Wladimir klitschko is slaughtered for his level of opposition

Stop quoting me waste-man. I wouldn't tell you where I last took a ****.

 

Wrong, i took your bet no problem. I was prepared to leave. You went gloating before you had won. You broke the code of sportsmanship. You broke the contract.

 

I only see someone not honouring a bet they admit they entered into

 

You broke the bet, chicken****.

There was no agreement on sportsmanship or any type of gag order. You continued to be a trash talking ass after the bet was agreed to, so rather hypocritical to expect me to be silent.

You really just got cold feet and used a few harmless jabs to justify being a ***** and running for the hills. Anyone can see that.

Dino the Duck

 

I haven't been playing the person. In fact I haven't being "playing" at all. I've point-blank called you out on your initial statement (which you delivered as fact) and your statements since then, which represent you changing your tack, as you realised your mistake. You started out stating (and this is in black and white) that Billy Conn hadn't defeated any Heavyweights; Once the FACT was presented to you that Conn had defeated several Heavies, you pluck out their respective numbers. Once the FACT that at least two of those Heavies were ranked, at the time Conn Fought them; you consolidated your position on the numbers.

So it's FACTS that have brought you to this your line of argument, Stallion - But forget all of that because it's clear you are happy that you weren't caught out declaring falsehoods and are just as happy with your use of numbers.



By the way, there's been no "discrediting" going on. All I have done is temper the usual rabid Klitschko-Fanatic onslaught of overstatement (and, in this case, false statement, based on your incomplete knowledge) and put Byrd's wins into perspective, for which I have at least provided some degree of reasoning, whereas you have simply used numbers alone.



Quite frankly, I can collect data from Boxers' records myself, all day long, if I need it. However - and I'm not entirely sure you will be able to grasp this concept - data is not information.

If all you want to do is reduce the assessment of Boxers' records to the most basic of arithmetic then you should confine yourself to having debates with others, who think as simplistically as you do. All the participants require, in such a debate, is access to Boxrec and an ability to count and record in 'plus' and 'minus' columns, in increments of 1 or -1. Problem solved and debates are concluded quickly for you.

And, that is how you have more or less ended up handling your case, in this debate, e.g. number of losses on Conn's opponents' records -25; likewise, Byrd getting the 'W' against Vitali so that's a +1, amongst whatever the other tallies need to be made; no matter the circumstances - so on and so forth...



So - Using your own methods of assessment, at the time Byrd fought Holyfield: 38 Wins, 5 defeats, 2 draws - That at least puts Conn's win over Pastor on a par with Byrd's win over Holyfield but is that telling me the whole story? Hmmmn - I suppose we might need a bit of context around those bouts then, perhaps?

The mindless flaunting of statistics is, at best, very dim. Without a context to support the numbers, you really only have a miniscule amount of actual information, from which to draw a conclusion and, personally, I would never rely on that.

A great example from you, relating to understanding context and, I have to admit that it was one I genuinely laughed at, is your question, as to whether or not Conn would have managed to achieve the same victory against Vitali as Byrd did. That's just a nonsensical question because the context of that victory is absolute. The fact is, anyone who could have stayed on their feet for nine rounds avoiding Vitali's bombs would have achieved that victory. Unless you're suggesting that Byrd somehow induced Vitali's rotator cuff injury to "achieve" the win? A bit of an absurd stretch, don't you think?

You can give Byrd full credit for that win in the +1 column if you like. I don't. That's not discrediting the win. That's simply placing the 'W' in it's proper context. And, if you're asking me if Conn could have lasted 9 rounds with Vitali then I say yes, of course he could have.


So here's my case:

- I do not include the Vitali RTD9 as a noteable victory for Byrd. It's like me giving any competitor, in a knockout tourney, extra points for a 'Bye'.
- So, once I put that statistic aside, it leaves Holyfield (which I feel comfortable in saying was a modest win for Byrd, given the circumstances of Holyfield's age and your very own statistical approach). I think it's no better or worse than Conn's victory over Pastor.
- There are then Tua and McCline, for which I've already given my initial view on and it hasn't changed. Both Tua and Mcline were on the fringe of contention for a time and were never able to clearly separate themselves from the rest. The Tua win was the better of the two wins for Byrd and, even then, I don't think that it was necessarily any better than Conn's wins against Pastor and Savold.
- Head to Head, I would back Conn to beat Byrd. He was simply that much more skilful, tenacious and tougher.
- Byrd's 2 key losses come from Wlad.
- Conn's 2 Key losses come from Joe Louis.
- And, if we're going to keep using the numbers game... ....Joe Louis > Wlad.
- Still with numbers - Conn only ever lost 2 Heavyweight bouts to a widely accepted top-3 ATG Heavyweight. (couldn't resist)
- The 2 Louis defeats were Conn's only losses suffered legitimately by KO.
- While Byrd held a Title; Conn only had one route to THE Title and that was through Louis. Had the same Title structure of old been in place today, Byrd would not have been a Titlist.



