Best Heavyweight Resume Ever ?

Your approach at debating modern fighters and old-timers is far from consistent, you will readily admit the flaws (that do exist) in a modern boxer, but will refuse to talk about flaws or will come up with a hundred excuses for an old-timer, supposedly because that way you are defending old-timers from uneducated or under-educated boxing fans of today. It's not about who was better, it's about debating both positive and negative things about a fighter, and not just the positive about old-timers and the negative about modern fighters. It's like a glass that is always half-full for old-timers and always half-empty for modern boxers with you.

I'll rather say I'm not affected by their fame, I rate them by what they actually had done, not by how this or that magazine or expert rates them, and if I'm reading an article about them I'm expecting both pluses and minuses discussed, and not it being written one-way-only, as is the case with absolute majority of publications on old-timers. If they concentrate only on praising the fighter, it's 99.9% that the article is biased/unbalanced/non-objective. I can come up with dozens of flaws about Joe Gans or Packey McFarland or Benny Leonard or other fighters I have researched heavily, if necessary, and I don't think that listing them would make them less great.

A view of person who never took the role of a historian. It's BS. There are tons of details in contemporary sources that can change the perspective of how you view this or that fight, or this or that fighter.

Knockdowns, depending when they happened, decided a lot of fights differently. Had you been studying old fights extensively you would know that. I've seen it dozens if not hundreds of time where the reporter wrote something like "the bell rang before the referee could finish the count, had it not been for that, it's likely that the knocked down fighter wouldn't get up or would be KO'ed with the very next punch".

This content is protected

This content is protected

at that time, Foreman was an unknown quantity, basically, unproven outside of his obliteration of Frazier, we've seen that many-many times when a fighter had beaten some fading star impressively, but fell short of expectations after that. Plus Norton clearly had a problem with aggressive punchers, so he'd have to be active in an era where there was lack of them, to be an elite. Probably the era between the demise of Dempsey and the rise of Louis would have fit him, he could be elite hw then.

This content is protected

Head-to-head, he has the qualities that are important for heavyweights. I didn't call him great or even very good or elite. Wouldn't rank him high, probably he'd be in my all-time Top 50 at hw, but clearly outside of Top 25.

This content is protected

So the physical condition of Holyfield was of no importance to you, and neither the scoring error that allowed Moorer to get a win? I suppose it's very convenient when you live in a black and white world that is lacking shades of gray like the above.

 

This is getting tiresome. Back to the subject, do you want to exchange roles, you will argue that Lewis is more deserving than Ali, and I will praise Muhammad at the expense of Lennox?

Holyfield-Moorer details are in boxrec wiki entry

 

Boxing history and rankings are subjective. All you have to do is go through resume and pick either strong or weak points. If you can't find any strong points about Lewis or weak points about Ali, that just shows you have the attitude I talked about, or possibly you are just lacking knowledge of Lewis' opponents as opposed to Ali's.
I could try to hurt Gans or Leonard pretty badly if I wanted to, there's always plenty of ground for criticism about any boxer, if you are familiar with details of their careers, and not basing your opinion merely on their record and the articles that give them only praise and nothing else.

Minor disagreement? That was a glaring technical (ie, not subjective) scoring error. I don't know how much one has to dominate the rest of the round to get a 10-10 in case they were the only fighter who was officially knocked down during the round and there were no other point deductions.

 

That's just your opinion about Ali's resume. Every ATG has plenty of weak points on resume.

I offered to find plenty of positive things about Ali's resume in exchange. Wouldn't be hard at all, since I don't have any particular bias against him as a boxer and he has plenty of substance on his resume. But obviously you have an attitude that blocks you from seeing anything negative about old-timers or anything positive about modern boxers.

That's no minor technical mistake, that's some serious lack of concentration on the judge's side, or pathetic ignorance and lack of knowledge of the scoring guidelines, which allowed two major world titles to change hands.

 

Jerry Roth was a judge since at least 1980, that's almost 14 years of experience to be able to learn to concentrate on what's happening and be able to keep in mind that the fighter who scored a knockdown wins the round, unless his opponent absolutely, totally dominated and had him hanging on for dear life the whole round.

 

Well, we have to disagree about that. Considering humans' well documented tendency to adopt the prevailing views of those around them, I'd be very surprised if ringside reporters somehow were immune to this effect. But if it wasn't a home crowd for Valuev it's a moot point anyhow.

I scored it clearly for Holyfield.

 

Hard to see how that fight could be scored clearly, for either man.

 

True, there wasn't much happening. And watching it again I might change my mind, but when I watched it live I thought Holyfield landed more (SNV hardly anything) in most rounds.

 

I have not seen the fight recently.

It sounds like a slightly eccentric piece of scoring, but it is not enough for me to call it an outright robbery.