Look let's be realistic here. Wlad/Vitali/Lewis would dominate any era of HW boxing

He posts a load of words but i dont read anything.

 

i agree

 

Uh, I think I meant to direct that towards Andrew.

 

ye i fixed it up

 

I just can't see a prime Ali OR Tyson being able to beat a prime Lewis or Klitschko.

 

Glad to see morons are still coming back for more, keeping this important post high to let more intelligent people understand why you cant compare HW's H2H from different eras. You're drivel only helps decontaminate people, so thank you.

sp, you cannot debate. Its neat that you think you can, I honestly believe you don't understand how badly you are getting owned in this thread, nor how stupid you look. I'm only too happy to keep exposing your stupidity. Regarding your first post, you have no debate side, I've put all the proof shooting your side down below. Regarding your second post, it would be better if you numbered your "arguments" as I do, but I know you lack the organizational and logical abilities to do that simple a task, so I'll number them myself in reference to their appearance: 1. Your argument goes under #5 below of typical reproaches, insults, see rebuttal there 2. in an update, I addressed your example specifically in #1 of typical reproaches, you would know this if you read. 3 You apparently try to attack #1 of my facts on why past HW's can't compete with current HW's, but its rambling blather without a point. It doesn't address any of the facts I point out, its in line with my typical reproach example #3, your "argument" #4 again, you ramble without a point. Size has increased, both height and body mass, quoting irrelevant WK quotes does not speak to that at all. Your "point" #5, I addressed in an earlier reply, its again unresponsive, you claim stats don't matter because the entire era is bummy. That is not a factual statement that you have any evidence for, as pointed out, all the evidence is opposed to that, you have only faith that that is true. You can believe that, but don't claim that is a logical belief.

Yero, you fall directly under typical reproach #'s 1 and 5, below.
TJ Max, as typical, you are delusional to believe that. Williard couldn't box, and couldn't take a punch. That he was so successful despite completely lacking the talent of WK, while only having his size, is a testament to how far the sport has come (and he was WK's size, smaller than VK). Your delustional argument falls under a combination of #'s 1 and 5 of typical responses, below. sp, that goes for your agreements, as well.
Dinovelvet, you fall under #5,
The common theme among all these haters, is that they are completely incapable of giving a rational argument that even moderately contends the facts I have listed. Only sp even responds to the arguments, but because he is so braindead and incapable of rational though, he cannot put coherent sentences together on the subject.

Now, the restatement will be posted in the next reply, for length purposes:

 

This thread is meant for people who have been convinced by biased commentators, trainers protecting their own glory and financial interest etc that modern HW's can't compare head to head with past heavyweights (nothing wrong with having that belief initially, I did too), BUT have the intelligence and self control to understand rational arguments and change their mind. Even if you have a HW "hero" you just can't accept would lose today, if you can evolve your opinion on the topic overall, then the thread is doing its job. When someone posts something new, I'll post a similar post, responding to any new arguments and tweaking my below statement to better explain. So below are the relevant facts and features:


Old ATG's should be respected as great for many reasons, I have Ali and Louis #'s 1 and 2 respectively on my all time great list for these reasons. However, it is for pfp and in era accomplishments, and import to boxing and history they deserve those designations. Its wrong to say they could contend with modern HW's H2H for the below reasons.

1. Progress. It happens. When you look at all sports with a quantifiable result, today's athletes are blowing past the old ones. In sports as diverse as swimming, sprinting, and javelin throwing, among many others, the old records are being shattered. In all the innumerable sports out there, I'm not aware of a single record that wasn't set mid 80's or later, and usually in the 2000's. Even in nonquantifiable sports with quantifiable aspects (i.e. tennis's serving speed), the quantifiable aspects have increased. Those sports all have about as much relation to each other as they do to boxing, so it would defy all reason for boxing not to progress as all other sports have
2.Size and relation to progress. Per #1, it's likely (although not certain, per size limitations mentioned here), that even middleweights of today would easily defeat middleweights of 40 years ago. However, HW is even more pronounced, because the is no size limitation in HW boxing, as opposed to other classes. HW's have been getting dramatically larger, both taller and heavier, just like the athletes in the sports where quantifiable results are better. So, again, it makes no sense that the same process is happening in boxing as with sports where quantifiable results are getting better, but somehow the result isn't better as well
3. Statistical analysis of size on performance. Other websites document this. Old time greats fought much smaller boxers, generally, but when they did fight larger boxers they had less success. Ali's ko ratio against fighters who would be designated cruiserweight today was a very good rate, in the 70's. Against 200 and up it was 40ish percent, against 215 and up it was a featherfisted 33%. Frazier and even the renowned ko artist Shavers had similar numbers. Shavers ko ratio against 215 and up fighters was about the level of Chris Byrd. Shavers was a power only fighter, Byrd was power last fighter, to show how much performance has gotten better. Meanwhile, LL and the K's ko percentage again 215 boxers is 75% and higher. There is no reason to think Ali could have coped with the size and power of todays fighters and every reason to think he couldn't have.