And - Stallion - This isn't a court of law; it's an online forum. I don't need to prove anything to you - don't be a jobsworth. I've pointed you in the right direction now do your own homework. While you're at it, take a look at as much Billy Conn footage as you can. When you've done your research - maybe get back to me with something other than numbers and you swearing blind that Byrd has better wins.

 

I think people need to make allowances for how Boxing and Boxers were managed in bygone eras. Seventy-to-Eighty years ago, it was a very different game.

For Boxers like Lee Savold, for example [101-42-6 (KO 72)] it was about earning a living; fighting up to 16, 17 times per year, with far less opportunities arising to make a breakthrough. There were no multiple sanctioning bodies, each with layer upon layer of titles to aim for. There was not a slew of managers/promoters/trainers looking after their prospects, carefully match-making and grooming their guys, in readiness as 'TV Commodites' back then. There were no prolonged negotiations or preparations; you just got in the ring and fought.

And, you did so, as often as you could, win or lose. It was a paycheck and, if you were competitive enough, could put on a good showing and were prepared to hit the road, then word could get around and you might be lucky enough to end up fighting in front of an audience at The Garden.

By the time he was competing at the top level, Savold had already had what most would call a long career, by today's standards. To have remained that competitive for that long (though he did have a haitus, at some point, early in his career) and to have eventually been considered a Heavyweight contender was a feat in itself.

Conversely, someone like Bob Pastor [53-7-5 (KO17)] who, whilst being underated, was quickly recognised as a talented Boxer, became a Madison Square Garden Fighter quite early on his career. As such, he had a diffeent time of it, as his record reflects.

There are other variables to consider, as well, e.g. the scoring system, types of gloves - fewer weight divisions, etc.

Today, perceptions are much different. A Boxer's record has become a powerful marketing tool and the fear of losing greater than ever, due to the impact that a loss can have on a Boxer's career and, in turn, their marketability. Fighters compete far less often, as the whole process of selecting the right opponent at the right time can be a painstaking exercise - and that's before the commercial, contractual and promotional aspects of the bout get going. A long way from where it was in the 30s/40s.

 

Ibeabuchi disagrees with you

 

Joe demolished plenty of elites. Now SURE JOE HAD SOME BUMS ON HIS CV.

but that's because joe beat everyone who counted and had noeone left to face. What else was he supposed to do, go fight LHWs and MWs?


wlad is fighting these bums because he fears getting koed instantly by anyone at the level or above of a 37 year old retired neverman again.

 

He was. Against Byrd he was quicker and finished the fight strong despte being outclassed. He was a slug against Lewis and breathing hard from doing nothing. You are being illogical because you can't accept that Byrd beat the better version of Tua. It is necessary to elevate Lewis' achievement by pretending that beating Tua was a unique act that only he was capable of. Not true.

According to reports, Tua did no training for Lewis, claiming to have been injured. His sumo apperance and absurdly high weight confirms that. Tua pissed his title shot against Lewis away.

I remember reading about the ice baths but they never said he didn't do road work. Not sure why you would think the ice baths replaced regular training? :think The Ice baths was just a bi-weekly extra thing, that probably didn't have much effect either way.


From the article.

Twice a week Tua is submerged in an ICE BATH!! This is a bathtub half-filled with cold water and chilled down with large blocks of ice two hours beforehand. Twenty minutes before Tua gets into the tub, 40 bags of crushed ice are added. The purpose of this is to burn bodyfat by converting it to heat to keep the body warm. It also increases the blood flow through the muscle tissue. The ice bath helps the recovery from exercise by 35% and helps the body rid itself of lactic acid, which can cause muscle soreness and cramping. His first ice bath session lasted 47 seconds - but he can now stay in there for 15 minutes!!

 

Tua was, is and will always be ****.

 

Someone on a boxing forum who feels Tua was ****.

Does that answer your question?