Early Prep of Past vs. Present

[kal.majeed]

This is an early “prep” article and depending upon how well it is received (or not), follow-ups may continue along with the site link (unlocked).

Since we are all adults, hopefully, we can discuss this rationally and it is important to put aside all preconceived notions and biases (as I have put aside mine).

Past Elites vs. Present Elites – the alleged “impossible” case to prove (time will tell).

There are four possibilities with the aforementioned matchups (focusing upon HW elites):

1. As time goes by (forward), crossing over eras (every 3-5 years) and certainly over decades (10 or more years), the elite HWs get bigger/stronger and better (i.e. more formidable); hence, past elite HWs, even at their earliest peak/best, will not ever be able to compete with/defeat latter era/decade HW elites.

2. Regardless of how much time HW elites are separated by, HW elites can reasonably compete with other HW elites of ANY era (past/present) – all things are reasonably inline over time; hence, past elite HWs, providing that they are at their early peak/best, will be able to reasonably compete against present elite HWs (at their early peak/best) - and vice versa.

3. The reverse of #1: As time (reverses), crossing over eras (every 3-5 years) and certainly over decades (10 or more years), the elite HWs are bigger/stronger and better (i.e. more formidable); hence, present elite HWs, even at their earliest peak/best will not ever be able to compete with/defeat past era/decade HW elites (at their early peak/best).

4. A mixture: Everything is random and some HW elites (of the past/present) will be able to defeat/dominate some HW elites (of the past/present) – all at their early peak/best.

Instead of choosing one and then trying to prove it, a reverse approach will first be used: Trying to determine what scenario or scenarios are NOT occurring.

According to #1, past elite HWs, even at their peak/best, will NOT ever be able to defeat (in a high probability paper match) present peaking elite HWs and with #2, past elite HWs will need to be at their early peak/best to reasonably compete against present elite HWs (and vice versa).

In court (as well as in science) all one needs is a single, strong, irrefutable (and contradictory) piece of evidence to disprove any theory or claim.

To disprove/refute #1 and #2, one will need to find an actual high-level documented bout with a past elite or near elite HW (moderately/significantly declined via age, activity, etc.) vs. a present peak-level elite HW (anywhere in history) where the past declined elite (or near elite) HW defeats/dominates the present peaking elite HW.

(6/16/1936): Max Schmeling (former world HW champion, born in 1905, turns pro in 1924 as a LHW) KO 12 Joe Louis (future 12-year world HW champion, born in 1914, turns pro in 1934 as a HW; a 24-0 record; a year earlier stops former world HW champion Primo Carnera, becomes the first to stop former world HW champion Max Baer and becomes the only one to stop former Spanish/European HW champion Paulino Uzcudun); hence, this is a significantly developed/formidable and peaking Louis.

http://www.boxinggyms.com/news/headline ... ng1936.htm

The rematch is a different issue and will be discussed at a later time but first, if #1 or #2 is correct, how is that (first Schmeling-Louis) occurrence even feasible? Hence, how does a past elite HW (declined via age, activity, etc.) even come close to accomplishing such a feat?

Another example (in case that one is not satisfactory) – for whatever reason(s):

(10/30/1974): Muhammad Ali (former world HW champion, born in 1942, turns pro in 1960 as a HW) KO 8 George Foreman (defending/future world HW champion, born in 1949, turns pro in 1969 as a HW; a 40-0 record; previously is the first to stop defending world HW champion Joe Frazier and stops future world HW champion Ken Norton); hence, Foreman is a proven/formidable and peaking fighter.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Georg ... hammad_Ali

The bouts that Ali has with Frazier/Norton are different circumstances and will be discussed at a later time but first, if #1 or #2 is correct, how is that (Ali-Foreman) occurrence even feasible? Hence, how does a past elite HW (declined via age, activity or non-activity, etc.) even come close to accomplishing such a feat?

Another example (in case that one is not acceptable) – for whatever reason(s):

(2/11/1990): James ‘Buster’ Douglas (former world HW title challenger, born in 1960, turns pro in 1981 as a HW) KO 10 Mike Tyson (defending/future world HW champion, born in 1966, turns pro in 1985 as a HW; a 37-0 record); Tyson is just past his third year as a world HW champion; hence, he is only slightly off his early peak/best.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Mike_ ... 29_Douglas

The bouts that Douglas has with Tucker/Holyfield (and Tyson with Holyfield) are different issues and will be discussed at a later time but first, if #1 or #2 is correct, how is that (Douglas-Tyson) occurrence even feasible? Hence, how does a past near elite HW (declined via age, activity, etc.) even come close to accomplishing such a feat?