Responses to these facts. Nostagliaists typically respond in one of 5 ways. I note the ways, and why they are irrelevant as counters to the above facts, below.
1 "Single examples", whether of a fight a modern fighter lost, or something a modern fighter did that (they say) Ali didn't do. Immature posters like sp and loudon love this, which is usually completely irrelevant. Any single example you can give, I can apply to Ali (look at the past thread posts here with sp and loudon). If you find one that I can't apply to Ali, good for you, then I'll give you a single example of dominance for WK (etc) that doesn't apply to Ali (Ali had to rely on biased judges to get him his many of his best wins, WK never did, etc). A couple in particular. sp went on about modern HW's not being "true" champs because they didn't defend their mandatories. The k's never failed to do that, and LL never ducked a mandatory (he chose Grant over Ruiz when Grant was uniformly regarded as the better fighter and VK over CB, when VK was regarded as LL's biggest threat in the division). I could point out that Ali was stripped of his WBA belt as well after the first Liston fight because he didn't fight who the WBA wanted him to, but either way its irrelevant because 1. Ali, LL and the K's have indisputably (to rational persons) been dominant champs for a long time beating the best and moreover 2. It really has nothing to do with the broad premise of why prior HW's could contend with modern HW's outlined above. Same thing with pointing out single defeats. All boxers (save Marciano, who I hope no one will say is the best h2h of all time) have defeats, but it is to opponents in their own era. So, pointing out their defeats is meaningless to the broader era argument. Ultimately, "single example's" are meaningless, and do nothing to contradict the broad picture painted by the logic and stats above. It is the context of the era that matters.
2. Prime. Ali was never beaten in his prime". This is circular logic, I can do the same thing with LL or the K's when I want. Primes occur at different times for different fighters, in part because "prime" is really just a sliding scale of different important attributes, some of which peak sooner and some later. For taller and heavier, harder hitting HW's the prime is usually mid thirties, because chin prime occurs later, hard punching lasts a long time, and properly utilizing your height uses a lot of experience and technique. That's why Foreman was able to be effective into his mid 40's, and LL and the K's were at their best mid to late 30's. Conversely, shorter, high octane fighters like Tyson broke down quickly.
3. "What's good for one sport isn't good for another". Basically the argument that boxing is a special flower that, alone of all sports, is immune to progress. Well, I'm open to learn why not. Just give me some statistical evidence or logical, comparative arguments. But I have yet to hear a real argument. NOTE: "Ali has way better footwork, and is just faster and better than ll and the k's that's a fact" is not evidence, it is an unsubstantiated opinion. Posters like sp love to say that is evidence, but its only repeating an item of faith. You can believe that Ali would be the K's and LL as an item of faith, there's nothing wrong with that. Just accept that all factual evidence and logic points to the contrary.
4. Smilies. When all else fails, nostagiaists love using smilies, (or insults, I include "na na you're stupid" in this category). This may make you feel better but it does nothing to contradict the facts above.
5. Denial. In this case the last stage of grief over ingrained opinions. Just stating "Ali would easily beat LL and the K's" with no other statements. Again it may make you feel better, but it does nothing to change the above facts.

So, if these facts outrage you, please comment. I will repeat and or tweak the facts above and respond to any new arguments. By responding, you are helping keep this great topic at the forefront of the posts, and thus helping educate boxing fans. By keeping this thread at the top, you are helping detoxify fans of the self serving blather given by old trainers and commentators used to demean current boxers and laud old timers for all the wrong reasons. For true appreciation of the sport, we need to speed this detox process and help fans come to grips with the truth.

 

Yes and 50 years from now there will be be heavyweights that Wlad/Vitali/Lewis won't be able to live with, I think they call it evolution, bigger, stronger, faster and more skillful, its inevitable.

 

yeah. like vitali and lewis makes an offspring and becomes the next undisputed atg heavyweight champ for the next 25 years. evolution.

 

Ha!

You've ignored all of my posts, refused to answer any questions, and instead you've copied and pasted the exact same rubbish that you've already posted. Nobody wanted to read it the first time, so they not going to read it again.

If all else fails, re post what you've already written.

I think you're my favourite poster.

 

And here it is again ha!

Why don't you show us your H2H match ups?

Show us your examples on how boxing has improved.

Swimming and sprinting records aren't going to cut it.

Give us your theory and back it up with something. :good

 

Copy and paste X 3

 

X 4

 

REALLY???

Ha!

You're a SPECIAL kind of stupid!

 

That's what I've been saying.

Ha! He speaks without saying anything.

He'd make a great politician.

We need to find him another forum to debate on.