Look let's be realistic here. Wlad/Vitali/Lewis would dominate any era of HW boxing

Intelligent post, although obviously I disagree. Foreman is a good argument, but its basically dealt with in my "prime" point (I'll repost shortly). Prime among boxers, especially tall, big, hard punching HW's often occurs much later than in other sports. Foreman's prime and then lasting top level performance was unusually late even in that regard, but, considering the favorable matchups he received, still quite within parameters of my main post. Tyson was a freak, size is incredibly important to progress, but not the sole feature, as glover pointed out. That said, he did struggle with huge HW's who weren't afraid of him. Tucker fought him close (and possibly with a broken right hand), at his very peak. glover speaks well to evolution of technique in other posts.

 

Glover, intelligent posts, although I disagree with your analysis of who's better between Wlad v Vitali, intelligent arguments can be made either way. As far as all the negative posts, they all fall into areas I've previously dealt with. Absolutely no rational arguments made, absolutely no original arguments made, and all can be answered by reading the below.

Thank you to both the imbecilic posters (here's looking at you, sp) and the rationale ones. Its important that this thread remain in discussion and rational boxing fans become more educated on the topic. This thread is meant for people who have been convinced by biased commentators, trainers protecting their own glory and financial interest etc that modern HW's can't compare head to head with past heavyweights (nothing wrong with having that belief initially, I did too), BUT have the intelligence and self control to understand rational arguments and change their mind. Even if you have a HW "hero" you just can't accept would lose today, if you can evolve your opinion on the topic overall, then the thread is doing its job. When someone posts something new, I'll post a similar post, responding to any new arguments and tweaking my below statement to better explain. So below are the relevant facts and features:


Old ATG's should be respected as great for many reasons, I have Ali and Louis #'s 1 and 2 respectively on my all time great list for these reasons. However, it is for pfp and in era accomplishments, and import to boxing and history they deserve those designations. Its wrong to say they could contend with modern HW's H2H for the below reasons.

1. Progress. It happens. When you look at all sports with a quantifiable result, today's athletes are blowing past the old ones. In sports as diverse as swimming, sprinting, and javelin throwing, among many others, the old records are being shattered. In all the innumerable sports out there, I'm not aware of a single record that wasn't set mid 80's or later, and usually in the 2000's. Even in nonquantifiable sports with quantifiable aspects (i.e. tennis's serving speed), the quantifiable aspects have increased. Those sports all have about as much relation to each other as they do to boxing, so it would defy all reason for boxing not to progress as all other sports have
2.Size and relation to progress. Per #1, it's likely (although not certain, per size limitations mentioned here), that even middleweights of today would easily defeat middleweights of 40 years ago. However, HW is even more pronounced, because the is no size limitation in HW boxing, as opposed to other classes. HW's have been getting dramatically larger, both taller and heavier, just like the athletes in the sports where quantifiable results are better. So, again, it makes no sense that the same process is happening in boxing as with sports where quantifiable results are getting better, but somehow the result isn't better as well
3. Statistical analysis of size on performance. Other websites document this. Old time greats fought much smaller boxers, generally, but when they did fight larger boxers they had less success. Ali's ko ratio against fighters who would be designated cruiserweight today was a very good rate, in the 70's. Against 200 and up it was 40ish percent, against 215 and up it was a featherfisted 33%. Frazier and even the renowned ko artist Shavers had similar numbers. Shavers ko ratio against 215 and up fighters was about the level of Chris Byrd. Shavers was a power only fighter, Byrd was power last fighter, to show how much performance has gotten better. Meanwhile, LL and the K's ko percentage again 215 boxers is 75% and higher. There is no reason to think Ali could have coped with the size and power of todays fighters and every reason to think he couldn't have.

