George Foreman Versus Alexander Povetkin

Why are you so emotional about this topic in every ****Ing thread? Bro, I promise you it's not that serious.

 

First and foremost define Super Heavyweight. You have yet to do that because you ducked the question. You listed examples yet have no definition because it allows you to retreat into semantic fog while mentioning false equivalences like James Toney and Buster Mathis, which is a hilarious acknowledgement and partial concession when Toneys 5'10 fat ass was actually ranked in the top 5 heavyweights. So it makes modern heavyweights look even worse which obviously conflicts with an appeal to modern day heavyweights, something you absolutely do

It doesn't even help your case calling him obese when he was still roughly 6'3, athletic despite the size and the fat didn't hinder Mathis ability whatsoever, nor would he be out of shape in todays league. Mathis was athletic, skilled and agile for his 245 pound frame. Weight classes are based on 1 variable only. And the original argument was an objection to Frazier relying on his size when he literally beaten bigger fighters comfortably

Because I listed examples of fighters around that cruiserweight size causing problems if not beating much larger heavyweights ? This isn't a retreat or a refuge it's you weaseling out because you fail to refute those examples. Why did the much larger Parker look poor and get wobbled by 213 pound Massey when the much smaller Opetaia dominated and stopped Massey ? Why did Bakole get outboxed by Hunter and fail to overpower him ? Why did the larger KO puncher Povetkin go life and death with Huck. All examples. Go ahead, refute these examples as to why they aren't relevant in size differential discussions, I'm waiting. And I'm certain I'll be waiting forever, because you've got nothing to address me with