Well, now your definition is even more specific, and therefore less widely held. I don't see how your definition of "better boxer" is more functional when it isn't even tied to somebody's actual ability to defeat another boxer, but has all sorts of weightclass caveats attached. Anyway, @Journeyman92 already has a word for someone who is better at boxing in the sense that they can beat opponents in their weight class. It just isn't your word. You are purely arguing over who gets to decide what words mean in boxing. And as we've both agreed, there is no authority who has dictated that @Journeyman92's preferred words are inappropriate. In fact, @Journeyman92's usage is pretty common in boxing. Now you're certainly free to try to persuade everyone to use your preferred word. But not everyone does. Your version isn't true "by definition" until it's actually accepted as the definition by the boxing community.
I don't believe it is any more specific...it's just making the comparison of apples to apples. As mentioned already, the original point concerned two heavyweights. It was very obvious to any reasonable reader that we were talking about two HWs. I presumed you to be joking or flippant with the introduction of different weight classes when the question was clearly around two HWs. As it appears you might not have been, IMO, there is no further point in pursuing this line. Does he ? Can you Remind me what word he uses in that instance. This is true to a good degree, hence J's suggestion of nitpicking. I can see how that could be someone's interpretation. But he made three statements (the middle one implicitly) that didn't make sense to me, even though I am well aware of the whole "fundamentals" bit. Usyk fundamentally is far superior. Ali wasn't a better boxer. If you were a trainer you’d want your fighter to look more like Usyk then Muhammad. The first I could agree with, the second two, no. And I think it would be generally accepted by the boxing community that Jerry Quary's " fundamentals" or even Henry Cooper's "fundamentals" were better than Ali's. I also think it would be generally accepted that Ali was a better boxer. However, if anyone feels that some other definition of "better boxer" is more acceptable than being capable of beating everyone in your weight class, I have no objection to that usage.
The phrase he seems to use for that is "better fighter," which is what kicked off your initial objection / expression of puzzlement in Post #31 and began the discussion. @Journeyman92's original post stated: @Journeyman92 didn't say that Usyk was a better fighter than Ali. Just a better boxer. And he clarified in the subsequent discussion that by "better boxer," he meant someone with orthodox technique and fundamentals.
Fair enough. Given that the fight game in question is boxing as opposed to, say Karate or MMA, even some who were not mathematically trained might conclude that the better fighter would then by necessity, be the better boxer. But as I said, I have no objections to whatever alternate usage other posters adopt. I just won't be joining them.
The performance of a technically orthodox, alternate universe Ali who grows up as the third Quarry brother is one that I now find myself weirdly curious about.
Interesting. I would probably have contemplated him as a third Spinks brother. The change in pigmentation might be difficult to envisage for Ali.
As long as we're warping reality by putting Ali in different circumstances, we'll just assume that nobody notices the very obvious lack of resemblance among the three "Quarry" brothers.
Back in ‘72, when Foster and Ali fought Mike and Jerry respectively on the same card, it was promoted as the Soul Brothers vs the Quarry Brothers. I don’t think there was any confusion as to who was who - but what do I know? Somehow, I don’t think that promo line would wash these days.