Alexander Povetkin 6'2'' Monster Warrior who would destroy Wilder!

He is ranked highly based on his achievements in the past, that says absolutely NOTHING about how he would do NOW. These experts are just fan boys, people who use your similar line of logic to come to a conclusion. There is a deep American bias, deeply influencing media, including the media in Great Britain. There is absolutely no evidence Liston would be a great fighter today, NONE, ZILCH, no amount of hypothetical hogwash can change that.

What evidence do you have that Marco Huck is inferior to Liston? Like I said I need evidence, unless you have a magical orb telling you these hypothetical scenarios, your entire premise is based on wishful thinking. ATG rankings, fighter rankings are based purely on NOSTALGIA, nationalism, what fighter A achieved in the past etc etc. There is no sound science to come up to these conclusions So really what you are telling me is all OPINION. British media would obviously have western fighters in higher regards than Russian fighters, not surprising.

Povetkin beat Huck.

 

What evidence do I have that Marco Huck is inferior to Liston?:huh:roll:

Wow. Let me just bow out.

 

Liston would walk through the garbage cans fighting today in the blink of an eye.

Completely putting aside the long and rich history of boxing as nostalgia and nationalism and acting like past greats would be knockout victims to the steaming pile of fat re****s fighting today is about as disrespectful and ignorant as it gets.

 

Could be, but in October WBC will order the negotiations with Pov. If they don't agree within 30 days, there is a purse bid. Funny, but the fact that Wlad will not face Fury until December (at least in theory) excludes the possibility that Wlad can be an escape route for Wilder. By the time Wlad-Fury takes place, the Wilder-Povetkin purse bid should be over.

 

Another elitist Nostalgia is strong with you atsch

 

If by nostalgia you mean empirical evidence gathered from film, then yes, nostalgia. atsch

 

If you used a little bit of common sense, you would know that it is highly subjective comparing two different fighters from different time periods. You cannot honestly accomplish this, or make this in to a science. I do not care what elitist, intellectually deficient charlatans have to say about the topic. What frightens me about some boxing fans, is how they think is it logical to conclude that fighter A from time period C, can defeat fighter B from time period D. Elitist's, nostalgic idiots, nationalist fools etc etc amaze me

 

Hahahahaha, looking good in film means very little. I can look like a god boxing my younger brother, but when I face someone superior to me, I will look like a tool. :rofl What evidence do you have that this fighter from this film, would do good in another era If you have a bias, you will see things differently, I do not find fighters from old tapes impressive or exciting or any different. Nice try though.

 

Not always. You want a very objective comparison between two eras?

Tim Witherspoon almost defeated a prime Larry Holmes. A 43 year old Larry Holmes outboxed Ray Mercer to a comfortable decision win. I can therefore objectively conclude that Tim Witherspoon is better than Ray Mercer and I can ****yze their respective abilities based on their fights against mutual opposition even though these men have never met in the ring and are from different eras. Similar comparisons can be made with Liston.

 

It means a lot.

For instance, Ali has fast hands. This can be concluded by looking at film and compared, it's not subjective. Liston slipped a lot of Ali's punches, therefore Liston has good head movement. Are you saying this is an incorrect way of looking at things?

 

Another way to compare eras is simply looking at fighters that have competed in multiple ones.

"Ron Lyle was the strongest man I ever faced in any fight. The likes of Shannon Briggs, and men like that, didn’t affect me because they were just ordinary fighters. They didn’t make an impression and I just chased them around. The men I faced in the seventies were more fearsome than the ones I faced in the eighties and the nineties, with the exception of Evander Holyfield. Evander could have competed in any era."

Is Foreman not qualified enough to make cross-era comparisons?

 

Or the fact that a past prime, out of shape heavyweight from the 70s came out off retirement and captured the lineal heavyweight champ ten 10 years after his retirement.

Had Foreman not made that comeback, this guy will be asking me what evidence I have Foreman would have competed in this era.

 

Just like how Wlad avoided Pulev, right?

Go away.

 

It is all relative, you may look fast in comparison to your opponent. Also to clock speed you need a measuring device. It is all subjective.

 

no its not subjective, sicne the opponents speed can also be measured.

It is in fact doubly objective, the exact opposite of what you are arguing for.

So why do you keep repeating the doubly wrong answer that its subjective? Why repeat the same double bad mistakes over?