It always comes back to who did you beat. It's the only thing that really matters in boxing.

Yeah, I do. I always have. It's just triangle theory really and doesn't prove much of ****. I'm much more into the skills displayed. I understand the theory of "you don't know until their in there with someone good" but what I don't understand is why someone good can't be any night from any man. It completely nerfs a dog getting it's day and that don't sit well. If I'm watchin' two buminos and I know they're both bums of the highest caliber, I mean like Charlie Z, KSI, YT bum. If those mother ****ers show me some pivots, some posture game, some position game, basic feet and a decent handle on the basic punches, then they're good basic fighters at least for one night.

Who in all of Wlad's career did he beat who could pivot? So why would I care about all these pivotless games when comparing say Tyson? How many full size HWs did Tyson beat? So why would I give a damn about how effective he was against men just an inch or two taller than him and around the same weight?

Apple and oranges, and both sides already know the other's stance. It's really really lame, and honestly I think most fans speak in resumes rather than techniques because that can't handle the latter for nothing. They learn a few term, footwork, check hook, trigger step, etc and that's about it. If they can do better than that they're an article writer getting their nuts rubbed for their ability to speak to technique.

 

No, if you beat 39 average opponents then beat 1 better than average opponent then you're one of the greatest ever! lol