Better resume Ali vs Mayweather

He tricked him. That rascal.

 

Wr should create a new category - Greatest Boxer twenty four years old and younger. Mike Tyson would likely be the best in that category .

 

All you've shown is you have 0 understanding of epistemology but I'm happy to help you out friend. Objectivity isn’t as simple as you’re making it out to be. You claim to be objective, but what you’re really doing is applying your own interpretation of context and circumstances, which is inherently subjective. That’s not a criticism; it’s just how these discussions work.

You say I ignore context, but the reality is that context itself is open to interpretation. For example, you might see Canelo’s age when he fought Floyd as proof that he wasn’t prime, while someone else might argue that Canelo was already a world champion and a top-tier fighter at the time. Both perspectives are valid, but neither is purely 'objective' because there’s no universal standard for what counts as 'prime.'

As for stats, they’re just one tool among many. They’re not the be-all and end-all, but they’re also not irrelevant. Ignoring them completely is just as biased as relying on them exclusively. A truly balanced discussion uses both stats and context, while acknowledging that neither can ever be fully objective.

Finally, calling me and No Neck 'stat men' and saying we lack the capacity to 'delve deeper' is just a way of dismissing opinions you don’t agree with. If you think your perspective is the only 'knowledgeable' one, that’s fine, but it doesn’t make you objective. It just makes you confident in your subjectivity.

 

Epistemology - the study of knowledge. The next topics should be sophistry and casuistry. Seems to be a lot of it going round.

 

It’s always fun applying actual philosophical concepts to discussions, especially when they’re used to bring up good points. Epistemology, for example, is super relevant here because it forces us to ask: What does it mean to 'know' something in a debate like this? Can we ever be truly objective when evaluating something as subjective as boxing?

 

Stop.

We all debate you both here on a regular basis.

We know how you both operate.

I’m not going to have a back and forth with you here, especially as the irony is simply staggering, and you never apply any of this to your own messages. Neither of you.

Now if I really wanted to, I could highlight every piece of text above, before then highlighting the things that you’ve said in various topics over the last few months.

And if I did that, similar to what George has done previously with No Neck, then it would look absolutely awful for you. So much so, that I’d even feel bad for doing it. That’s how bad it would look.

So you really don’t want me to go down that route.

Now instead of posting these definitions and trying to appear intellectual, all I ask is the following:

1. Put as much effort into the rest of your replies, as what you’ve just done over these last 2/3 posts.

2. Take the information onboard yourself, and apply the same methods to your own posts.

This will hopefully lead to more enjoyable debates.

 

P4P, I'd rank Salvador Sanchez, who died aged 23, higher than Tyson.

 

Manny either wouldn’t have taken the fight or would’ve lost.

 

Look, I’ll be the first to admit that I haven’t always conducted myself perfectly in these forums and have overreacted to the way people have dismissed me or my arguments just because they disagree. I’ve made mistakes in the past, and I’m trying to do better. But bringing that up now feels like a cheap jab, it doesn’t actually address the point I’m trying to make, and it shifts the focus away from the discussion at hand.

As for the philosophical stuff, I’m not trying to ‘appear intellectual’, I’m just trying to add some depth to the discussion. If it comes across as pretentious, that’s not my intention. I genuinely think these concepts are relevant to how we talk about boxing, especially when it comes to objectivity and subjectivity.

That said, I’ll take your points into consideration. If you want more thoughtful and consistent replies, I’ll do my best to deliver. But I’d ask the same of you: let’s keep the tone constructive and focus on the arguments rather than personal digs. At the end of the day, we’re all here because we love boxing, and that’s what should matter most.

 

Would you have Pancho Villa above Tyson aswell ? I'm not too familiar with his career but I know he died very young 23 or 24 was it ?

 

"He tricked him." They should outlaw feints, counterpulls, and Bolo Punches.

 

That's a tough one DP. I'd have to complete a thorough analysis to be certain, but my gut is Tyson may just edge it.

Wilde was shot when Villa beat him and Genaro winning 3 out of 3 diminishes Pancho's standing somewhat.

Villa is my all time #7 at Fly and Tyson all time #10 at HW, for whatever that's worth, both divisional ATGs in my view.

 

Mayweather was never gonna stand a chance in the poll though lol

 

I haven’t given it a seconds thought.

It was merely a quick example of how you debate.