Is Wlad the best all-time-heavyweight? NO OPINION, just PURE RECORD ANALYSIS

Well...

I have posted here for a long time. I have had some big arguments, both on boxing and in the lounge. Especially in the Lounge I have come across some incredibly stupid people arguing ridiculous points.

It is fair to say that I have had the misfortune to read a lot of truly dreaful posts, and on forums before this too...back in 1999 I was on Seconds Outs forum....

However, this thread, the opening post, the carefully planned and well presented post by one knn is the single worst, most badly constructed and outright ******ed post that I have ever seen on any forum in regards to any topic...

I am speechless. In fact this is the final straw, we definitely do need a policy of eugenics in society and the government should begin a forced sterilisation programmed sooner rather than later.

 

i hope knn has been banned for this truly awful post..

 

A fighter of an advanced age beyong 40 is more often than not worse than a fighter in his late 20's early 30's. In the example I have given, Mercer fought at a much lower level of competition and had a diminished skill set at the stage he fought Klitscho. All fights may count, but for analysis, which is what you're doing, they don't count equal. You are drawing arbitrary lines. Why draw them at weight? Why not draw them at age? Because it doesn't benefit you're premise? And why pretend not to know whether age or being overweight matters? A large part of your argument is that being too small diminishes the fighters ability to fight HW's of today? Yet, you pretend not to notice deficiencies when going up in age and inflated weight beyond prime? Shame....

BTW: Scientific studies back up the age= less athleticism, slowed reflexes etc. So lets not argue the other side of that as you tried to do. Mercer vs Klitscho is not the same fighter nor should he be considered so as the Mercer who fought Lewis. The win is not valued the same. Again, arbitrary lines to fit the agenda.

160 is not 190 nor is 150 = 190. Ten lbs at that weight isn't a significant difference. Bringing up much lower weights is a reach and fallacy.

The inflated records matter when you are counting them as better than sub 200 guys who would have beaten them, not compared to other fighters with inflated records.

Mozart may have been Pop then and classic now, but his value is not different. We are not talking about different types of boxers, but the value of their abilities and resumes. False analogy.

 

:good

 

This comeback never works when you take into account avg. per day. :deal

 

You didn't anwer my question.

 

Still not accurate. Comparable, as you are using it, means equal. Your very next assertion proves that comparing things based on NUMBERS is not equal, nor do you think it is.

If 40 is the new 30, how do you know 190 wasn't as good as 200 is now, especially when taking into account things like body fat % for those fighters? You don't. You are assuming. But you only seem to be assuming towards your premise, which again, is faulty.

And you keep pointing out that Klitscho doesn't have the opportunity to face 190lb fighters and bring his record up. That whole premise is based on your assumption that those fighters aren't as good and wouldn't be competitive as the 200lb+ fighters of today. However, if those fighters WERE as good if not better than some of the fighters today, then Wlad would hold and ADVANTAGE by not having fought them.

So again, your calculations and system are flawed and opinion based.

Your analogy is still faulty. We aren't arguing about age now are we? We are arguing value. And you are trying to prove that older is less valuable based on certain criteria. But you're not doing it well.

 

Since when is the best time for HW's 30-40 years?

Try 27-34 or so. Not 30-40.

The rest of the stuff only furthers my points. Your system is flawed because there are too many interchangable scenarios that happen in the ring. You are discounting too many variable to make an accurate system.