[CLIP] Corrie Sanders KD Vitali Klitschko

"If you didn't know who Charles was, you'd say that guy has zero defense at all."

He's saying that Charles' reputation is richer than his actual boxing skills.
It doesn't seem complicated or confusing to me. I'm interpreting exactly what he said.

 

"Aggressive interpretation?" What exactly is aggressive about it?

He never mentioned that the critique is only applicable for this clip.
He goes on a scathing review of Charles defense and tactics, and he doesn't seem to insinuate that Charles wasn't normal that night.

Does he ever mention once the version of the interpretation that you've assumed?
Does he say once that this was out of the ordinary for Charles, or that this isn't indicative of Charles abilities as a boxer? Can you show me one supporting example to your premise that his critique on Charles was aimed at this isolated incident, and not as a reflection of the fighter as a whole?

Furthermore, can you illustrate how my interpretation was aggressive, considering I used, to my knowledge, the most basic and simplest interpretation of his statement?
Can you show us convincingly that there were far less aggressive, and more accurate interpretation to gleam from his statements?

 

The contents of his criticism are applicable to someone who doesn’t know how to box well, not a great boxer on the down swing.

Examples including:
- Insinutsting that Charles doesn’t know how to crate distance with a jab.
- That he doesn’t know when to return punches.
- That he doesn’t know or use the basics of keeping a shorter man off of him.
- That he doesn’t know how to properly use defense.

I see zero evidence for your interpretation that his scathing review of Charles is only applicable to that clip. All of his supporting reasons indicate otherwise, as I’ve just clearly outlined.

Furthermore, you’ve completely ignored and failed to illustrate why my interpretation was “aggressive.”

 

"Jesus. Put up your gloves or step out of HIS punching range or punch back. Or, better yet, DO ALL THREE.

Marciano had the shortest reach of any heavyweight champ ever. He was just swinging. You know how close you need to be to get hit by him? Pretty damn close. HOLD OUT YOUR ARM and odds are you'd be out of his punching range if you extended your arm

DON'T STAND RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM WITH YOUR HAND DOWN IN HIS PUNCHING RANGE."

Yeah, this truly sounds like a guy who is acknowledging that Ezzard is on the down swing of his career, rather than an actual scathing review of his boxing ability and IQ. lmao.

This example is the best:

“HOLD OUT YOUR ARM and odds are you'd be out of his punching range if you extended your arm”

Ah yes, the pitfalls of once great fighters, they magically forget such simple basics as sticking an arm out to control distance. lol.

 

That's neither what he nor I said.
He said Charles showed terrible defense, and didn't use basic boxing skills.

Here is another quote from the same thread:

He is arguing that Ezzard Charles is not employing the basics in boxing while in the ring with Marciano. I mean the guy says it 1,000 different ways, you can't miss what he's saying.

 

He goes on to say that despite this concession, Ezzard Charles showed terrible defense, and fought absent of basic boxing skills.

Can you refute that this was the message he intended to convey?

 

I also want to make another thing clear.

This is NOT a cherry picked incident of Holyfields defense.
This is actually a common tactic of his. To bait, absorb, and return.
It was a common tactic of Charles' too.

I could compile a full 30 minute video of Holyfield showing the same supposed negligence that often gets attributed to older fighters.