Ali vs Bryant Jennings who wins?

I don't think you've watched any of them, I genuinely don't believe anyone could form your opinions having watched fights of these men.

Watch Liston v Williams and Patterson
Watch Frazier v Quarry, Ellis and Ali
Watch Foreman v Frazier, Norton, Ali and Young.

After those fights have been watched by you we can continue the conversation.

 

So instead of being able to refute me you're now asking me to rewatch fights I've already watched countless times in the hope I change my views to match yours

Sorry that's not going to happen

You were unable to answer any of my questions

You lost here and it's clear your in denial about it

 

Really? You think the current HW talent pool is greater than that of the 1970s?

 

Jennings would whoop Ali at trivia about 2015 basketball.

FACT.

 

Fantasy HW H2Hs are always a fruitless pursuit. In other divisions you have the fixed point of weight to which you can tether your argument. With HWs, people can always simply say 'this guy was bigger and taller than that guy'. But that merely over-simplifies...

 

I've lost what? Time maybe but other than that not an awful lot.

I just want you to watch these fights and enjoy them yourself so you are then in a position to actually defend your arguments with analysis.

 

Are you ******ed ?

I already defended my arguments with analysis

Either admit defeat or go away little kid

 

No wonder you never see a skinny troll.

 

No, it's amusing, though not insane, that you are so immune e to logic on this topic and so obviously overly emotional that you are calling people insane. Jennings a "club fighter". The guy was basically concencus top ten a year ago. He made Wlad look old and slow (and maybe he was) and has quality wins. Who was Norton when he beat Ali? A guy with zero notable wins on his resume who was blasted out by a scrub. Your putting boxers on some giant pedestal that doesn't exist in real life.
No evidence that all sports evolve? Except every sport with tangible records have seen those records broken in the last thirty years. Those sports have seen an increased size of participants, largely because of the increased talent pool. Boxing, which does not have tangible records to break, has nevertheless seen the same, or even greater increase in size that marked other sports that did demonstrably get better.
That means that if anything, boxing has probably progressed at least as much as other sports where it is proven. In those sports, the top performers of Ali's era wouldn't even be top 15 now. That is the clear evidence logically. It impossible to prove unequivocally, so you and others are free to have your own opinion. However, it is either intellectually dishonest, or simply stupid, to act outraged and claim "modernists" are "insane" etc simply for making the most obvious logical observation. Get over yourself and lighten up. Ali had a great legacy, few dispute that, if you think his h2h prowess is beyond dispute to the point that people are "insane" for questioning it, then you've put him on too big a pedestal.

 

I don't think, I know. In fact, it's the most important reason that sports progress. There are many more humans now than there were 40 years ago, and many more nations participating in boxing and other sports than before. Now, the number of pro boxers is only slightly larger than it was 40 years ago, and that might be where the confusion comes in. But talent pools don't work that way. Think of schools. They are put into sporting divisions based on number of students. Their actual sport teams may not have any or many more members than smaller schools. But they are at an advantage nevertheless, because the more people, the more likely they are to have varied useful athletic traits, and then they self select about their likelihood of success in the sport.
In short, it's a fairly simple concept that's understood and been proven in similar areas. Why is it so hard to understand in this one? My guess is that people are too emotionally invested in wanting there old time hero's to be the best at everything, so they won't let themselves understand fairly simple concepts.

 

Which is fine until you compare Wilder, Joshua, Parker and Wald with Ali, Foreman, Frazier and Norton and your theory takes a bit of a nosedive. Nice Pseudo-science despite circumnavigating exponentiality regarding population growth etc. And you totally ignored the growth of other more lucrative sports which took talent from boxing into other fields. Good try, though...

 

Jennings IS a club fighter. What else do you call a man who takes up boxing in his 20s and has a 13-4 amateur record before turning pro? He couldn't even win golden gloves, let alone get into the Olympics. I say it's insane because it IS insane. And you're just defending Jennings because it completely goes against your idea of boxing being more popular and better than ever. If we asssume that boxing is at its peak, then a man like Jennings could never succeed. You always bring up todays larger talent pool, well where is that talent pool when a guy like Jennings can get into the top 10, never having boxed in his life before his 20s? You'd imagine that he could never make it given that he'd be vastly inexperienced against a plethora of boxers who were groomed in the sport from an early age and had way deeper amateur careers. Well, that is NOT the case. Jennings success is a reflection of todays poor talent pool. And it's not just Jennings either. Szpilka who challenged Wilder for a title was literally a soccer hooligan before some promoter decided that he had talent watching him beat the **** out of some guy on the street I guess. Duhaupas and Molina too. Once you get past the top 10, the rest are mostly guys who went into boxing late to make a buck. It's sad to see you parroting the idea that boxing is at its peak when anyone with a pair of eyes can say differently.

We have plenty of reason to believe that boxing doesn't unequivocally evolve like Olympic sprinting or swimming for example. When was it that a fat, 50 year old man broke an Olympic record in the 100 meter sprint? It NEVER happened. It HAPPENED in boxing. Multiple times. Guys like Foreman destroy your entire rhetoric about ALL sports evolving. And you're just clinging onto it with your condescending ass attitude acting like you're smarter than everyone else.

 

Good try, but the modern guys greatly outsized the past guys and are thus entirely in line with logical application of the facts at hand showing modern superiority h2h. I'd say "nice try" at denying logic, but it really wasn't.