Klitchko: The Next Larry Holmes

[Bard of Boxrec]

Is that the same Ali who was knocked down by Sonny Banks (190 pounds) and Henry Cooper (185 pounds)?

The whole "Ali is the greatest" stuff is so played out and so not based in fact or logic. How would Ali beat Wlad? Certainly not by power...and judging based on the performance this past weekend against a man in better shape than Ali ever was, probably not by speed. But Ali's chin would have been punished. He never faced a guy who was 6'6", 240 of pure muscle, with a finely tuned defensive style and a devastating power punch. Ali was not great defensively (he took a ton of punches in his career and hit the canvas a half-dozen times) and had he stepped into the ring with either Klitschko brother there's no way he would see the final bell. He outweighed Cooper by 20 pounds and Cooper had a 50% KO rate, so he wasn't all that powerful...but he put Ali on the floor. The men who knocked Wlad down were all huge, bigger and stronger than Ali and certainly bigger than Cooper or Banks.

Here's another fellow who can't judge a fighter's intangibles because he is so preoccupied with gaping at weights on Boxrec. Ali gets dropped by Banks and Cooper - therefore Klitschko pulverises him. Why? Because of the numbers next to their names on Boxrec.

David Haye got dropped heavily, very heavily, by a 168lb Lolenga Mock. Using the above poster's logic there's no way he could survive Wlad K. But he did. He went 12 rds and was never even hurt. So none of the above essay on the weight of Banks and Cooper means anything.

Ali didn't go down in 69 rounds versus born punchers like Liston, Foreman, Norton and Shavers, but Cooper knocked him down and that settles the argument, apparently. A remarkable analysis.

I hadn't even noticed this facepalm of a post from 'unifythebelts' before now. Is he really suggesting that Wlad would stop Ali or do I need my eyes testing?

[Bard of Boxrec]

Tuan, debating with this guy WILL make you go insane. At some point you have to leave his inane fallacies alone.

[Bard of Boxrec]

the facts…

Your 'facts' often don't tell the whole story, or even close to the story. How do you not understand this by now? You have had enough people telling you.

If I’m wrong about the main claims I’ve made about Larry Holmes in this post, which is what I’ve persistently claimed in this thread, why don’t you prove that I’m simply articulating “inane fallacies”? :??

Because I value my sanity.

[Bard of Boxrec]

the facts…

Your 'facts' often don't tell the whole story, or even close to the story. How do you not understand this by now? You have had enough people telling you.

It depends on the topic of discussion.

What tends to happen, is that I articulate a “harmless” opinion about a specific issue… and then people challenge what I’ve said by making claims over a completely unrelated matter. Some of the forum posters genuinely believe that they’ve undermined me, when all they’ve achieved is to talk about something I’ve never even commented on. They even throw insults at me, whilst conveniently forgetting that they’ve failed to address the actual point I made!

So when I attempt to bring the topic of discussion back to the original point I made, people claim I’m not telling the “whole story.”

When I make a point, I back it up with facts… I really don’t care about the “whole story”, unless it specifically relates to the claim that I have made.

Do you not think that your view that everyone else is 'failing to address the actual point you've made' reflects perhaps more on you than them?

[Tuan_Jim]

Riddick, you will go insane debating with this creature. He calls what is not a fact a fact. You pull him up on something he said and he never said it. He side steps any examples that disprove his facts that aren't facts.

You're debating with an algorithm here. Leave him to it.

[Bard of Boxrec]

To illustrate this, why don’t you compare the posts that “Tuan_Jim” and myself have submitted in this thread… and count the amount of times I’ve been insulted

Tuan Jim is a bitter, hate-filled man for sure, I'll agree with you on that :)

Therefore, whilst you claim that “facts don’t tell the whole story”, why don’t you gather your own by following the above instructions and letting me know if I’ve either been inconsistent, factually-incorrect or have behaved in an inappropriate manner.

I politely decline your invitation.

[Tuan_Jim]

It's impossible to address your point because it shifts so frequently. You think heavyweights need to rehydrate after a weigh in, as if they have worked down to a tight, specific weight like the other divisions. You think grown men boxing at 220 should make 200 because they did it when they were teenagers. You don't believe Wlad K's opponents were mostly fat, even in the face of those unedifying pictures I shared. It all stems from your original untenable stance that Holmes's challengers were the fat ones. You're hiding behind pedantics and numbers, and anyone with a semblance of intelligence can see it.

[Counter-puncher]

hi, fergus, I have an invitation of my own to extend to you.

would you mind, please, watching the Mayweather - Pacquiao fight, and then in its aftermath, coming on here and saying something, anything, that pertains to boxing in its non-statistical sense.

I mean, even something as simple as, 'I was impressed with the way Mayweather landed the straight right hand', or, 'it looked as though Manny's upperbody movement gave floyd some problems early'

I'm not looking for you to hit this ball out of the park, kid. a single will do. just something that shows you realise there are human beings, moving in the ring, with unique and invidual mannerisms and capabilities.

I'm rooting for you kid. show my ass up and prove me wrong.

[Counter-puncher]

well, that was some progress.... but its ironic, no, that when asked to show some kind of non-statistical appreciation of boxing, your main recorse is to..... compubox

[Counter-puncher]

but it would be churlish of me not to note the improvement, there. albeit you did start from a pretty low baseline.

can you do the same on Sunday, with no mention of compubox? I will happily eat my words.

[Counter-puncher]

well, that was some progress.... but its ironic, no, that when asked to show some kind of non-statistical appreciation of boxing, your main recorse is to..... compubox

Did you not read the entire post? :??

I use punch stats, because they’re one piece of the proverbial jigsaw puzzle. I then fit together the rest of the pieces to accurately portray a true reflection of my thoughts.

Rather than reading a couple of sentences, show some decency and read my entire post again!

i read a post in which you didn't make a single reference to what you saw

[Tuan_Jim]

You called them mostly fleshy, Fergus, you called them mostly fleshy. Here are the pedantics I picked up on - if anyone summarises your point in any other way than your own specific phrasing you deny you said it because you didn't use those exact words. You're also in denial - those pics are from the night they boxed Wlad K - a very simple search will verify.

Just to let you know, young man, irritating people out of debates is not a 'victory'. You have not won anything. You have merely sickened grown men with your infantile obnoxious antics while making a fool of yourself.

[Counter-puncher]

but it would be churlish of me not to note the improvement, there. albeit you did start from a pretty low baseline.

can you do the same on Sunday, with no mention of compubox? I will happily eat my words.

It’s inevitable that I will comment on the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight, but I will do so in a manner I deem appropriate.

Put it this way, if people claim boxer A deserved to emerge victorious because they were busier than fighter B, which conflicts with my own opinion and the actual punch stats, then I will eloquently articulate my thoughts on the matter and support my stance by quoting the CompuBox stats.

That being said, if I feel it’s appropriate to convey my thoughts by submitting a post that purely discusses the various tactics, techniques etc. employed during the fight, then I will do so.

Simply put: I have already disproved your derogatory claim and I don’t feel the need to labour over the same point time-and-time again!

I’m not a dog, I’m not going to bark simply because you told me so!

sure you're not, little Rover, sure you're not.