Ali vs Bryant Jennings who wins?

If you read up, you will see you used the word 'talent' - and it was this specific point I addressed - which sidesteps physicality if you deploy logic as you claim to. Assessing talent allows us to bypass the obvious physical developments of mankind and look at what are loosely defined as skills - the only constant throughout the decades which can be measured on a level playing field. You've totally failed to address this distinction with your overly-simplistic theory that allowed you to convince yourself a complex comparison between eras can be concluded in tepid generalisations. That said, I still maintain your effort was decent, and one that has clearly satisfied the depth of your intellect. I need more, however...

 

Don't know where you got my "agenda" in this, it's not accurate. I don't think boxing is more popular or better than before. More popular in some regions, less in others, more pervasive is what I would call it, but I can't really see how anyone would call it an agenda. And better? H2h, definitely, but I hate much about the modern sport. It's infrequency of top contenders fighting each other makes it vastly inferior to the past in many respects. Sorry, no agenda except the truth.
And nothing you say goes to the core of my arguments. Jennings has proven himself a topish contender. You can criticize his background but you can criticize the background of Norton who was blasted out by a scrub as his biggest achievement before facing Ali. Foreman? Actually, thereve been some old performers in some of the tangible sports, like a swimmer in her 40's. Old successful people happen all the time in sports as an exception. Also, hw boxing rewards power, experience, and chin disproportionately. Those traits age well, in some cases get better. They are still traits, subject to the same overarching rules as everything else. All it means is that boxers have a greater longevity than average, not that common sense rules of progress don't apply.

 

Thanks, I guess (assuming the depth comment was not meant as an insult, which isn't entirely clear). Since you appear to at least be making an effort to engage in respectful discussion I will too. How do you distinguish talent from skills? I'd need to know how you define that to respond effectively.

 

That's a nobrainer.

 

I never knew you were this much of a ******. Your posts in this thread are some of the worst ive ever read. But what else would you expect from a guy who genuinely thinks Vitali Klitschko is the greatest HW of all time.
The only reason you think modern guys are better is because they are bigger and because swimmers swim up and down the pool faster than they did in the past.
By your rationale Martin , Breazzele , Helenius , Dohapus etc would have been championship material during the 60, 70s , 80s . Those guys would barely cut it as journeymen.

LOL@ there being more boxers around now. There's never been a lowest amount of licenced boxers in the world then there is right now. Boxing is barely a shell of what it once was. Fights used be in circulation every week , every month. Tuesday , Thurs , Fri and Saturday night fights was the norm.
Boxing was a way for people to put food on the table. They had more to fight for. Thats why they fought more often and were more tougher. Hagler worked construction and trained since he was 13. You don't get guys who were as tough as him anymore. Society doesn't demand it. Top level boxers can barely fight more than twice a year in this weak era.
Larry Holmes at 36 fought 45 rounds in one year alone. Show me guys today going that at top level?

Its clear you know nothing about boxing history nor do you even care about it. You should toss your account into the waste paper basket where it belongs.

 

You cant be serious...

Different weight classes. Why not Compare srl vs usyk instead?

 

Coming from the single worst, most spastic, braindead poster on here, I'll wear that as a badge of honor.
Honestly, your posts are so devoid of reasoning and so obviously based in bias, I feel little need to respond generally. You know you aren't taken seriously as a poster, right. No one takes you seriously. I suspect you have deep seated emotional problems that cause you to fixate so negatively and so heavily on a few fighters and a few agendas.
The only substantive critique you had was claiming fewer boxers are licnsensed now than ever. What is your source for that? Because I've explored that on other threads with classicists who are actually reasonable and intelligent, and found boxrec records that indicate there are slightly more pro boxers now. If you actually read my post, you'd see that that is irrelevant to the greater point, however. I know reading isn't your best trait though.

 

Putting Ali on the level of Jennings is premeditated BS and is only intended to pour salt on one of the greatest fighters that ever laced em up. If that's not your intention then your statement truly bears witness to your total lack of boxing knowledge.

 

The fact he was a consensus top 10 proves how weak this era is. The guy doesn't have 40 fights to his name , amateur and pro combined. He worked as a security guard while preparing for Wlad.
Security guards is what they used call the bums Roy Jones knocked out during the 90's. Roy got criticised back then cos one of his opponents was actually a copper.
The only reason Wlad looked bad against Jennings is because Wlad sucks , not because Jennings is any good.
Why was Ortiz able to bomb Jennings away like that but Wlad couldn't? Soctt and even Dave Allen went on to do better against Ortiz than Jennings did. Dave Allen shouldn't even have a professional boxing licence.

 

But Jennings background in the sport, or the lack of it thereof, tells us everything about the shallow state of heavyweight boxing today. You're not going to find a top level sprinter who took up the sport in his 20s. Or a basketball player. Or a football player. The vast majority of these guys devote themselves to a sport from a young age. So if Jennings, who started boxing late, had an underwhelming and short amateur career, can get to the top echelons of the division, what does that tell us? The same goes to Szpilka, and Wilder and A LOT of other guys. Boxing does not harbor lifetime fighters the way it did in the past. So how can you compare Ali, who had a long, flourishing amateur career, won Olympic gold and started boxing as a kid, to a guy who started boxing because he couldn't make it elsewhere? The difference in natural ability would be tremendous.

And it's not just a matter of age regarding Foreman. He took a 10 year long break from the sport. That alone would KILL the career of most athletes in most sports. And when you take into account that he was in grotesque shape to the point where he couldn't even be regarded as an athlete physically, it's crazy he did what he did. Boxing is a unique sport that can't be compared to anything else and should be viewed in a vacuum. Grit, fighting instinct, ring intelligence, and in a lot of cases punching power and explosiveness are natural, and can't be developed with a needle or a diet.

 

Your argument could be equally applied to Ken Norton, there is virtually nothing factually based in it as opposed to opinion based.

 

Some of your points are fairly good arguments, PS, as I've said, you are a generally intelligent poster. Why is it so hard for you to see they are just arguments, focusing on relatively minor points? Why should boxing be veiwed in a vacuum? Why shouldn't swimming be viewed in a vacuum, or discus throwing. Their adherents would be equally passionate about what distinguishes them as sports. The fact is that all those sports have seen demonstrable progress. The practitioners have seen increases in size that also mark boxing. That's a huge natural inference to overcome. Like I said, if you want to believe otherwise you can. It can't be proven. Just don't act like the classicists are sane and the modernists are insane.

 

No , I have actually watched plenty of Norton's fights and there is no comparison between the two. . You simply looked up his record on the internet then based your opinion off the fact he lost to most of the best guys he fought. Your feeble mind then concluded he was no better than Jennings because he shared the same dimensions.

 

You are so emotionally invested in this you have decided to resort to petty insults.

You're analysis is the worst part about what you've said. There's nothing wrong with holding an opinion but you so spectacularly fail to back it up. I'm looking for some depth to justify what you're saying but there's nothing.

You haven't been able to critique Liston, watch his fights and say his flaws.

Your criticism of Frazier's head movement proves you haven't watched his fights outside of Foreman and Manilla.

You claim Foreman would easily beat Ali but you haven't been able to detail why, what's your stylistic argument? The very next defence minded boxer he faced also beat him.

You can do better than this, watch the fights and back up your claims, that's all I ask.