an argument when certain criteria is met:

 

That has literally nothing to do with this thread?

 

Samuel Peter's mere existence is hilarious.

By all accounts, he was crude, wild, not particularly fast, and his resume wasn't all that good even before the Wladmir fight. Wladmir went life and death with this guy, getting bounced off the canvas numerous times.

He was cited within this very thread as one of Wladmir's top 10 wins. People likewise make a huge deal out of Vitali beating Peter after his playoff and is also considered one of Vitali's best wins.

So I always found it odd when Wladmir is matched against punchers of the past and people claim he'd be "too sophisticated" for them, how "boxing has evolved", and that he dominated a "much more technically sound era". If all that's true, how the hell did a crude fat boy like Peter become the outstanding challenger for Wladmir? How did Wladmir struggle so much despite having the mythical Steward in his corner? And how did Peter manage to later become a champion years after this loss despite not really changing much? Doesn't that damn the era and narrative that sluggers of the past would have zero chance against Wladmir--especially because Liston and even 70's Foreman had significantly better technique and skill than Peter?

The damage control and excuses are almost impressive.

 

That's the key point in that particular discussion

 

1. Yes, the rotator cuff is a group of tendons—but tearing a single tendon can be just as debilitating depending on severity.

2. Cortisone is not the same as cortisol; it’s a prodrug that reduces inflammation, not a magic performance enhancer.

3. Corticosteroids are not automatically PEDs—USADA and VADA only ban certain uses in-competition, mostly to prevent masking injuries, not to boost strength.

 

He built a solid resume afterwards till the Vitali fight and even in the second Wlad fight came in pretty good shape but Wlad completely shut him down showing how much he improved. But Peters had some craft to him he was good at landing his punches when he needed to and walking through punches to land his own which is what he did in the Wlad fight. A big strong slugger bigger then most fighters in the past like Peters doesn't really prove anything especially since Wlad clearly improved between the first and second fight.

 

Why does that concern you? I thought appealing to professionals and experts was a fallacy to you?

 

Did Wladmir really improve a whole lot? I'd love for you to explain how. If he did, it wasn't some huge, astronomical difference. He was still a jab and grab merchant, just a much better one. And any skilled boxer will look good rematching a crude boxer like Peter who never changes and relies on power.

"Tanking a punch to land one" is not a "skill", it's literally just brawling. So Wladmir went life and death with a crude brawler despite being a modern, scientific boxer with Emmanuel Steward in his corner...?

And just so you know, being 10-15 lbs fatter than someone doesn't mean you're bigger or stronger than them.

 

Yeah of course he improved a lot in his early title reign peaking around the Chagaev fight imo. His jab was much better, his ability to control opponents with his lead hand got better, his defense got better, his range control was better, his footwork got better etc. Toney didn't lol. Holmes didn't look better against Shavers in their rematch etc.

You overestimate how well Peters did he knocked him down with rabbit punches that was the extent of his success and lost pretty much every round besides that. And this was before Wlad's title reign when he was still coming into his own as a fighter like I said you can see how much better he looks in the rematch.

 

Excellent post Sir.

 

As your questions point to, Peter (particularly vs Wlad) provides quite the troublesome benchmark for the era.

The grandest of damage control narratives is that Peter was the Foreman of the Klitschko era (with Wlad playing the role Ali, I guess).

Of course, such story lines fail to take into account that Peter didn't resemble Foreman in any meaningful way, whatsoever (as Wlad didn't Ali).