Nothing stupid in what I claimed ! Regurgetating info without an actuall understanding of it is classic bookworm stuff ! and like a stated why read info that is obviouly flawed ! You seem to have a problem with people who just might understand a topic better then you ! Hence your desperation to win this argument with your flawed analisis !:deal :bbb
And Ive claerly stated that VLADS physical advantges were the most relevent advantages ! There is no need to go any furthur ! I thing NARD beats PFP also because he is larger ! No need to go any more in depth is there ?:nut Anyway have a good one CROSS ! I have to go get some work done ! Cheres !
On the contrary, there are many people who know the topic better than I do. You're just not one of them. Face it--you were wrong about Louis's weight cutting. All of the sources on the fight back me up. Just admit it and move on rather than making yourself look like an idiot by denying the obvious.
Rather passive agggressive guy arent you ? No one was cutting water weight back then CROSS ! you have a nice day !:yep
No. You're saying that because that's what I said to you. Just as you said I was repetitive after I said you were. You need to be more original in your criticisms. Then I guess all of the sources are lying. But I'm sure I should believe a poster on the internet (who claimed Wlad has a better chin than Holyfield) rather than several biographers and boxing historians.
Gee your smart ! You caught my obvious ribbing and you can agree with the status quo ! Ive never taken you for a conformist ?:bart
There was clear defensiveness in that ribbing. What does being a conformist have to do with anything? Facts are facts. Louis was dehydrated, and "status quo" has nothing to do with it.
No it was clear evidence of your hypocrissy which I found ammusing ! And LOUIS and no one else purposly dehydrates before an athletic event ! And its total stupidity to think they did ! :rofl
This content is protected Yeah, he was. The sources back me up. Do you actually believe that denying it will change anything?
I see him like a chageav. Good, but nothing outstanding. But he is better than chagaev I think. Peter might beat hem 3-4 times outta 10. And he cant beat wlad. But other than that, I would say he would be number 2-3.
I would hardly call Byrd "stationary". He is one of the hardest fighters to hit yet Wlad won every one of the 19 rounds they fought. I think the reason that there have not been many "mobile" fighters is because it's a stupid strategy against him: he's guaranteed to be taller and reachier than you and has great handspeed and a dito jab. By the way, i don't think his mobility is far below Ali's, in 1971, which was when he twice beat Quarry (ok, the other time in 1972). On top of that, he has great power to keep Quarry at distance, cut him, etc.
Byrd's upper body movement is often excellent, but he isn't as fast on his feet as some--including Quarry. Klitschko seems far more accurate and comfortable when he's "set", and while he's definitely mobile, he isn't that good laterally. He prefers a rather linear range-setting type of footwork. Quarry, on the other hand, was pretty good with a lateral dance/slip/counterpunch, transitioning from movement to solid positioning rather quickly as he went in and out. This strikes me as a rather awkward counterpoint to Klitschko's style.
Psycho visions more like :nut Or maybe he does have psychic powers....some people read tea-leaves, he reads jizz stains on his WALDO posters?
I haven't read all the thread, but I knew this would be true of it for sure, that's all 2dumb ever posts, apart from stupid smilies.
All true. I think Quarry would be in the mix today ( a top ten fighter ), but I would not pick him to defeat Wlad, or Peter. I need to see more of Chagaev, Ibragimov, and Povetkin. Each has a chance to be better than Quarry. Quarry was an odd fighter. You never knew which Quarry would show up. Sometimes he fought foolishly and beat himself. Other times he looked great.