Responses to these facts. Nostagliaists typically respond in one of 5 ways. I note the ways, and why they are irrelevant as counters to the above facts, below.
1 "Single examples", whether of a fight a modern fighter lost, or something a modern fighter did that (they say) Ali didn't do. Immature posters like sp and loudon love this, which is usually completely irrelevant. Any single example you can give, I can apply to Ali (look at the past thread posts here with sp and loudon). If you find one that I can't apply to Ali, good for you, then I'll give you a single example of dominance for WK (etc) that doesn't apply to Ali (Ali had to rely on biased judges to get him his many of his best wins, WK never did, etc). A couple in particular. sp went on about modern HW's not being "true" champs because they didn't defend their mandatories. The k's never failed to do that, and LL never ducked a mandatory (he chose Grant over Ruiz when Grant was uniformly regarded as the better fighter and VK over CB, when VK was regarded as LL's biggest threat in the division). I could point out that Ali was stripped of his WBA belt as well after the first Liston fight because he didn't fight who the WBA wanted him to, but either way its irrelevant because 1. Ali, LL and the K's have indisputably (to rational persons) been dominant champs for a long time beating the best and moreover 2. It really has nothing to do with the broad premise of why prior HW's could contend with modern HW's outlined above. Same thing with pointing out single defeats. All boxers (save Marciano, who I hope no one will say is the best h2h of all time) have defeats, but it is to opponents in their own era. So, pointing out their defeats is meaningless to the broader era argument. Ultimately, "single example's" are meaningless, and do nothing to contradict the broad picture painted by the logic and stats above. It is the context of the era that matters.
2. Prime. Ali was never beaten in his prime". This is circular logic, I can do the same thing with LL or the K's when I want. Primes occur at different times for different fighters, in part because "prime" is really just a sliding scale of different important attributes, some of which peak sooner and some later. For taller and heavier, harder hitting HW's the prime is usually mid thirties, because chin prime occurs later, hard punching lasts a long time, and properly utilizing your height uses a lot of experience and technique. That's why Foreman was able to be effective into his mid 40's, and LL and the K's were at their best mid to late 30's. Conversely, shorter, high octane fighters like Tyson broke down quickly.
3. "What's good for one sport isn't good for another". Basically the argument that boxing is a special flower that, alone of all sports, is immune to progress. Well, I'm open to learn why not. Just give me some statistical evidence or logical, comparative arguments. But I have yet to hear a real argument. NOTE: "Ali has way better footwork, and is just faster and better than ll and the k's that's a fact" is not evidence, it is an unsubstantiated opinion. Posters like sp love to say that is evidence, but its only repeating an item of faith. You can believe that Ali would be the K's and LL as an item of faith, there's nothing wrong with that. Just accept that all factual evidence and logic points to the contrary.
4. Smilies. When all else fails, nostagiaists love using smilies, (or insults, I include "na na you're stupid" in this category). This may make you feel better but it does nothing to contradict the facts above.
5. Denial. In this case the last stage of grief over ingrained opinions. Just stating "Ali would easily beat LL and the K's" with no other statements. This also includes things like blind statements of belief like "modern fighters haven't beat anyone" etc. LL and the K's have beaten the top contenders numerous times. The records of the current era top contenders are generally better than the records of the past era top contenders. There is no reason to logically state the earlier contenders are better than current contenders, per main arguments #1-3 above. Again it may make you feel better, but it does nothing to change the above facts.
6. "Modern HW's are crap because (someone) says so". Thanks dblfl for reminding me of this. Hitler said monogamous marriage was good, and smoking and drinking was bad, does that mean we should cheat on our wives and smoke and drink? Using someone else's belief is not proof for or against any argument. Many boxing analysts recognize the top HW's of today would beat the top HW's of yesteryear, although many of them still rank old timers higher, just as I do, for non H2H reasons. Manny Stewart is a great example, who left modern HW's off his toplist, but noted that it didn't mean he though those old timers could have beaten the modern boxers. Other analysts/trainers do state old HW's would beat modern HW's. They do that to glorify their own past accomplishments, improve sales of things they market when US was more dominant, or otherwise out of delusion. Citing another's opinion is not an argument, you need to actually use facts and logic for that.

So, if these facts outrage you, please comment. I will repeat and or tweak the facts above and respond to any new arguments. By responding, you are helping keep this great topic at the forefront of the posts, and thus helping educate boxing fans. By keeping this thread at the top, you are helping detoxify fans of the self serving blather given by old trainers and commentators used to demean current boxers and laud old timers for all the wrong reasons. For true appreciation of the sport, we need to speed this detox process and help fans come to grips with the truth.

 

andrewa1,

Why are you comparing other sports with boxing, when they are not in anyway similar?

Today's athletes are fitter and stronger due to advancements in sports science and nutrition etc. A sprinter today that is bigger, stronger, and fitter, is likely to perform better than sprinters of the past. Also, look at the surface they're running on, and their spikes etc. Technology improves every year, and better training facilities and equipment will aid a sprinter much more than a fighter. Fighters were much tougher in the past. They lived in harsher environments, and fought a lot more, sometimes every month, and ran in baseball shoes and army boots etc. Fighters have got it much easier today.

