THE FINALS: The All-time Heavyweight H2H Tourney: LEWIS vs. ALI

You'd be great in politics. You speak without saying anything.

 

Paraphase:
Loudon: Ha ha, you're stupid.

Little man, its funny. I give facts and logic, you give ha ha, you're stupid. I'll never get bored with schooling you. You may be hopeless, but it will speed up the detox process for those less mentally challenged.

 

Schooling?

What logic have you given me?

All you had to say in your opening post was 'I believe
Lennox would have won because........'

But you couldn't do that could you?

No. It had to be ' Lennox would brutalise Ali, PROGRESS happens people'

A fighter from the 60's couldn't possibly have beaten a fighter from the 90's, because of progress?

******ed!

 

You're stupidity is the gift that keeps on giving, little boy loudon. Look at my above posts, moron. Every (non) argument you give, I respond with historical fact and clear logic based extrapolation. And I did say, repeatedly and in numerous ways for the non mentally challenged, why LL would be Ali. You're inevitable response to all the above? No answer on logic or fact (because there is none. Instead, na na, you're stupid.

 

List me these historical facts with logic, and tell me where boxing fits into it all.

 

Been there, done that, you simply lack the intellectual capacity to process it adequately. It's not you're fault, you'd need to be at least as intelligent as a smart chimp, and I know that's just a bridge too far for you.

 

Do it again.

Write it in big words for me, and leave plenty of spaces so I don't get confused.

List me the facts, show me the logic, and tell me where boxing fits in.

You don't have to be specific.

Just give me a quick breakdown.

 

Loudon, I'm gonna give you a big helpful hint. All you got to do, is click on "previous page". It's all there in Technicolor. How about you do something. How about you give me one RATIONAL reason boxing would be different from every single quantifiable sport, sports that have as little to do with each other as they do with boxing. Another little hint. "Its just different, everyone knows that, you don't know anything if you say otherwise", is not rational, its subjective, unqualified opinion. An the problem is, that's absolutely all you've ever had to say against it.

 

Other sports like swimming and track and field etc, rely more on sports science, strength and conditioning, nutrition, and better training equipment and facilities etc, than boxing does.

If you had a time machine, and matched your average sprinter or swimmer from 20 or 30 years ago, they'd probably not have a chance of beating today's top athletes.

But a boxer isn't racing against a clock like they are. Boxing is an art, where nutrition and strength and conditioning etc play a part, but not a significant one. A boxer has many, many skills to master. Many of today's guys would find it hard to fight 15 rounds, and there's things that were common in boxing years ago, that don't seem to be there today. Body punching, in fighting, double hooks, parrying and the use of the uppercut don't seem to be as common. Fighters honed their crafts in the gym and learnt a lot more about the game than today's guys, who have 17 divisions and who are fast-tracked to title shots with the numerous belts that are on offer.

Now it's a fact that swimming records and track and field records have been broken as the decades roll by. Not all of them, there's still old records that have yet to be broken, but as a whole, the athletes become better and quicker as time goes by. You can see the progression, especially in swimming.

But you can't clearly see how boxing has progressed in the same way. Today's top fighters wouldn't easily beat the best fighters from the 80's and 90's etc. If boxing progressed in the same way, then today's MW's would be seen as the greatest MW's. Today's WW's would be seen as the greatest WW's. Today's LHW's would be seen as the greatest LHW's etc, just like how today's 100m sprinters are the best sprinters. But they aren't. Today's fighters aren't classed as the greatest fighters. Some of the best fighters around today, would get their ass handed to them by fighters from previous decades.

So you simply can't tie boxing in with other sports. There's no evidence to suggest that today's guys can without uncertainty throw better hooks etc than a fighter from 50 years ago. Boxing skills have been passed on through great all time trainers, who are sadly no longer with us, and certain things have been lost over time. Usain Bolt is racing against the clock, on a better track, in better shoes, living a healthier lifestyle than a sprinter from 50 years ago. But again, there's fighters from 50 years ago that would probably steam roller some of today's top guys.

If you could go back 70 years and transport a peak Ray Robinson into today's WW division, he'd probably clean it out. I think many, many posters would agree with me there. But how could that be possible? How could a fighter from 70 years ago, be able to beat a top WW from today? The answer is, because he was more skilled, and it has nothing to with sports science etc.

Boxing has certainly progressed since the M.O.Q. but it doesn't keep progressing. Many people think it's actually regressed. It simply does not progress in the same way as other sports. Again, list 30 of today's best fighters, and then compare them with the top 30 from the 80's, and the top 30's from the 90's. You cannot say that Muhammad Ali wouldn't have been able to beat today's HW's because boxing has progressed in the same way as other sports have, and he wouldn't have been able to compete.