Another example (in case that one is not adequate) – for whatever reason(s):

(11/5/1994): George Foreman (former world HW champion, born in 1949, turns pro in 1969 as a HW) KO 10 Michael Moorer (defending/future world HW champion, born in 1967, turns pro in 1988 as a LHW; a 35-0 record); Moorer wins the vacant WBO HW title in 1992 and then wins the WBA/IBF HW titles just a few months earlier in 1994 (this is his first world HW title defense); hence, this is still a peak-level Moorer.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Micha ... ge_Foreman

The bouts that Foreman has with Holyfield/Morrison are different circumstances and will be addressed later but first, if #1 or #2 is correct, how is that (Foreman-Moorer) occurrence even feasible? Hence, how does a past elite HW (significantly declined via age, activity, etc.) even come close to accomplishing such a feat?

Another example (in case that one is not up to standard) – for whatever reason(s) – in another sport (replacing the HW boxing references with women’s tennis players):

(1987 Women’s Wimbledon and U.S. Open Finals): Martina Navratilova (turns pro in 1975, wins her first singles major in 1978, born in 1956 and defending champion at both aforementioned majors in 1987) defeats (in straight sets – in both finals) Steffi Graff (turns pro in 1982; wins her first singles major earlier in the year over Navratilova – the 1987 French Open, born in 1969; goes on to win 21 additional singles majors and Olympic gold and silver in singles); these matches are at majors and in finals; hence, Graff defeats top players along the way and is at the beginning of her peak/best.

The Navratilova-Graff all-time career rivalry is (9-9) and the Graff wins are different issues and will be addressed later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graf%E2%80 ... va_rivalry

If #1 or #2 is correct, how are those (Navratilova-Graff) occurrences even feasible? Hence, how does a past elite women’s tennis player (declined via age, activity, etc.) even come close to accomplishing such feats?

There are literally countless such examples (in all major sports/high-level competitions); hence, if these are not suitable to some (or many), perhaps they can find others that are appropriate or decipher (via proof) what exactly is occurring.

For those who are satisfied, that’s two down and one to go (coming later)…..

P.S.

‘Evolution’ has nothing to do with cross-era matchups (i.e. past vs. present) as the term and theory of ‘evolution’ is one of the more bogus terms/claims in all of science.

Evolution (noun): The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form (over lengthy periods of times – perhaps, even millions/billions of years).

Remember, only a single, strong, irrefutable (and contradictory) piece of evidence is needed to disprove any theory or claim.

Metamorphosis (noun): In an insect or amphibian, the dramatic and marked process of transformation from an immature form to an adult form in two or more distinct stages (within single life cycles); examples are tadpoles into frogs/toads and caterpillars into butterflies.

Hence, on both aspects (gradual development) and (over lengthy periods of time), BOTH are contradicted 180 degrees via metamorphosis (dramatic and marked) and (within single life cycles).

In other words, ‘evolution’ cannot account for the biological process of metamorphosis.

[kal.majeed]

It may not be advisable (or make sense) to write such an article prior to releasing the final data but for some reasons, it will be done. First, I will address the “impossible” belief as it still lingers – although in small amounts. As noted, I live in Florida (USA) where the state run lottery, with six number picks (each from 1-53), has existed for nearly a quarter century. The odds for winning are about 1 in 23 million and someone (or group) always wins – even if it takes a few weeks for a winner(s) to claim a rollover jackpot. Hence, even a 1 in 23 million chance is NOT impossible – as someone(s) always wins (eventually).

Now, in specific reference to cross-era matchups (i.e. past vs. present), there are only four (distinctly different) possibilities and unless a detailed scenario has been missed (and can be noted), there is a far greater chance at deciphering this ‘mystery’ than to win the Florida state run lottery – as it is merely a one in four chance likelihood. Furthermore, since all four are markedly unique from each other, only one can be correct and needless to say, the other three must be false.

An inexperienced detective (investigating a crime) will find a strong suspect and then try to prove that they are guilty; an experienced detective does the reverse – gathers a list of suspects and then begins to eliminate those who have no motive, means or opportunity to commit the crime (whatever the crime may be). As the experienced detective eliminates suspect after suspect, they will inevitably gather/garner both direct and indirect evidence that will, hopefully, incriminate (and possibly convict) whoever is responsible for committing the crime.

