Which Heavyweight Is Possibly Overrated Because Of Nostalgia?

Ali was athletically gifted Apropos of nothing or maybe something Lennox Lewis was a phenomenal athlete. He played American football and basketball in high school and was quite good at both sports. Also a great chess player

 

Superb post DP.

 

Ken Norton was probably the most gifted athlete to box. Boxing wasn't even where his strengths were, but he did it anyway. Norton was (would have been) his era's Usain Bolt if he'd stuck with track. Would have been an ATG football player had he stuck with that too. Instead he boxed, in a style that took ZERO advantage of his incredible foot speed.

Also goes without saying that he could have been a bodybuilder to challenge Arnold, back in those days where aesthetics ruled over pure mass.

Kind of a weird choice to go with the sport that can leave you brain damaged and that wasn't what his physical gifts played to.

Yep despite that, he got a win over Ali and came within an ass hair of beating a prime Holmes.

 

No it doesn't. We've been through this already. Repeating the same crap over and over again doesn't make you right.

It actually isn't.

He did better in your opinion, not mine.

Given that Shavers only has 5, it really isn't.

Well, given that I only gave him 3 rounds and I gave Shavers 5, there's nothing innacurate about my statement.
And it was my perception of the fight as a whole. Shavers landed the big shots, while Ali mostly threw soft punches that hit Shavers's guard.

I'm really starting to think you're lacking a few neurons.
Even does not mean debatable, it just means even !!!
Again, rounds can be scored even. There's nobody with a gun behind your back forcing to choose a winner. I've always done this, if I feel neither boxer clearly edged the round, I score it even.
By scoring inconclusive rounds even I get a more accurate reflection of who actually won the fight.

It really seems you aren't since you keep wapping about that whole "they are debatable crap".

There's no anomaly whatsoever. Again, there is no law that says I have to score those particular rounds in favour of a boxer or another.

They are better for you, not for me.

I'm not trying to pull anything, you're just too stupid.
It's my scorecard, if you like it great, if not, that's your problem, not mine.

Plenty score the fight in favour of Shavers, so your point is stupid.

They are to me.

You don't really act like it then. No fan of another boxer would be this butthurt that someone saw a fight completely different than he did.

Tough luck then, cause guess what, I'm not one of them.

 

And if 2 of the trio of Federer, Djokovic and Nadal wouldn't exist, the remaining one would be on 50 GS. So what's your point ?!?

THE BEST !

That style died out cause they made playing surfaces slower, allowing boring baseline grinders like Djokovic to thrive.

 

And none could push like the greatest pusher of all times - Ivan Lendl. Nah, he was a baseliner as well.

Talk about boring...

 

My point is that Djokovic is still playing at a very high level even in his late 30s and is considered a top 3 player.

The only 2 players beating him in Grand Slams are Sinner and Alcaraz.

Where as Sampras was ranked 34th when he retired and was losing to alot of lower ranked players.

Also with the changes happening in the game with serve and volley dying out aswell as Sampras's overall major drop in form. It was unlikely Sampras was going to win much more in the game so his retirement made sense.

That's the point.

Actually some would say Stefan Edberg was the best player at the net his touch was exquisite.

Edberg also didn't have a massive serve to rely on like Sampras did.

Not to mention Edberg had a 2-0 record vs Sampras in Grand Slams including beating him in a US Open Final.

Obviously Sampras achieved more but if you're talking about pure net skills Edberg would be a strong candidate for one of the best.

Which I've already said ? That baseliners were starting to become much more apparent and serve volley was dying out due to the changes in the game.

 

Actually it does and I don't need to convince anyone i'm right.

Your abysmal scorecard and the fact you admitted to disliking Ali shows you're not objective end of.

The proof is right there.

Actually it is.

You scored the best portion of the fight Ali had in rounds 10 to 15 giving him 1 round and scoring 4 even rounds.

The evidence is right there that you're scoring is all over the place and not objective.

But your opinion is worthless because it doesn't reflect anyone else's scorecard.