Now a sprinter, is sprinting 100-200m, from point A to B.

Now I'm not ignorant, and I realise that there's technique involved, and the start is very important etc. But as a whole, it's simplistic compared to boxing.

Usain Bolt is huge and his strides are longer than every other athlete. He's taller, stronger, and compared to sprinters of the past, is fitter and on a better diet. He can certainly run quicker than anyone else before him.

So size and strength play a HUGE part of Usain's dominance.

But again, Usain is running from point A to B.

HE IS NOT USING A WHOLE RANGE OF SKILLS, TO TRY AND DEFEND HIMSELF FROM SOMEONE TRYING TO TAKE OFF HIS HEAD, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, TRYING TO HIT HIS OPPONENT IN RETURN.

A boxers skillset is made up of footwork, balance, timing, reflexes, blocking, parrying, feinting, hooking, jabbing, slipping, throwing combinations etc.

The above skills are aided by physical advantages. But they are not defined by them.

A small 5'10, 220 pound peak Mike Tyson, would probably dominate to day's HW division against these huge heavies.

Physical advantages alone cannot determine the outcome of a fight.

A fighters overall skillset will determine the outcome of a fight, unless there's exceptional circumstances involved.

You have no proof whatsoever that Boxing has improved as a whole.

Sprinting and swimming is not the same.

Just because their records have been broken, it doesn't mean that boxing has improved.

No they wouldn't you absolute simpleton!

Boxing is decided on who's the all-around better fighter.

Would Martinez and Chavez Jnr be able to have beaten Hagler and Monzon? I very much doubt it.

So what if HW's have been getting bigger?

Have they gotten better?

Has their defence, stamina, shot selection, footwork, hand speed etc improved?

If you can't tell the difference between Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, and a HW boxer, then you need to be locked up for your own safety.

Your whole argument is "Sprinting records have been smashed, therefore it has to make sense that HW boxing has improved."

There's no evidence to suggest that boxing skills have gotten better, only that fighters are now bigger.

There's HW's today that could beat older HW's.

There'll also be HW's of the past that could beat today's HW's.

HW boxing is not decided on who's the BIGGEST, otherwise Mike Tyson would have got battered every fight!

Stats are just black and white numbers. They don't allow for circumstances, and you can twist them whichever way you want.

Ali had a low knockout ratio.

What does that mean? Does that mean that he couldn't beat someone with a higher ratio, or someone that was bigger?

Ali couldn't have coped with today's HW's because they were bigger? Ha!

So his fantastic skills, speed and footwork would have been useless today, because of physical disadvantages.

Ha!

Ali was 6'3 and weighed 220 ish.

Tyson was only 5'10 and weighed 220.

So that would mean then, that there's no way Mike Tyson could have coped with the size and power today's HW's?

Get the **** out of here, you fool!

He was at physical disadvantages for nearly all of his fights!

He dominated the 80's through his ABILITIES as a fighter.

Are you going to tell us, that A peak, fully focused Mike Tyson, fighting to his full capabilities, wouldn't have a chance against today's bigger guys?

You haven't got a clue!

 

andrewa1,

You're just waffling here, and saying nothing of any significance.

When I think of a hypothetical match up, it's between two fighters fighting at their best, fighting to their full capabilities, and I analyze their strengths and their weaknesses, and take EVERYTHING into consideration.

I've given you logical examples, and asked you questions, that you've either backtracked on, or refused to answer.

You can apply whatever logic you want to Wlad or LL. If I do a hypothetical match up with Ali and Lewis, it won't be the version that Rahman knocked out, and the same goes for Wlad.

You're not open to learning why not. Athletes today are bigger and stronger, and in athletics, that's a huge advantage. But in boxing, just because sports science and nutrition has improved, it doesn't mean that a boxers skillset has. A boxer has to master a huge variety of skills, that have been taught by trainers, and passed on through generations.

Boxing is more about technique than size and brute strength.

You have to learn how to slip punches.

You have to learn how to block, parry and role.

You have to learn where to plant your feet, and how to time your opponent.

You have to learn about leverage and how to throw a punch.

Boxing is far more technical than sprinting.

Boxing is a scientific art, known as the sweet science. A guy who's big, can be be beaten by a much smaller guy, based on SKILLS!