Running around a track, isn't the same as trying to time a guy who's trying to take your head off.

It's completely different.

If you think boxer A would beat boxer B, then do a breakdown of skills, and access each fighters strengths and weaknesses, before giving a logical answer as to why you think they'd win.

I'll be fair and say that I'm sure that many of today's fighters could beat fighters of yesteryear. But likewise, many fighters of yesteryear would beat many fighters of today.

I hope you take this information on board.

Boxing and other combat sports, stand alone.

 

What exactly are you trying to say here, Andrew ?

Is there a point or a proposition buried in all that rhetorical sarcasm ?

Be good enough to simply state your thesis and toss in whatever morsels of evidence you deem supportive.

 

Well written and planned out but boxing does not stand alone. It is a combat sport just like Wrestling and Judo and the wrestlers and judokas of today are far better than the greats of prior generations.

 

Kevin, I meant it stands alone from athletics and swimming etc. I've just edited my post.

I take your point on board with regards to wrestling and Judo.

But I'm sure you'll agree, that today's best fighters aren't far better fighters than those of yesteryear as a whole.

There's up's and downs in boxing. Some divisions today are stronger than in other eras, and vice versa. Some fighters are better than some fighters of yesteryear and vice versa.

But as a whole, nobody can say that boxing progresses as each decade goes by, like it has in some other sports.

 

I'll give you props. When I received no response, I assumed you were cowardly just waiting for me to leave before posting a (non) response. But I was wrong. You aren't a coward. You're just don't have good answers to my positions (because there aren't any).

You went to great lengths to make what you thought were points to answer my points. Unfortunately, from a logical perspective, it's not really any different than if you'd just made a quick reply like I'd speculated you would and say "ha ha, you're stupid, boxing is different and everyone knows it". Since you went to the trouble of answering my post seriously and in detail (and for once in a respectful tone) I'll do the same.

You have a few series of thoughts spread out over the paragraphs, so I'll deal with the individual points. First and foremost, you say that boxing is not like the other quantifiable sports because it is as much art as sport. That's just not the case. It is a sport, and it relies on art no more than any other quantifiable sport does. A discuss thrower needs to learn extensive technique in learning his craft. So does most every quantifiable sport, and your doing them a disservice by not crediting them with that.

Now, the result in boxing is much more "art" based than the other sports, because it is subject to subjectivity. But the craft itself operates the same way. There's really nothing about boxing as a sport, that operates more differently from one quantitative based sport, than an unrelated quantitative based sport does from another. The only difference is that the results are subjective based.

One could compare it to figureskating, perhaps, which is also judged (and even more "artistic"). You'll notice that the quantitative elements of figureskating (i.e. axel and other complicated jumping techniques) have all greatly improved over the years. There's no element as quantifiably trackable as that in boxing(though I hope that one day, we can calculate raw punching power based on old footage, I'm sure it would show a night and day difference among HW's), but the quantifiable elements of HW boxers have noticeably increased (i.e., the same size increases seen in the other sports are also present in HW boxing). It's just not rational to think that all quantifiable indicators of progress present in the other sports that have grown, and are also present in HW boxing, but that it doesn't correlate to increased ability and results.

You also say there were differences in the approach to boxing in the past, and this shows a weakening in the sport. That goes against reason, because quantitative sports have seen differences in training etc too, but it has led to increased performances. There's no reason to think those differences in boxing don't similarly lead to increases in performance just as in other sports.

One of the things you put the most stock in is saying that if boxing progressed, then "today's MW's would be seen as the greatest ever". That is really the whole point. Boxing (and to a lesser extent other non quantitative sports) has fans that refuse to acknowledge that progress has occurred. The fact that fans don't acknowledge progress, is not proof that it doesn't exist at all. It just means that there is a natural tendency to glorify the past and discredit the present. In quantitative sports, that's not possible. In some ways that's a bad thing. Jesse Owens is by far and away the greatest sprinter ever, because of his in era accomplishments. That gets lost sometimes because he can't compete with Bolt in head to head. By the same token, Louis and Ali deserve to be recognized as the greatest HW's of all time, for their in era achievements. But its absurd to think they'd stand a chance against modern HW's. Look at Ali's record against heavier than self opponents, he was featherfisted, worse than Chris Byrd.

The point is, you clearly want to believe in the equality of past boxers H2H to today. I understand that. But it flies in the face of history and logic.

 

You have some good points, although I disagree with your implied final conclusion. But fairly put, and I'm not going to hijack your thread anymore than it has been. I'll include rebuttals of your arguments in a new thread I'm making.