Prime Muhammad Ali vs Michael Hunter (Boxing Evolution Theory)

Well, I'm happy to explain.

When you get collisions between talent pools that haven't encountered each other before, weird things can happen.

I'm pretty sure a collision between the world of the 1920s and the 2020s would result in the 1920s being swept. Would I be shocked if Sharkey absolutely dominated Usyk and Dubois, though? No. Wouldn't expect it. Might be surprised. Not shocked. Wouldn't be any weirder than our much bigger, stronger, more athletic, very skilled kickboxing guys getting the stuffing beaten out of them by tiny little Thais during the 70s and 80s.

Until a few years ago, I might have bought Fitzsimmons being decent against modern heavyweights, and it took a lot of mulling over to convince me otherwise. Was I irrational and ridiculous back then? Eh, maybe, but I think ill-informed or insufficiently informed would be a better way of putting it. Who knows what the next few years of research will bring? I try to keep open minded, and learn what I can from different perspectives.

 

I respect your views. But those examples aren’t in any way relevant to what I’m talking about.

We know that the sport throws out huge shocks.

But what we’re talking about here, is a guy who’s praising the current king, whilst at the same time, saying that a man with many similarities, who many would claim to have been even better, couldn’t even compete today, against a field of fighters, where many of them aren’t even remotely great.

It defies all logic.

All common sense.

So the guy either has zero knowledge of the sport, or he’s trolling.

We can leave it there.

 

Sure, we can leave it there if you like. My threshold for deciding a view is ridiculous is pretty high, at least when it comes to fantasy fights.

(Though I'm willing to make an exception if a person is abrasive, rude, and aggressively wrong. )

Anyway, respect to your views as well. Take care.

 

This is the problem you have though, in questions such as these, we are considering the survivors, they aren't the general pattern, they are the most elite of the elite. They are the men who have sat atop an entire sport.

Not using survivorship bias here would be the logical flaw.

 

That is my point. Size is nothing without talent.

 

Size is nothing without talent

Totally agree

Let's call it a day then shall we, gentlemen?

 

You can tell us whether or not you’ve been trolling first.

You could also explain to us, how a guy who couldn’t beat Joe Joyce and AJ, could definitely have dominated all the greats of the 60-80’s.

Finally, you could try and explain why the consensus HW GOAT, couldn’t have competed today, against the likes of Zhang, Kabayel, Parker, Usyk and AJ etc.

 

@It's Ovah

You're one of the more knowledgeable posters here how to you think this fight plays out

 

Stop this.!!!

 

And yet TYSON FURY weighed in at 281lbs and Usky weighed in at 226lbs and who won not once but twice?
So stop trying to justify that todays fighters would win just based on size and size only while ignoring the other million factors that come into play.

 

Here’s a hot take for y’all: Neither evolution nor regression with time exist. Good fighters are good, bad fighters are bad and every era has them. Doesn’t matter when they were born, just watch the tape and it becomes extremely clear how Usyk would be a threat in every era and how Wallin would never amount to all that much.

 

Bump

 

If Ty Cobb were born again in this time, he'd be a baseball super legend again. I have no doubt. But he wanted to go into law and that's where he is.