So although important, size and strength is not as important in boxing, as what it is in other sports such as swimming and sprinting.

It's really not difficult to understand.

What are you doing?

You're not willing to listen, or to debate. You won't take someone's opinion on board. You're just repeatedly copying and pasting this text, that I'm replying to here. This is also the 2nd time I've answered it.

What facts Andrew?

Look at your examples above

When I give you my opinion, I give you a technical breakdown on what I think would happen, based on logic and facts.

What are you doing exactly?

This is you - "Boxing has improved as a whole"

Then when we ask how?

"Because sprinting records have been broken."

That's the only statement you can provide.

This and - "Someone explain to me how it hasn't"

Then when we do,

it's copy and paste time all over again.

You're like a mardy little kid!

Boxers of the past would beat some of today's guys.

Likewise, boxers of today would also beat some of the guys of the past.

I ALWAYS use facts and logic. ALWAYS!

NO ANDREW, YOU WON'T!!

You'll just keep copying and pasting these questions that I'm now answering again.

You haven't got the ability to have an educated adult debate.

I'll tell you this straight, right now. If you're not prepared to debate with me in an adult way, and you're thinking of responding to my above points, by copying and pasting your above questions for the 12th time in 3 days, then don't bother.

Because if you do that, I'll lose all respect for you, and I won't ever debate with you again, on any topic. :good

 

I can't be arsed to read the past few posts in their entirety, but let me just add:


I think boxers today with modern biological engineering and nutrition have a decided advantage in training.


HOWEVER, where it is evened out is that fighters, and people of today as a whole, are generally devoid of patience and dedication, which are paramount in actually learning the skill, science, and art of boxing.


Fighters of yesterday had a much better sense of footwork and positioning, as well as overall ring generalship. If you've ever paid attention to Tommy Hearns' old fights this quickly becomes apparent. His footwork, nicely-timed jab, mixture of attack, and overall awareness to realize when to become opportunistic and apply pressure were all overshadowed by the fact that he just happened to have a nuclear bomb in his right glove. I can't, for the life of me, figure a way Floyd, Pac, or Oscar could possibly end the fight on their feet.

Heavyweights are slightly different, however, because the HW Division is limitless in weight. So you have these Super Heavyweights with a decided size advantage. This advantage is real, and it DOES affect the outcome of a fight.

But let's be clear. Wlad had trouble hitting David Haye, a fighter he was determined to KO more than anyone he had ever faced. I think a fighter like Ali (same height and weight as Haye), who had MUCH MUCH greater hand and foot speed, a much bigger heart, and a much better chin would be a living hell for a fighter like Wlad. Don't forget about the fact that he fought 15 Round fights, and on his toes for much of it, had 10 times the stamina of Haye.

I think Ali would reach Wlad with his Jab (Ali would have the reach advantage although 4 1/2 inches shorter in height). And I think he would be able to counter him almost at will. Would he beat him? I can't say that with all certainty, but what I can say is that he wouldn't be DOMINATED by anyone.


Lennox would have the best shot against him. Vitali is just too slow and without one-punch KO power would never be able to accumulate enough punches to stop Ali. Lennox ws also slow, but had a much better in-fighting game than either of the K's and could at least form an advantage there.

 

Great post mate!

Skip back 4 or 5 pages when you have the time, your educated input would be greatly appreciated. :good

 

its all about personal opinion everyone has their own ideas.mine is prime tyson ali or lewis would all beat the k brothers.

 

Excellent excellent post.

Holyfield was 205 against a near 250 Buster Douglas, he was about 40lbs less than Bowe and Foreman as well

Skill has always been the decider in boxing.

Manny Pacquaio was like a midget in most of his welterweight fights too.

Todays heavies are garbage and while Lennox Lewis might beat an old time All time Great here or there, he is the exception and most definitley not the rule in this era.

 

You can't be serious. LOL

 

No he's not if. If Wladimir and Vitali don't lift weights what is modern about them? What is modern about the other dominate champion Floyd Mayweather? or the 50year old Bernarnd Hopkins? You must dispute why such dominate champions who train like the fighters of the past are beating fighters who train modern.

What other evidence do you have besides stats? the only thing you get from stats is fallacy.
You still need to refute my other post in this thread.

Science has progressed so that brings what to boxing?? The only thing I can get from that is you're calling LL,VK,WK drug cheats

Wladimir beats a lot of undefeated fighters because of all the padding going on. Sven Ottke made a very nice living beating bums in Germany.

