Fantasy Fight Cliches

This is what I was gonna' say. Still, I would pick him to lose on cuts in certain matchups.

 

Napoles gets picked to win 95 percent of the time it seems to me.

 

"A good big man beats a good little man."

True in the main, but my main problem with it is that it reduces arguments to a simplistic number game.

 

This would make the argument a bit better I think.
"Incase of no (big) style or skill advantages of the smaller man, the bigger man is the favourite against the smaller man"

 

:rofl:rofl this one is the best, prime tyson 86-88 the best ever with kevin rooney and cus damato lmao. liston is a monster h2h because he destroyed the 188 pounder fragile patterson.
foreman would lose against larry holmes automatically because he lost against ali and young lol.
tyson was shot when he faced buster douglas at 23 lmao, then he was good again against ruddock because he won the fight .
prime tyson would destroy holyfield and lewis automatically, he never proved it but he would do it 100%, they have no chance
every version of ali would beat foreman, even 77-81 ali
liston would beat frazier because foreman did it.

 

looool i forgot it!!! my man :rofl tokyo douglas iis the biggest joke ever , just because he did beat tyson , the tyson fans have to say that this version of douglas was the best ever hahahaha, montreal duran and toledo dempsey :rofl:rofl

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

according many ******s here
david haye was as big as foreman because he weighed 217 pounds against frazier, james toney was as big as foreman because he weighed217 pounds against holyfield. actually FOREMAN WEIGHED 230 POUNDS EASILY EVEN WHEN HE WAS 18 IN THE AMATEURS AND HE WAS A FIGHTER OF THE 70S ...BUT IT WAS FAT AND GYM HE was a natural super mw lmao

 

Actually these days Foreman would be a small welterweight.

Take away the muscle, take away the fat and take away the bones.
All we got left is the baby that is Foreman

 

One phenomenon we often see is cliche, and counter cliche.

An erroneous position emerges i.e. Lewis had a glass chin.

Then a counter position emerges i.e. Lewis had one of the most proven chins in heavyweight history.

In these cases the truth sometimes falls into the gap between.

 

Who said he had one of the most proven chins in HW history? He has a very well proven chin against a large number of heavy hitters. That's something that can be strongly argued for, not a knee jerk reaction.

Saying Lennox has a glass chin isn't backed up by anything concrete (pardon the pun).

Anyway, I digress...

 

Foreman would KO anyone in 1-2 rounds.
Patterson would have a chance to get KO'd by anyone with a punch.

 

Losing to a mediocre fighter means that you'll never be able to beat an historically more well regarded one, despite proving the ability to consistently beat much greater fighters than the one who initially beat you.

This is one of the most irritating things I come across in fantasy fight discussions, and betrays the fact that a large number of apparent boxing scholars are in fact cretinous simpletons.

 

I could give you other examples, if you don't like that one.

The renasience of Larry Holmes.

The rise of Harry Wills from the ashes.

Perhaps you would like to suggest your own example?

 

No, I agree with your general point (erroneous position results in erroneous counter position).

Biggest case of this I've seen is fans either grossly overstating Tyson's power, or grossly undervaluing it. He's either the hardest puncher ever, or someone who can't even be held in the company of Max Baer.