This exact experienced process is used to decipher the mystery of cross-era matchups using actual documented bouts and basic biographical data of boxers. If actual documented bouts and basic biographical data (that no one questions the integrity of) are not facts, then what are they (opinions)? This will make the entire history of boxing an 'opinion'.

Moving on to specifics: As some or many have suspected (and may have begun to accept) the sport of boxing (all divisions, from its inception) is in a decline. This is still not official as the fourth possibility has not (yet) been refuted (coming soon) and as well, the how and why has not (yet) been addressed or answered (coming soon).

As mentioned in a previous article (with some misdirection on my part), there are far greater forces at work that influence these occurrences (that take place in every sport and in virtually every field of human ability/achievement). These specific (scientific/metaphysical) forces at work (that will be addressed and explained in the primary work) override and supersede all other aspects combined; in boxing, these other aspects are fight videos, records and styles (combined, all are virtually irrelevant as one crosses over eras/decades).

Note: The attempted misdirection on my part is in reference to a potential ‘paper match’ between a peak Dempsey and a peak Marciano as most reporters/writers who cover both boxing greats pick Dempsey to win; this is an accurate pick (as will be explained in detail later) but these folks do not nearly appreciate what they 'see' in Dempsey for if they do, they will know that bout cannot be made – a gross overmatch; Marciano will have enough trouble trying to make it out of the first round against an early peak Louis, who himself will be overmatched against a peak Dempsey (as will all other world heavyweight ‘champions’ in the post Tunney era).

This (for added reasons to be noted) becomes difficult for general observers to grasp about the sport of boxing as well as regarding other major sports (such as swimming and track-and-field). In a December 18, 1966 N.Y. Times article (by writer Keith Monroe) titled “Johnny Weissmuller Was a Slow Swimmer”, Mr. Monroe notes that over the decades (from 1926-66), swimming records are being lowered/improved every decade and now (in 1966) even the women’s records (in some events) are lower/better than legendary champion Weissmuller’s record feats (in 1926).

Similar examples can be made for track-and-field events as well but all analysis will be completely false as no one knows or even suspects that scientific/metaphysical forces (that have not yet been made known) are at work that will make these comparisons completely reverse. Hence, neither Johnny Weissmuller nor Jesse Owens nor Jim Thorpe is/are slow or weak (regardless of their size) when compared with any latter era/decade complement(s) – in spite of what the time clock, measuring tape or barbell may ‘indicate’.

In boxing, this becomes even more difficult for the average fan (or even expert) to comprehend as if a present day elite heavyweight will be mismatched or overmatched (in a 'paper bout') by an elite peaking heavyweight of the not too distant past, then the only viable competition will be in a lower weight class (cruiserweight or light-heavyweight) and the further a present day elite heavyweight goes back in time for a ‘paper bout’ (perhaps several decades), he may need to matchup with an elite peaking featherweight, bantamweight or even an elite peaking flyweight of the far distant past – and the present day elite heavyweight may find himself on the losing end (in some/many instances). The specifics of this will be addressed later.

Truth is indeed ‘stranger than fiction’ – and one is only now getting a small taste of it (as it relates to cross-era comparisons)……

P.S.

Folks, if you don't get it (or don't want to get it) - that's fine but for those interested, I'll make a specific reference to a current proposed 'paper bout' - Rocky Marciano vs. Tony Tucker.

On paper, I would not put Tucker in the ring with early peak versions of Ron Lyle or Earnie Shavers for they (Lyle/Shavers) will likely knock his (Tucker's) head off - who knows what Marciano will knock off (possibly Tucker's entire upper torso); it does not matter how tall someone is if they get sliced in half.....

[kal.majeed]

First: RIP Hector Camacho! Yes, the "Macho Man" (among others) at their early peak best will (on paper) take both Mayweather Jr. and Pacquiao to school (via stoppages) - details to be released later.

To continue from the previous article posts in “Early Prep of Past vs. Present”, #4 (chance highs of elites across eras/decades) are refuted via long reigning champions (and elites who sustain at high levels) for half a decade or more (in all divisions and eras/decades – and consistently within all other major sports); if #4 is accurate, the ‘random’ nature (i.e. the probability) of elites hitting arbitrary highs all throughout history will easily eliminate such sustained high-level achievements as elites (and near elites) will be quickly deposed off a top level (within a few short years) via early peak-level versions (and that process will continue throughout all divisions and eras/decades); hence, by process of elimination and with enormous evidence to corroborate (that will be shown later), #3 is the winner.

