The current Heavyweight Division is one of the best eras ever

Except this era IS bad. The Klits are one eyed men in the proverbial land of the blind.

Lewis has a better resume than both of them, Holyfield has a better resume than both of them. Hell, even Tyson, as much as people criticize his opposition has a better resume than both of them, with wins over Holmes and Spinks.

Vitali got his face busted open when he fought an old, fat Lewis.

Reading your reply to me, I'm convinced that you're an Elroy alt.

 

Is that how you go about ignoring points you can't refute? By saying it's not rational because *you* don't think it's rational? I have a feeling you would be in the extreme minority in that view. :good

My point stands - if strength and conditioning training has evolved in leaps and bounds, but most heavyweight boxers don't have strength and conditioning coaches, relying instead on old school training methods - how are they benefiting from the evolution of sports science?

Hmm. I was thinking about this, and you're right. The population explosion has led to the rise of supermen, which is why we see see so many dominant boxing champions from the likes of India and China and so few from populations with stagnant and declining populations like the Ukraine...

Except there are many champions in boxing today, including future hall of famers, who have a far expanded arsenal of offensive and defensive moves. But let me guess, Wlad's arsenal is actually more advanced precisely because he doesn't need those pesky uppercuts? Am I right?

Couldn't possibly be because he's just so big and so much better than everybody else that he never needed to learn anything else?

Your fatal flaw is that you're attempting to argue that Wlad = the heavyweight division. Wlad is just one fighter in the division. You haven't proven the strength of the division, you're just talking about how great Wlad is. Talk about the depth of the division, talk about the superior skillset you're seeing from all of the contenders and how they are humiliating the remnants of the inferior 1990s. Show me how strong the division Wlad is competing in is.

 

And I'm convinced you simply lack the intelligence required to respond to me in a meaningful way. Let me translate your dribble: "I hate the current champs and era, the past champs and past eras were better, that's all I got".

 

OK, tell me how the fighters of today are more skilled than past fighters.

 

The other point I'll make is that you may actually have a point that a population boom is correlated to an increase in genetic anomalies that would produce record breaking superiority.

Unfortunately, that point is lost because the population growth rate has actually plummeted in the post-boomer age, particularly among developed countries. If your logic were true, then we actually already saw the best of our population with the baby boomers who, as it turns out, reached peak age in the 1970s. You know, when the likes of Ali and Frazier were fighting.

If your theory holds true, we're actually poised to see a contraction in performance, and perhaps should have started to see it already. By seeing things like an unusually bad heavyweight division.

 

Wladimir vs Wilder is potentially the Greatest Heavyweight fight of the 21st Century :boxer

Both are powerful Modern Giants too :smoke

 

Paragraphs 1-2. No, it means your answer was nonresponsive. There is such a thing as responsive, logical arguments. Your answer wasn't one of them. Spewing out meaningless words don't count. You've given nothing to refute my previous post, read it for why you are wrong.
Paragraph 3: Moron, did you read my whole anwer? The world is becoming much more involved in boxing/sports in general. As far as China, just wait. For politics, they generally aren't competing professionally yet. It will be quite amusing when that changes and the racists and xenophobes have to deal with a Chinese HW champ.
Paragraph 4-end: Key word, boxing. Not HW boxing. HW is practically a different sport, its why you see people with vastly different physiques facing each other unlike in other divisions. When you have a dominant, powerful jab, great height, and a dominant powerful right, then it makes much less sense to employ things like an uppercut, which requires getting close to your opponent. That is present for HW's but not present in the other divisions where you are almost always fairly close to each other in size.

 

That's not a point, its meaningless blather. First of all, mostly this was dealt with in the post I just made. Secondly, we're not talking about growth RATE, we're talking about raw population SIZE. The rate of population growth is slowing across much of the world, but that's just the rate of growth, most countries are still growing. Certainly in the world overall, specific countries are irrelevant in that analysis. But even then, Ukraine, one of the few exceptions to this general rule, has still grown considerably from its size in 1960. Seriously, if you don't know the difference between rate of growth and growth, there's just no hope for you.

 

andrea, I am not sure how to say this without makig you look thick - i offer no rational arguments because I am not offering any arguments. This is the 3rd time I've told you. ...you appear to be a little slow on the uptake.

What I am telling YOU is that your argument is irrational.

YOU are the one offering an argument. And its YOU being scrutinised for it.

 

My goal isn't to convince you of anything - your mind is already made up. I don't need you to determine whether or not I've refuted your points. I'm sure as far as you're concerned, you've handled every "moron" on here with consummate ease. Most other readers of this thread would beg to differ, and you've been pretty comprehensively discredited over the course of this thread. Not to you, of course... :roll:

So let me get this straight, the countries that are most prone to benefiting from an increased population aren't actually even competing in boxing yet, and yet all of the dominant champions are from populations in decline - and that's your evidence that population growth inherently breeds superiority?

How about you show some evidence of this superiority in boxing? Point to the army of superior heavyweights and what their advanced nutrition and improved genes have gained them? Show me how punches have increased in strength, how the average speed of a punch has increased, how improved nutrition has led to a vast increase in the average number of punches thrown since Compubox has started keeping score? Show me something, anything that proves what you're saying? You're trying to make a case the boxers are better - show me data.

Frankly, there's a stronger case to be made that the rise in salaries in other sports has led to a dilution of boxing talent at the heavyweight level. Why struggle with Don King robbing you and ending up like Ali when you can make several times more in the NBA or NFL?

Practically a different sport? Lennox Lewis is as big as Wlad and he had a far more complete offensive arsenal. So did Riddick Bowe. That's a horrible line of reasoning, to suggest that Wlad did away with techniques that have no use in heavyweight boxing, and that only a jab and straight right have any place there. Surely you're joking.

 

Sorry Harriet, you have shown yourself to be too utterly braindead to either analyze, critique, or offer, arguments. You're a little slow, I know, but in attacking an argument, you are inherently offering what's called a counterargument, even if its devoid of substance or logic, such as you. I have provided full logical proofs for why I am right, you have offered nothing except "you're wrong" to argue I am wrong.

 

just like to quote this for the comic relief it will offer in 20 years time.


carry on.

 

The growth rate is important because it tells you the size of specific generations. What good is a large population to the rise in dominant athletes if that population skews old?

In other words, the number of births during the years that would lead to dominant athletes in today's era (1973 - 1993) is actually LOWER than it was in previous generations. By your logic, that should then lead to a smaller pool of athletes from which these imagined supermen would rise. And, as you said yourself, there isn't any meaningful sports contribution from growth countries to counteract that.

I'm not one for long, ongoing exchanges, since I know I'm never going to see you write, "You're right, I didn't know what I was talking about", so I'll be on my way now. Enjoy your thread.

 

I missed the w key by accident when typing your name andrewa, in case you hadn't noticed. but you took it irrationally personally.

I haven't done either of these yet, so how would you know?

I am telling you that YOUR argument is not right. 4th time of telling.

one more time, and this will surely be the last time I say it - you are wrong to look at pictures of ali and frazier and conclude that they are unfit from the photos. this failure of argument is yours, unless you can now tell me how you can look at pictures of ali and frazier and conclude they are unfit.

 

We don't have to agree my friend, but the fact still remains.

Arreola hitting him at his pace and Arreola hitting him at the pace of Ali-Frazier are two different things.

I disagree with point 3. Being bigger doesn't make you the better puncher. In more cases than not bigger means slower. The punches the do the most damage and take the most out of you are the ones you never saw coming. I won't even get into the effect body punching has on a fighters stamina, and as a whole that is widely neglected by today's heavyweights.