Not the judges, not the ringside scoring, not the fans scorecards.

So the problem lies with you.

Yes because you conveniently scored all of Ali's best rounds as even.

An even round is not debatable ? It just means its even ? what ?

So you don't think either fighter edged the round yet thats not the definition of debatable ?

Are you ok ?

The anomaly is your scorecard is so out of touch from everyone else's scorecard on planet earth.

"Not trying to pull anything"

Scores all of Ali's best rounds as even.

Admits to disliking Ali.

Has an abysmal scorecard that's so out of touch from reality showing a clear sign of bias towards Ali.

Then in another sentence you try and claim you're totally unbiased ?

Did you not read what I said ? I clearly stated the fight was close and debatable and having Shavers edging the fight is not the issue here.

The issue is your scorecard has it as a landslide points victory for Shavers giving Ali only 3 rounds in the process. That's so out of touch with everyone else's scorecard it's absolutely baffling.

So no clearly you didn't get the point.

And again the points flies completely over your head.

The issue isn't that that you disagree with me.

It's the fact your scorecard is so out of touch with reality from everyone else's scorecard.

So I'm pointing out you're not being objective not because I'm butthurt over disagreement on a Ali fight get a clue.

 

I'm referring to currently.

 

Well, Liston was an outlier in terms of specific attributes that well exceeded his height in relative proportions.

So that fact in itself would possibly make it less likely to see someone of Liston’s height compete as well against so called SHWs as some of us guess that Liston might do.

So, in summary, not seeing so many 6’1” or so HWs competing successfully today doesn’t preclude Liston, the outlier, himself.

As to SHW gas tanks, I see general limitations across the board - and, as and when Usyk beat them, AJ and Fury were considered the top two HWs without concessions.

Uysk’s smaller man superior tank and busier output simply drew the SHWs limited tanks into sharper focus - highlighting a fact that might not have been so apparent when AJ and Fury fought similarly sized and similarly limited fellow SHWs.

As a final random note, re today’s
HWs, they are included in the examples upheld to suggest that mod. athletes are now able to fight into more advanced ages.

However, that particular argument doesn’t seem to account for the relativity involved in a seemingly good number of match ups that have pitted fighters of similarly advanced age against one another.

While Usyk has declined and didn’t appear to train ideally for Verhoeven, it seems the biggest swerve on him otherwise during that fight was Rico’s excellent tank in contrast to other SHWs whose later round fade Usyk has relied on.

 

He was outside of the Top 10.

 

It doesn't show that at all.

The best part for you, not for me. This where your brain stops working. I don't have to have the same opinion as you.

This is the dumbest thing you've written so far. My opinion doen't have to reflect anyone's, that's the point, it's mine.

For the billionth time you moron, that is your view of those rounds, I do not have to agree.

No, it does not mean it's debatable, it just means neither did enough to edge it, so it's even.
Debatable is when you think boxer A won and I think boxer B won. In this case, I'm not arguing for any of them cause neither did enough.

Cause I score many rounds even, I do not try to split hairs only so I can choose a winner. On the other hand, judges and most viewers search for a minor edge (such as a single cleaner punch or better defense), rather than scoring the round even. I do not do that, therefore it's normal that my scorecard is completely different.

It seems like you are the only one who did not read what I WROTE. Either that or you really are that stupid that you don't understand the meaning of the words you are using.

This content is protected

 

Yes it does your scorecard is so out of touch with reality anyone with any common sense can see that.

And again despite all these replies you somehow keep missing the point. And after about 10 replies you still don't comprehend what i'm saying.

So let me copy and paste again what i said.

"And again the points flies completely over your head.

The issue isn't that that you disagree with me.

It's the fact your scorecard is so out of touch with reality from everyone else's scorecard."

When your is opinion is so out of touch with what actually transpired then i think that is a "you" issue i'm afraid.

Yes you have a biased unobjective opinion that doesn't reflect any normal scorecard so the opinion doesn't hold much weight honestly.