Examples of elite (or near elite) boxers who fight some or their entire career as a heavyweight - competing at a high level [without any losses, without a stoppage/disqualification (dq) loss or with significant high-level consistency] - for nearly a decade or more (in chronological order):

Charles Hadley (1869-82 without a stoppage/dq loss); John L. Sullivan (1879-91 without any losses); Jake Kilrain (1879-90 without a stoppage/dq loss); Paddy Slavin (1882-91 without any losses); Charlie Mitchell (1884-93 without a stoppage/dq loss); Peter Jackson (1885-97 without any losses); James J. Corbett (1886-96 without any losses); James J. Jeffries (1894-1909 without any losses); Jack Johnson (1906-14 without any losses); Joe Jeannette (1906-15 without a stoppage/dq loss); Sam Langford (1907-16 without a stoppage/dq loss); Tommy Gibbons (1911-21 without a stoppage/dq loss); Gene Tunney (1915-28 with only a single avenged points loss); Harry Greb (1916-23 without a stoppage/dq loss); Jack Dempsey (1918-27 without a stoppage/dq loss); Paul Cavalier (1922-36 without a stoppage/dq loss); Obie Walker (1929-46 without a stoppage/dq loss); Arturo Godoy (1930-38 without a stoppage/dq loss); Roscoe Toles (1934-50 without a stoppage/dq loss); Alberto Santiago Lovell (1935-45 without a stoppage/dq loss); Joe Louis (world HW champion 1937-49); Rocky Marciano (1947-55 without any losses); Sonny Liston (1953-63 with only a single avenged points loss); Bob Cleroux (1957-69 without a stoppage/dq loss); Muhammad Ali (1960-70 without any losses and 1971-80 without a stoppage/dq loss); Joe Frazier (1965-72 without any losses); Larry Holmes (1973-84 without any losses); George Foreman (1975-77, 87-97 without a stoppage/dq loss); Michael Spinks (1977-87 without any losses); Tony Tucker (1980-94 without a stoppage/dq loss); Evander Holyfield (1984-94 without a stoppage/dq loss); Oliver McCall (1985-2012 without being knocked down or cut); Riddick Bowe (1989-2008 with only a single avenged points loss); Lennox Lewis (1989-2003 without any unavenged losses); Ray Mercer (1989-2001 without a stoppage/dq loss); David Tua (1992-2011 without a stoppage/dq loss); Vitali Klitschko (1996-2012 without being knocked down; 2004-2012 without any losses); Wladimir Klitschko (2005-2012 without any losses); these are 38 elite (or near elite) fighters over 140 years plus of boxing/HW history (without anyone’s long–term dominance being toppled/permanently ended prematurely); hence, #4, an arbitrary placement (in history) of high-level elites (and near elites) is easily refuted. Therefore, since they are NOT chance/randomly occurring, they are appearing in a systematically/orderly fashion and with #1 and #2 (previously) disproved/negated, they are (#3) declining in a methodical/organized manner.

“The world is full of obvious facts that no person by any chance ever observes. Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - no matter how improbable - must be the truth.” - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle a.k.a. ‘Sherlock Holmes’

Note: Noticeably missing from the above ‘consistent’ list are the vastly overrated (from MW-HW divisions) Mike Tyson, Ken Norton, Bob Foster, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Jimmy Bivins, Billy Conn, James J. Braddock, Max Baer, Primo Carnera, Max Schmeling, American George Godfrey, Jack Sharkey, Young Stribling, Steve Hamas, Tommy Loughran, Mickey Walker, Paulino Uzcudun, Jess Willard, Harry Wills, Tommy Burns, Marvin Hart, Sam McVey, Philadelphia Jack O’Brien, Joe Choynski, Tom Sharkey and Bob Fitzsimmons (among others) each of who rarely goes more than a few years, throughout their career, without some type of stoppage/disqualification loss; almost all of these mentioned pugilists are listed in all-time matchups but none are actually ranked (for reasons stated) – not that all of the ‘consistent’ ones are necessarily ranked.

