Rocky Marciano Versus Oleksandr Usyk

Your response perfectly encapsulates the behavior of a textbook midwit, someone who overestimates their intellect while failing to engage with actual logic or substance. You’re quick to label others obsessed or irrational, yet you’ve been the one writing long-winded, frothing diatribes packed with projection and contradiction. It’s almost amusing how you accuse me of “not coping” when your entire response reeks of someone desperate to cling to a facade of superiority.

Let’s talk about hypocrisy: you cry foul about ad hominem while simultaneously lacing your posts with insults and condescension. You call me an "obsessed barnacle" while refusing to disengage yourself, even though your supposed stance is that this discussion isn’t worth your time. Your inability to maintain any semblance of consistency is exactly why your argument collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.

You’ve repeatedly claimed to have refuted me, yet there’s nothing in your responses but baseless declarations and circular reasoning. It’s clear you lack the intellectual depth to engage in a meaningful debate, which is why you resort to posturing as though dismissiveness is a substitute for logic. The fact that you have to resort to strawmen and smug superiority only highlights how little substance you’re actually bringing to the table.

So, midwit, let me be clear: you’re projecting your insecurity onto me because you can’t handle being challenged. You claim to want to end this conversation, yet you keep coming back, unable to resist the urge to try (and fail) to save face. If you really believe you’ve "dismantled" anything, then rest easy on that delusion and move on. But we both know you’ll be back, because your ego won’t let you do otherwise.

 

Why are you letting this guy troll you? He did the same to me. I'll admit, he had me going for quite a bit before I realized what was going on. I can't take his abilities away from him. Very skilled at his craft.

He agreed with someone who accused Ali fans of making him out to be literally untouchable. I asked him to provide evidence of such, and he then changed his argument to Ali fanboys generally overrating him.

 

Because I KNOW you're not talking about strawmen and lack of substance one brings to the table.

 

Oh, I absolutely am, because the irony of him trying to call me out on that is hard to ignore. When someone relies on exaggerations and pivots to avoid addressing direct points, that’s the very definition of a strawman. And if you’re trying to argue that I’m guilty of the same, feel free to provide actual examples instead of vague insinuations. Otherwise, it’s just more empty noise.

 

You do realize those are essentially the same thing, right? Overrating someone to the point where they’re viewed as 'untouchable' is just another form of overrating. Both stem from the same issue of inflated praise, just framed differently. I’m sorry you’re too stupid to understand that.

 

So obsessed, so unhinged and so very ignorant.

Literally falling apart.

So, you can’t/won’t take the challenge of finding anyone else to agree with you?

Not surprising. Because no one has and no one will agree with you. There are several who have EXPRESSLY disagreed with you.

You are so stuck in your moment of grief due to having been completely exposed.

I’m not the one who is anchored in perpetuation - you are, as is painfully obvious.

I’m also not the one who is consistently writing long posts containing absolute butt hurt drivel.

Try to fix of ALL of your extremely limited intellectual capacity on yet another of your irrational claims - me crying foul.

I DIDN’T cry foul re ad hominem attack - YOU did.

I replied to your OWN and ONLY crying of foul, obviously illustrating your screaming hypocrisy in that regard.

There’s your deflective Straw Man (just one example of many on your part) right there.

It’s ALL already there, like the rest.

It’s clear that you can’t deal.

My Ego is absolutely fine but yours? Not so good. I’ve clearly significantly injured it and now you’re raging….stalking…

Now shoo……

 

Projection, deflection, and more of the same. It’s ironic how much you write about obsession and rage while continuously posting lengthy diatribes filled with baseless accusations and personal attacks.

For someone who claims to have 'exposed' me, you spend a lot of energy repeating the same tired points instead of moving on. Maybe it's time to take your own advice and let it go.

Your attempt to portray yourself as rational while resorting to name-calling and empty insults only highlights the lack of substance in your arguments. You’re free to keep shouting into the void, but it’s clear you’re only talking to yourself at this point.

 

The funny thing is, among other things, I already identified his hypocrisy re Ali - in all he’s tried to play that very same untouchable angle in respect of Usyk - to elevate Olek above all others.

I’m a big fan of Usyk but I am not so deluded.

His posts are replete with errors in facts/comprehension and failure to apply even the most basic logic .

Earlier he posted that Usyk claimed that Fury was his toughest opponent. Incorrect.

Usyk claimed that Fury was his toughest fight.