Marciano 49-0 is the only record that can't be compared to other HWs.

P4P Glover with his record is Sven Ottke one of the greatest fighters of all time?

 

Deal

 

Honestly, I'm ashamed to say I actually started to respond individually to more posts, but why should I? None, NONE, of the oppositions posts are responsive in any way to the facts and logic below. Each fall clearly within the guidelines of "common responses" below. A critical, intelligent reader will note the absence of logic from sp and loudon, and the fact they have entirely failed to counter the logic and facts below. I will not suffer fools, nor will I reprint words and arguments in different ways to cater to imbeciles. Regardless, I'm glad they continue to exercise their stupidity, it only keeps the focus on an excellent topic. By responding, sp and loudon keeps this topic active, and invariably helps show people why past HW's can't compete H2H with modern HW's.


Thank you to both the imbecilic posters (here's looking at you, sp) and the rationale ones. Its important that this thread remain in discussion and rational boxing fans become more educated on the topic. This thread is meant for people who have been convinced by biased commentators, trainers protecting their own glory and financial interest etc that modern HW's can't compare head to head with past heavyweights (nothing wrong with having that belief initially, I did too), BUT have the intelligence and self control to understand rational arguments and change their mind. Even if you have a HW "hero" you just can't accept would lose today, if you can evolve your opinion on the topic overall, then the thread is doing its job. When someone posts something new, I'll post a similar post, responding to any new arguments and tweaking my below statement to better explain. So below are the relevant facts and features:


Old ATG's should be respected as great for many reasons, I have Ali and Louis #'s 1 and 2 respectively on my all time great list for these reasons. However, it is for pfp and in era accomplishments, and import to boxing and history they deserve those designations. Its wrong to say they could contend with modern HW's H2H for the below reasons.

1. Progress. It happens. When you look at all sports with a quantifiable result, today's athletes are blowing past the old ones. In sports as diverse as swimming, sprinting, and javelin throwing, among many others, the old records are being shattered. In all the innumerable sports out there, I'm not aware of a single record that wasn't set mid 80's or later, and usually in the 2000's. Even in nonquantifiable sports with quantifiable aspects (i.e. tennis's serving speed), the quantifiable aspects have increased. Those sports all have about as much relation to each other as they do to boxing, so it would defy all reason for boxing not to progress as all other sports have
2.Size and relation to progress. Per #1, it's likely (although not certain, per size limitations mentioned here), that even middleweights of today would easily defeat middleweights of 40 years ago. However, HW is even more pronounced, because the is no size limitation in HW boxing, as opposed to other classes. HW's have been getting dramatically larger, both taller and heavier, just like the athletes in the sports where quantifiable results are better. So, again, it makes no sense that the same process is happening in boxing as with sports where quantifiable results are getting better, but somehow the result isn't better as well
3. Statistical analysis of size on performance. Other websites document this. Old time greats fought much smaller boxers, generally, but when they did fight larger boxers they had less success. Ali's ko ratio against fighters who would be designated cruiserweight today was a very good rate, in the 70's. Against 200 and up it was 40ish percent, against 215 and up it was a featherfisted 33%. Frazier and even the renowned ko artist Shavers had similar numbers. Shavers ko ratio against 215 and up fighters was about the level of Chris Byrd. Shavers was a power only fighter, Byrd was power last fighter, to show how much performance has gotten better. Meanwhile, LL and the K's ko percentage again 215 boxers is 75% and higher. There is no reason to think Ali could have coped with the size and power of todays fighters and every reason to think he couldn't have.