In the upcoming organized all-time reality rankings/listings, it is important to remember that an elite boxer’s ranking/listing is not limited to when they are born or turn professional but also how well they matchup with other elites from their same era/age group, with those elites who precede them (earlier era/age group) and with those elites who follow them (latter era/age group). Also, the how and why reasons (the scientific/metaphysical aspects) will be revealed and explained within the primary text.

For those who are satisfied (or at least intrigued) with the general overall presentation of cross-era comparisons, one may be equally interested in the headline work (the origin/development of the Universe) – another alleged “impossible” case to solve – that only has a few scenario possibilities.

1. ‘Steady State’ – The belief that the Universe has always existed (as it is now observed); Albert Einstein once firmly supports this scenario.

2. ‘Natural Law’ – The belief that via ‘natural’ occurrences (specifically gravity) the Universe ‘evolves’ into its current state; Stephen Hawking (and most present day scientists) support this scenario.

3. ‘Supreme Intervention’ – The belief that a CREATOR is responsible for all that is known (and perhaps unknown); most cultures/religions support this scenario.

Two of these scenarios can be moderately refuted and one can be slightly refuted – this allows room for a fourth possibility – an obvious one that is missed; although I originate it, I cannot take full credit for it as it has existed in the annals of ancient/classical history for more than two thousand years (in parts among various ancient cultures but never combined). Believe it or not, folks, this fourth option has both direct and indirect ties to the (scientific/metaphysical forces) that affect cross-era comparisons – in all fields of human achievement (a full circle); hence, to fully appreciate and understand (past vs. present), one will need to grasp the headline work. All of this and more is coming soon…..

[BoxBuzz]

Looks like ya got somethin' there. I'll have to check the akashic record on this one.

Looks like you gave credit to George Foreman not having a loss for ten years when he wasn't fighting.

I must in all humility admit that I'm George's equal...as (just like George) I've never lost a fight when I didn't show up.

[kal.majeed]

Hey BoxBuzz: I was not sure if you were still interested.

I did the same with George as I did with everyone else - just went "by the book" as the saying goes - trying to keep things as simple and objective as possible.

Remember, it's not over yet; hence, if you remotely like what you see, you'll hopefully enjoy the rest.....

P.S.

By the way, are you a fan of any other major sports (examples if you can)???

[Ezzard]

kal

I love reading your work I'm just not sure where it is going...

Are you eventually going to give us your well-calculated list of greats?

[kal.majeed]

To Ezzard: Thanks and yes it's coming soon; the old man is doing another series of proofreading on the website (as an author can only proofread their own work to a limited extent) and he likes to take his time.

Also, I am still trying options to see if I can make any $$$ from this (even if it is indirectly) - since I can't pay the bills by continuing to give away three decades of extremely hard work (and more $$$ than I care to recall) for FREE - but that's my problem.

Remember, when this was first designed, it was for a book format but I got tired of dealing (or trying to deal with) literary agents and publisher representatives (I swear all these folks have their head in the sand - or at least the ones I try to deal with) – and self-publishing is just as bad.

Anyway, back to the point, it is only a section on boxing (about a dozen pages) with one page on rankings (all of this will be on the website via Google docs and I will provide the link in an upcoming article); the one page is highly concentrated with 37 ranking spots (over 130 plus years of boxing history - the ending of the bare-knuckle stage to present day).

The 37 polished/ranked all-time greats (some more accomplished than others) are matched against other ranked greats and other unranked (but not as polished) greats and a 'high-probability' outcome is given - starting with the best and working down (just note that boxers decline in ability as the rankings go down and even the unranked boxers that lose can be at or higher in ability than those who follow - downward); I did additional bonus articles to include many other names that could not fit into this section (that will need to be zoomed in on to read clearly).

In all total, there is a great deal of concentrated information - and hopefully all the key names, bouts and questions are addressed. Also, I have links to YouTube videos of all-time historical bouts and documentaries - plus much more (as there are other fields of research done).

I'm not sure when it will be ready (maybe another week or two) but stay tuned.....

[Datsue]

I'm much more excited, meself, to learn how you've personally disproved evolution.

[kal.majeed]

That's the headline work - and it's far easier than anyone may realize (although, I did give a small piece of data already).....

The only thing I can say (at this point) is that our ancestors (in ancient times) are by FAR wiser (in many respects) than their modern-era descendants.....

[Datsue]

Gissa hint!

Are they from space?