Let’s see. Usyk was 37/38 for Fury 1 - with accrued wear/tear and the normal effects of aging, there will be decline and fights will be become tougher - quality of opposition notwithstanding.

I hadn’t gotten to that one yet…because there have been so, so many errors on his part.

Shavers was one of a very well worn 35 yo Ali’s toughest fights - incurring the most significant damage in just one fight - but, all things being equal, that of course doesn’t translate to Earnie being Ali’s toughest (or best, as implied) opponent.

He doesn’t address those fundamental errors of course, he deflects from them only to go on and put forward yet another totally inane opinion.

 

Another “swoop” reply, laying in wait yet again…obsessed…but still couldn’t deal with the black and white, detailed illustration of your own hypocrisy and strawman eh?

Absolute non convergence.

I’ve actually just interacted with another poster on the subject - void? Lol man, get a grip on yourself, you’re shrinking with each and every post……

 

Yet another post full of projection and empty bluster. You keep throwing around words like 'obsessed' and 'shrinking,' but the irony is palpable given the sheer energy you're investing into these exchanges.

You can keep patting yourself on the back for 'illustrations' that are little more than repetitive rants, but they don’t mask the lack of actual substance in your points.

By the way, claiming 'non-convergence' isn't the mic drop you think it is—it’s just another way of saying you’re not engaging meaningfully. Let me know when you have something worth addressing.

 

New SonnyListon>/BoxingFan2002 confirmed

 

The reason people dismiss Louis' performance against the big men of his day is that they regard all those big men as inferior stiffs, bums, and brawlers. They maintain today's heavies are leagues ahead of the ones in the past, and to be fair, some are. Wladmir and Lewis are significantly better fighters than Buddy Baer or Abe Simon.

The idiotic modernists believe size alone gives these guys an edge over Louis, but then backpedal when they realize Louis has a stellar record against bigger men. So they can't say Wladmir or Lewis win "because they were too big". They then have to change the argument to "well, it's the combination of size AND skill". Okay, fair enough. How much skill are we talking about?

They won't dare say they're more skilled than Joe Louis, but are skilled just enough that the size+skill is too much. Hence why I made the thread "The Joe Louis paradox" because his career muddies the waters of the modern vs classic crystal ball. Louis could effortlessly KO a big man in January, then goes life-and-death with a guy who could've easily made cruiserweight today. It baffles the mind of people obsessed with size who ignore factors such as styles, skill, timing, accuracy, etc.

 

I think you're missing the broader point here. By pointing to Joe Louis as proof that size doesn’t matter, you’re relying on an outlier to set the rule. In reality, Louis’s success against bigger opponents is the exception, not the norm. In statistics, outliers are often excluded because they don’t represent the overall trend.

When you step back and look at the big picture, it’s clear that bigger fighters tend to have an advantage over smaller fighters. Many giants—like Primo Carnera, Buddy Baer, Jess Willard, and Valuev—achieved significant success despite lacking refined skills, largely because of their size. When you add skill to size, as with fighters like Wladimir Klitschko, Lennox Lewis, and Vitali Klitschko, that advantage becomes even more pronounced.

So let’s ask a simple question: if those less-skilled giants were average-sized, would they have achieved the same level of success? The answer is obvious. Joe Louis was extraordinary, but his career can’t be used to deny the general advantages that size and reach provide in boxing.

 

Excellent post.

If I may add, they also ignore the natural reduction in skills, speed and stamina that generally come with greater size.

For the smaller fighter, said reductions in skills/speed/stamina can compensate for and eclipse so called size and dimensional disadvantages.

Also , greater size and dimensions only become an advantage if the larger fighter can and/or knows how to employ them as such.

And sure, it can argued that some of the bigger guys back in the day might not have been as skilled as the “best” bigger guys of today.

However, in equal measure, a fighter like Louis didn’t just outbox those bigger guys of the past over the full route or better part of same, he comprehensively dismantled and destroyed them in short order.

Chins are a physiological attribute, not a skill subject to possible evolution and Louis proved that he had the power to crack the chins of the very big men of his day.

So, all in all, still plenty of wiggle room left for a fighter like the Bomber to deal with better skilled big men.

 

The irony of you calling someone stupid while not understanding that someone being hailed as literally untouchable (in the sense that they would go through fights LITERALLY untouched), is not mutually exclusive with them being overrated.

For example, if I said Usyk fanboys state he was literally untouchable and was asked to provide evidence..... I wouldn't pull up posts of people saying he'd beat every heavy in history one after the other. Both are forms of overrating, but clearly two entirely separate concepts.