Responses to these facts. Nostagliaists typically respond in one of 5 ways. I note the ways, and why they are irrelevant as counters to the above facts, below.
1 "Single examples", whether of a fight a modern fighter lost, or something a modern fighter did that (they say) Ali didn't do. Immature posters like sp and loudon love this, which is usually completely irrelevant. Any single example you can give, I can apply to Ali (look at the past thread posts here with sp and loudon). If you find one that I can't apply to Ali, good for you, then I'll give you a single example of dominance for WK (etc) that doesn't apply to Ali (Ali had to rely on biased judges to get him his many of his best wins, WK never did, etc). A couple in particular. sp went on about modern HW's not being "true" champs because they didn't defend their mandatories. The k's never failed to do that, and LL never ducked a mandatory (he chose Grant over Ruiz when Grant was uniformly regarded as the better fighter and VK over CB, when VK was regarded as LL's biggest threat in the division). I could point out that Ali was stripped of his WBA belt as well after the first Liston fight because he didn't fight who the WBA wanted him to, but either way its irrelevant because 1. Ali, LL and the K's have indisputably (to rational persons) been dominant champs for a long time beating the best and moreover 2. It really has nothing to do with the broad premise of why prior HW's could contend with modern HW's outlined above. Same thing with pointing out single defeats. All boxers (save Marciano, who I hope no one will say is the best h2h of all time) have defeats, but it is to opponents in their own era. So, pointing out their defeats is meaningless to the broader era argument. Ultimately, "single example's" are meaningless, and do nothing to contradict the broad picture painted by the logic and stats above. It is the context of the era that matters.
2. Prime. Ali was never beaten in his prime". This is circular logic, I can do the same thing with LL or the K's when I want. Primes occur at different times for different fighters, in part because "prime" is really just a sliding scale of different important attributes, some of which peak sooner and some later. For taller and heavier, harder hitting HW's the prime is usually mid thirties, because chin prime occurs later, hard punching lasts a long time, and properly utilizing your height uses a lot of experience and technique. That's why Foreman was able to be effective into his mid 40's, and LL and the K's were at their best mid to late 30's. Conversely, shorter, high octane fighters like Tyson broke down quickly.
3. "What's good for one sport isn't good for another". Basically the argument that boxing is a special flower that, alone of all sports, is immune to progress. Well, I'm open to learn why not. Just give me some statistical evidence or logical, comparative arguments. But I have yet to hear a real argument. NOTE: "Ali has way better footwork, and is just faster and better than ll and the k's that's a fact" is not evidence, it is an unsubstantiated opinion. Posters like sp love to say that is evidence, but its only repeating an item of faith. You can believe that Ali would be the K's and LL as an item of faith, there's nothing wrong with that. Just accept that all factual evidence and logic points to the contrary.
4. Smilies. When all else fails, nostagiaists love using smilies, (or insults, I include "na na you're stupid" in this category). This may make you feel better but it does nothing to contradict the facts above.
5. Denial. In this case the last stage of grief over ingrained opinions. Just stating "Ali would easily beat LL and the K's" with no other statements. This also includes things like blind statements of belief like "modern fighters haven't beat anyone" etc. LL and the K's have beaten the top contenders numerous times. The records of the current era top contenders are generally better than the records of the past era top contenders. There is no reason to logically state the earlier contenders are better than current contenders, per main arguments #1-3 above. Again it may make you feel better, but it does nothing to change the above facts.
6. "Modern HW's are crap because (someone) says so". Thanks dblfl for reminding me of this. Hitler said monogamous marriage was good, and smoking and drinking was bad, does that mean we should cheat on our wives and smoke and drink? Using someone else's belief is not proof for or against any argument. Many boxing analysts recognize the top HW's of today would beat the top HW's of yesteryear, although many of them still rank old timers higher, just as I do, for non H2H reasons. Manny Stewart is a great example, who left modern HW's off his toplist, but noted that it didn't mean he though those old timers could have beaten the modern boxers. Other analysts/trainers do state old HW's would beat modern HW's. They do that to glorify their own past accomplishments, improve sales of things they market when US was more dominant, or otherwise out of delusion. Citing another's opinion is not an argument, you need to actually use facts and logic for that.

So, if these facts outrage you, please comment. I will repeat and or tweak the facts above and respond to any new arguments. By responding, you are helping keep this great topic at the forefront of the posts, and thus helping educate boxing fans. By keeping this thread at the top, you are helping detoxify fans of the self serving blather given by old trainers and commentators used to demean current boxers and laud old timers for all the wrong reasons.

 

huh? sp is even more stupid than loudon. sp has no observable trace of logic displayed in his writings, he fails to provide responsive counterarguments and its clear in his writings that he can't actually follow logical arguments when they are made. He writes a lot of crap, which is not an indication of intelligence. Anyone can deny that the world is round or that 2 plus 2 equals 4, anyone can post nonsensical words that they say "proves" those beliefs. When you actually believe that the world is flat and 2 plus 2 equals 5, as sp does, it is not an indication of intelligence, but stupidity.

 

Ross Purrity, Corrie Sanders and Lamon Brewster all disagree with you...

 

See common responses #1, "single examples"