[kal.majeed]

No - I can never fully understand why that space alien scenario is even discussed because that first question I have is where did the space aliens come from (i.e. originate)????

If you would like a hint, read over the quote by Arthur Conan Doyle - and note that the Universe is full of those 'obvious facts' as well.....

[Bundana]

I'm really looking forward to seeing your finished work, as you (so far) have raised some very interesting points.

For instance, I had no idea it was possible to actually PROVE, that boxers are in steady decline - and that, consequently, elite fighters from just a few years back would be clearly superior to the elite fighters we have today. But since you have spent 3 decades researching this question, you of course know much more about this than I do, so I'll have to take your word for it.

I have always been intrigued by cross-era dream-matches, and have had great fun pondering the possible outcomes of fights like Dempsey vs Louis, Louis vs Ali, Marciano vs Foreman, etc... but I now realize, this isn't interesting at all, as such fights can now be proven to be such gross mismatches/overmatches that they shouldn't (even as fantasy-matches) be allowed to take place.

But since such fights can never be worthy of discussion, I like the idea of fantasy-matches not only crossing different eras, but also different divisions. It stands to reason, that if each era is weaker than the preceding ones, we have to cut the modern fighters some slack (when putting them in dream-fights against old-timers) by matching them against boxers from lower divisions - that is, if we want a fair fight, where the outcome isn't a foregone conclusion. And, of course, the further apart in time, the greater disparity in size will be necessary to make it interesting. To think, that if we want to match an elite heavyweight from today with someone from way back, it has to be against a featherweight or bantamweight... or even a flyweight! Well, to be honest, I would never have guessed that, but it just goes to prove, that you're never too old to learn something new - as long as you keep an open mind.

I'll be looking forward to the chapter, where you explain how Jimmy Wilde will beat the crap out of Wladimir Klitschko!

[kal.majeed]

To Bundana: You definitely "get it" - the question is do you speak for the majority or minority - only time will tell.

Remember, if you read my "History of Combat" article, it clearly depicts how combat training/techniques are initially designed for the smaller man (to have advantages over multiple/larger men); hence, by historical reference, it should not be difficult for one to conceive of a much smaller sized boxer (such as Jimmy Wilde - who by coincidence I do use in an example) of a much earlier time and higher ability level defeating, even handily, a modern day elite heavyweight (at their early peak best).

I've also done a great deal of legal research - via trials, attorneys, judges and juries as it relates to general procedure and presentation of evidence. One of the best (modern era) legal minds who I have researched (via his book) is London born, USA based attorney Louis Nizer; in his first book "My Life in Court", Nizer refers to the "rule of probability" as it relates to evidence (to corroborate one's case).

Paraphrasing Nizer, the "rule of probability" dictates that the evidence is out there, as long as one is accurate in their interpretation and presentation (of the general facts), but it requires one to do the necessary work to FIND the corroborating data (or witness) - that is appropriate and substantial enough to hold up in court (to judge and jury).

http://www.amazon.com/Louis-Nizer/dp/B0 ... ouis+nizer

The bottom line is that virtually any inquiry of any significant and constructive substance can be proved - be it in or out of a court of law.

[Bobbyptsd]

Did you even read Bundana's post?

I didn't see proof of well.... anything.

Wait, you have proven you can make me read something for much longer than I should, and give me a headache. So there's a feather in your cap.

What this all comes down to is:"Numbers and statistics matter when I say they do, and they don't when I say they don't. If you agree with me on that, then you'll agree with my findings."

Well I don't, and I don't.

At the end of the day, we still don't know if Louis would have beaten Frazier, or Ali would have beaten Lewis, or Camacho would have beaten Mayweather, and so on and so forth.

And we never will. You haven't really conclusively proven anything. The bare knuckle era to now is a blip in time, in relative terms. We are putting a ridiculous amount of importance in that span, as if significant differences exist between eras. They don't. Long after you and I are gone, people will look at this over one-hundred year span, and figure it was pretty much all the part of one same era. With variations, you know, because some fighters are just better than others.Those fighters might be born in 1912, or 2012.

I like how you seemingly have this overpowering nostalgia fetish, stating that our ancestors were "much wiser" than us, with absolutely no proof of this, and then turn around and talk about how anything can be proven.

I will now write an essay on how I could beat Micheal Jordan in a game of one on one.

If I type enough, I'll get there.

That's sort of how I feel about this.