The issue isn't that you have Shavers winning which i've already said Shavers has an argument to winning.

I myself only had Ali winning by 1 point which shows it was a close debatable fight.

The problem is it's the way you've gone about scoring the fight so bizarrely.

It's not the fact i don't agree with you it's the fact no one agrees with you.

How can you not see that your scoring isn't an issue ? it's not objective end of and doesn't reflect anyone else's scorecard not even remotely.

As i said when it's so out of touch with reality it stops being an opinion and it's just flat out being wrong end of story.

Again this reply don't make sense to me.

A close round that you cannot decide on who won it isn't classed as debatable ?

Like what ? how does that even logically make sense ? it doesn't.

Yes but you scored all of Ali's best rounds most notably the later rounds when Ali did considerably more offensive work as even rounds.

That's an anomaly in your scorecard that shows a clear sign of bias.

Your calling me stupid but you can't even keep track of your own scorecard you scored it 7 rounds to 3 not 5 rounds to 3.

This is your scorecard below.

Round 1: 10-9 Ali.
Round 2: 10-9 Shavers. You could even make a case for 10:8
Round 3: 10-10, or a slight edge for Shavers winning 10-9
Round 4: 10-9 Shavers
Round 5: 10:9 Ali
Round 6: 10-9 Shavers
Round 7: 10:9 Shavers
Round 8: 10-9 Shavers or 10-10
Round 9: 10:10 or perhaps 10:9 Ali
Round 10: 10:9 Ali
Round 11: 10-10 or 10:9 Ali
Round 12: 10:10
Round 13: 10-9 Shavers
Round 14: 10-9 Shavers or 10:10
Round 15: 10-10

And lastly you said there's no way Ali won but there's numerous debatable rounds on your scorecard.

If you didn't give Shavers the benefit of the doubt in every close round. And gave Ali the benefit of the doubt in some close rounds your scorecard would be alot closer.

Objectively most people thought Ali had a good finish to the fight yet you somehow conjured up 4 even rounds which is quite convenient to say the least.

So mathematically it is possible Ali can win on your scorecard hence your original comment that "no way Ali can win" is not true.

I've said all that needs to be said this conversation has gotten nowhere from the first reply and is simply a waste of time so i'm bowing out now.

 

@White Bomber Just to finally add maybe i was a bit harsh with some of my replies but i also don't appreciate being called stupid and a moron.

I do think you have a bit of a bee in your bonnet when it comes to Ali, and i do think you did let that creep into your analysis when scoring this fight.

I'm not saying you have to like Ali you can like who you like that's up to you.

But i do think maybe you should rescore this fight and take a look at the later rounds again. Because i think that's the real issue is later rounds more than anything.

Maybe i could word things better though when i'm trying to get my point across i'm not perfect.

If you want to have the last reply to my previous post go ahead but as i said i don't feel like this is going anywhere. And i just feel like we're trying to one up eachother rather than having a normal conversation.

Life is too short i don't want to spend my time arguing especially not online.

So i'd rather we move on and say water under the bridge.

 

I'm sorry I called you that, but I got mad of you repeating the same stuff.

I have always been honest about my dislike for Ali. I think he's massively overrated. But I assure you, that did not affect my scoring one bit, I was very objective.
You find my scoring odd because you and I score fights completely different. If you saw other fights I scored, you will find those also very weird.

If it's any consolation to you, I also dislike Leonard a lot. That bicth robbed one of my heroes in Hagler.
I just don't like outboxers, I consider them cowards. I have a soft spot for brawlers, pressure boxers, or simply boxers who are not afraid of trading and letting go of their punches.
My heroes are: Tyson, Hagler, SRR, Dempsey, Liston, Duran, G-Man.

No need to argue anymore. Let's just agree we disagree on the outcome of the fight.
The reason Ali doesn't impress me in the latter rounds is cause he doesn't land big punches and/or hurt Shavers.
I don't care who throws more punches, if they don't do damage, they're meaningless.