Reexamination of Sanders and Norton similarities

No.

You cannot base ****ysis on annual rankings when they were updated every month.

You have to look deeper to get context.

 

Unbelievable rubbish this

 

nortons win over ali trumps anything sanders did by a vast margin.

sanders didn't earn title shots in his career, he got near it in his prime but failed to land one. Norton earned more than one shot. Norton was capable of it, sanders wasn't.


why did u include c.ooney, that was 1981.


nortons is better than sanders, but by a larger margin than u (now) admit.

 

Don't compare Wlad to Norton. After 19 years Wlad could not adjust.

 

it doesn't much to, people have already started above. this is actually paraphrasing of your failed argument from the other thread, but if you don't mind being exposed twice, ok.


- comparing wlad as an opponent, to ali? fail. beating ali counts for 20 times more.

- "sanders actually beat a champ" retired old sanders did that, yes. does that not actually make you wonder that perhaps (klittery aside) he beat a weak h2h opponent over 200 seconds?
OR do you really think sanders was some super soldier who simply didn't bother for his WHOLE adult career apart form in those 200 seconds against wlad?

- come on, be rational, weight it up, whole adult career OR 200 seconds?


As for Coo.ney, Norton was simply looking for a pay cheque by then, not a title shot. 37 is when HWs are doing that (except in K bro era when they are for some mysterious reason prime opponents).

 

you've not answered anything. same as you did last time you were challenged.


why is it logical to accept 200 seconds of performance in your retired form, over a whole adult career's performances? tell me why 200 seconds trumps 20 years. it doesn't become logic because you keep saying "its logical that 200 seconds means more than 20 years"

As for the new point, primes are most certainly not 37 - wheres your proof that this is so? so far you've offered none, all you've done so far is run away to a new thread.


just out of interest, do you not even a moment deep down see a pattern when EVERYONE disagrees with you in your thread? what motivates you to pretend u r right and they are all wrong.

 

what you actually did is run away to a new thread to start your argument afresh. To which, everyone who replied took you apart again.

not sure where you from everyone disagreeing with you to them all lacking mental power.

taking away the 180 seconds alis jaw broke is what you mean. Norton would still have a fair chance of a win over ali plus arguably the third fight as an arguable win PLUS a title separately PLUS the North American titles on 2 occasions - but without those 200 seconds with wlad, corrie had nothing of title relevance.

its not proof, you've correlated weakened opposition in the K bro era with improved nutrition. Post Klitschko, average age appears to have levelled down. Has nutrition worsened since the bros retired? LOL obviously no one is stupid enough to make such a claim.

they disagree with you, not me. Therefore I await your reply about what it feels like being disagreed with by everyone.