breaking down this heavyweight era and others: Why today stinks!!

I agree. Dokes in truth was not that good, he was just one of Don King's boys, not unlike Ruiz of his day. He got gifted against Cobb, his title was stolen from Weaver twice over and as you pointed out, he didn't do much with it. He at least gave us a fun brawl against Evander in the twilight of his career.

He had not beat a ranked fighter in 5 years and was beyond washed up when Ruddock made a highlight of him.

King tried to tag team the division with Dokes and Holmes controlling the belts, like the Klitschkos but no "bilogical brother excuse." Dokes couldn't hold his end.

 

-It was an honest mistake and unlike I you, I acutally corrected it while you are still trying to argue your "mistakes" as fair. It hardly made a huge difference.

-As pointed out...Dokes wasn't all that.

 

I'm done with this. All the data from the last 30 years doesn't suggest any drop off in top fighters fighting each other. There are bad stretches and good stretches, but overall it seems to balance itself out.

The 30s, 40s, and early 50s by far had the most frequent fights between contenders but that isn't exactly evidence of quality, it is evidence that it was harder to make a living, and guys had to go at it monthly to put food on the table with only one belt available in each weight class.

During the tv age, you start to see a drop off in the 60s and 70s outside of the unqiue phenom Ali, who fought just about everybody.

But 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s have been about the same.

JAB would rather attack, misdirect, and backtrack than give any ground in the debate. Stubborness and deliberate ignorance does not make you right. Anyone who can stomach this thread, will see a pattern of people like myself trying to be patient with him only to get flustered with his attitude. He will of course follow this up with the same attacks and masturbatory self appraisials, its a fool's game.

 

I think you've run through the entire group of Klitards, in this thread. Any truth that threatens the legacy, must be refuted at any cost. They'll be back, this thread attracts them like bees to honey.

 

"He will of course follow this up with the same attacks and masturbatory self appraisials, its a fool's game. "

:deal

 

The Klitards are angry now!! Everytime an argument gets refuted, it's back with lies and doubletalk and personal attacks. This of course is the standard Klitard MO. I believe it's all spelled out in the Klitard handbook, that comes with the club membership fees.

 

Actually, JAB's flimsy argument has been refuted several times over.

He proposed we do contenders and when shown there is no argument there, he just made accusations, spooted one admited error I corrected, and left it at that.

Why on earth would I be labeled a Klittard, what's funny is people like you and think even JAB himself were saying how smart and knowledgable I was in the Louis vs Wlad thread, but the moment it doesn't go your way..."KLITTARD!" "AGENDA LIAR!"

 

"THIS is an excellent post and breakdown!! :happy "
-JAB

regarding my breakdown on why Louis would stop Wlad.

But because I'm not biased and can't honestly support his flimsy case against this era. "LIAR!"

 

Yeah sure. You'll be all over my dick again the moment you see me go against Wlad in a fantasy match up or favor another great's resume.

 

-That never happened. I compared Wlad and Tyson using the actual "before" rankings and your claimed 2+ point advantage shrunk to less than a point. You than wanted to switch the focus to contenders.

-I just now broke down the contenders and you can't counter it save one admitted mistake that hardly tipped the scales.

-Your problems:

-You have failed to define an era. You won't commit to any date ranges.
-Your method seems to evolve with each new post.
-You make exceptions to your method when it suits your argument.
-You will not own up to factual mistakes.
-You keep deeming your work to be irrefutable truth, but your argument lies totally on the RING Annual rankings which few will give weight to. If it were true, you could only argue less RING contenders are facing each other.

 

In the Klitard fan club pack you receive the handbook spelling out attack plans. You also receive your choice of Vitali or Wlad bobblehead doll, Klitschko trading cards, and a Klitard beanie w/propeller.

You seriously ask why your a Klitard when we've seen you entirely lose it over pages and pages and pages. Jab's been more then patient. Funny thing is, Jab, thinks the Klits are great fighters, and has stated that many times. He just doesn't blindly follow a fighter, much like many of us.

 

Clearly the model of objectivity.

 

If you could see how alot of people are seeing this you would be laughing to. And if you didn't think the vitali/wlad bobblehead doll and beanie w/propeller was funny you obviously need to spend less time on the site, and think about getting laid, because your wound a little tight now.

 

-Not a fact, as explained.

-The Dokes mistake has been corrected. It's time to move on.

-I explained this as well and pointed out that it was consistent. Yes or No? Did I not give Holmes credit for the first Spinks fight even though he was only rated as LHW at the time?

-What else about my method regarding the contenders needs clearing up?

 

I'm whatever you want to imagine me as, I suppose.