No… it’s because anything passed on to you as “ proof” will only be dismissed as a “lie.” Some of These threads have gone on for pages and pages because of your arguments that just go in circles. I don’t know if you really believe in what you’re saying or if you somehow find it entertaining. I for one find it tiring.
but why do you think I would keep arguing if I got my proof wouldnt it make sense I agreed a long time ago if I got it
Because I don’t know what to show you as proof. Anything you see, you seem to see something else. I don’t want to bother with it anymore. Tell me I’m wrong. Tell me I’m a liar. Tell me I don’t know anything about boxing. Whatever suits your fancy. I’m done
proof is showing me him moving and showing the exact advances they did in 70s-90s from any mid/high level boxer like a frazier Larry bowe ali razor fury gerry ron and anybody else
"Lesser men than Louis dropped Holmes. Norton, Cooney, Weaver, Shavers, Snipes, Witherspoon" Surely you understand how this reads.
Yes, as two separate sentences. Holmes fought fighters who, even without dropping him, still inflicted a lot of damage. Obviously, he heroically overcame. But Louis was better than those men. Those body shots by Cooney that Lane called as low blows? In the 30's Louis sends those all night without interruption. Again, I lean towards Holmes rather heavily, but Louis' chances cannot be dismissed. Counterintuitively, I think the best way for latter generation Heavyweights to beat Louis to attack him. Unless, you have fighters like Holmes who can actually maintain distance and move for the duration of the fight.
no joe chances should be dismissed sense he was to slow you dont have to act its no reason to he moved to slow and no they dont have to keep distance cause look at Conn and others who just put pressure on him its obvious mostly every mid/high 70s-90s boxer would be to much