Is this era really that weak?

Aside from pointing out Povetkin's record (both amateur and professional), which I have already acknowledged as something to be considered, your views aren't supported by much else but more supposition. You've more or less stated as much in your post before last so, please, don't whine about your views being discredited when someone points out that they have no basis in fact.


Just one example where I have addressed your views with facts...

You say: "[Holyfield's] heavyweight run prior to the Douglas title shot wasn't exactly that impressive." Based on this opinion of yours, you think the rationale I have given for not considering Haye to be a world class Heavyweight, can also be applied to Holyfield.

I point out that Holyfield, in his Heavyweight bouts prior to Douglas, stopped Thomas, Dokes, Rodrigues and Stewart; the latter was undefeated and the former three all Ring Top-Ten. These are facts.

I contrast this to Haye, who fights two Heavies in two years, neither of whom are anywhere near the Ring top-ten (one of them wasn't even ranked in the EBU top-twenty), and then a year after that he gets a crack at WBA Title, via valuev. These are facts.


Your suggestion that the reasoning I use, for my rating of Haye as a Heavyweight, can somehow be applied to Holyfield and result in the same conclusion is utterly backward. I demonstrated that with facts two posts ago. You ignored that so I have just done so again.


So, I am not sure what your problem is. Perhaps you're just blind to facts or you somehow can't distinguish between fact and opinion. Either way, it turns out you value your own opinion more highly than facts.

Like I've stated before - and you've just confirmed it really - there's nothing left to discuss because you think your right, even if you can't really explain why you hold a certain opinion. For example:

You 'consider a boxer "world class" when [you] see that his quality, abilities and other segments are on a world class level, not if he defeats "this guy" or "that guy".'

So, to you, it doesn't matter whether or a Boxer is winning or losing - the only meaningful contribution to their results and career record - because, in your own words: 'I consider a boxer "world class" when I see that he is good enough, and there is no inconsistency in that.'


You're right - It's consistently baseless and you can't argue with that!

 

Note that I said "by using similar logic", not the very same logic, because their scenarios are obviously not the same. I wasn't trying to compare the pre-title shot heavyweight runs of Holyfield and Haye and claimed that they were about the same like you are implying. So if a boxer defeats 3 Ring Top-Ten boxers prior to winning a title, that's enough to be considered "world class", or you started considering Holyfield world class after the Bowe trilogy and Tyson fights where he was clearly past his best?

Yet again you are purposely taking my statements out of context whenever they could possibly serve your own pattern. I've never mentioned that "it doesn't matter whether or a Boxer is winning or losing". I can't consider certain boxer "world class" if he just appears to have some abilities without having proven that.

So according to you, for more than 10 years, there have been only 2 world class heavyweights. Also, you have called me on saying that you are in a minority because you never considered Haye a world class opponent, yet you still haven't backed that with anything.