[kal.majeed]

Well I guess this answers my question (Bundana is referencing my article - not the reverse).

I apologize for wasting your time and hope your headache goes away soon.....

[kal.majeed]

For the record and for clarity’s sake, there is a difference between using statistics to try to prove that certain boxers/athletes are better than others and using the most basic/general data to DISPROVE certain perspectives or beliefs; what is being presented here is the latter – not the former. Furthermore, actual bout results (that no one questions the integrity of) are the ONLY bits of information that are used (here and in the general work to be released) to show superiority – in any way shape or form…..

P.S.

If you do not understand the specifics of why some boxers are superior to others (or perhaps mismatch or overmatch others), it is simply because I have not yet released all of the data (the information is being presented in stages – for many reasons)…..

[Giancarlo]

It's all a convoluted wind-up right?

[kal.majeed]

No - not really - it is highly complex but can be explained (at least the general aspects) in a simple manner.

[Datsue]

It's all a convoluted wind-up right?

[Datsue]

Did you even read Bundana's post?

I didn't see proof of well.... anything.

Wait, you have proven you can make me read something for much longer than I should, and give me a headache. So there's a feather in your cap.

What this all comes down to is:"Numbers and statistics matter when I say they do, and they don't when I say they don't. If you agree with me on that, then you'll agree with my findings."

Well I don't, and I don't.

At the end of the day, we still don't know if Louis would have beaten Frazier, or Ali would have beaten Lewis, or Camacho would have beaten Mayweather, and so on and so forth.

And we never will. You haven't really conclusively proven anything. The bare knuckle era to now is a blip in time, in relative terms. We are putting a ridiculous amount of importance in that span, as if significant differences exist between eras. They don't. Long after you and I are gone, people will look at this over one-hundred year span, and figure it was pretty much all the part of one same era. With variations, you know, because some fighters are just better than others.Those fighters might be born in 1912, or 2012.

I like how you seemingly have this overpowering nostalgia fetish, stating that our ancestors were "much wiser" than us, with absolutely no proof of this, and then turn around and talk about how anything can be proven.

I will now write an essay on how I could beat Micheal Jordan in a game of one on one.

If I type enough, I'll get there.

That's sort of how I feel about this.

[kal.majeed]

It's amazing how history repeats itself (and I haven't even released the full details).

They laughed at and mocked this fellow as well:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/abo ... ddard.html

They literally wanted to commit many of these fellows (specifically Marconi) into an insane asylum:

http://inventors.about.com/od/rstartinv ... /radio.htm

Remember, those who laugh last, laugh best.....

[Counter-puncher]

in my experience those laughing completely on their own are well on the way to the asylum.

[Giancarlo]

It's amazing how history repeats itself (and I haven't even released the full details).

They laughed at and mocked this fellow as well:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/abo ... ddard.html

They literally wanted to commit many of these fellows (specifically Marconi) into an insane asylum:

http://inventors.about.com/od/rstartinv ... /radio.htm

Remember, those who laugh last, laugh best.....

They laughed at David Icke too.

[BoxBuzz]

Giancarlo..

the topic at hand is as remarkably complex as it is simplistic. As such it requires deep, thorough, and resolute focus. It may even require that one hold two mutually exclusive intellectual concepts in holistic counterbalance in simultaneous fashion. Do not tip the vessel of knowledge with your cavalier spirit or the mirrored echo will become distorted. For the moment we need full cooperation toward manifesting a reflective surface much the same in terms of sheer quality, as the Hubble telescope.

If you are not being helpful, stand aside and let those who are more capable in the ways of visionary development, wax philosophically on the required critical cornerstones, in order that others may eventually share in what will turn out to be the desired degree of shared enlightenment.

[Giancarlo]

Giancarlo..

the topic at hand is as remarkably complex as it is simplistic. As such it requires deep, thorough, and resolute focus. It may even require that one hold two mutually exclusive intellectual concepts in holistic counterbalance in simultaneous fashion. Do not tip the vessel of knowledge with your cavalier spirit or the mirrored echo will become distorted. For the moment we need full cooperation toward manifesting a reflective surface much the same in terms of sheer quality, as the Hubble telescope.

If you are not being helpful, stand aside and let those who are more capable in the ways of visionary development, wax philosophically on the required critical cornerstones, in order that others may eventually share in what will turn out to be the desired degree of shared enlightenment.

In other words, you think he is a nutter too.