Interesting comments

[BoxBuzz]

Liston's freakish reach and intimidating look have always had people acting like he was a giant. No explanation why people want Louis to be diminutive.

Golden oldie's performance in this thread is the most embarrassing one ever seen on Boxrec.

Crawl back under the stone from whence you came you fool. My assertions were RIGHT, Liston was a BIGGER man than Joe Louis.

Unfortunately clueless vermin like you, counter puncher, ambling alp, and a few others contaminate the internet with a mixture of you're idiocy and you're arrogance. Suffice to say you are the kind of scum that need a boxing ring within which to hide. Real violence is beyond you.

People like you make my skin crawl. I envisage you as the type who would try to intimidate women and kids, but faced with a guy with a gun, would lose control of you're bowels.

Louis was bigger around the middle where most of a persons mass is located....and it was not fat....and a thinner waist is not always an advantage...in it was probably Kenny Norton's Achilles heel. But with one of them being taller, and the other only a few pounds heavier....I'm not sure you can make much of the difference. Though I suppose on any day that one outweighed the other, you are safe on the technicality. Just seems pretty nuanced to make much over it......I guess if this was a carnival the plastic mustache, or the marble would be the suitable prize.

The Teddy bear would not be in play.

[Counter-puncher]

Crawl back under the stone from whence you came you fool. My assertions were RIGHT, Liston was a BIGGER man than Joe Louis.

Unfortunately clueless vermin like you, counter puncher, ambling alp, and a few others contaminate the internet with a mixture of you're idiocy and you're arrogance. Suffice to say you are the kind of scum that need a boxing ring within which to hide. Real violence is beyond you.

People like you make my skin crawl. I envisage you as the type who would try to intimidate women and kids, but faced with a guy with a gun, would lose control of you're bowels.

this is brilliant on multiple levels,

[Tuan_Jim]

So after all the huffing a puffing it is far from outrageous for anyone to claim Liston was a bigger man that Joe Louis. Bitter pill for the Boxrec know alls to swallow.

It sounds like you swallowed all the bitter pills.

[Tuan_Jim]

Crawl back under the stone from whence you came you fool. My assertions were RIGHT, Liston was a BIGGER man than Joe Louis.

Unfortunately clueless vermin like you, counter puncher, ambling alp, and a few others contaminate the internet with a mixture of you're idiocy and you're arrogance. Suffice to say you are the kind of scum that need a boxing ring within which to hide. Real violence is beyond you.

People like you make my skin crawl. I envisage you as the type who would try to intimidate women and kids, but faced with a guy with a gun, would lose control of you're bowels.

this is brilliant on multiple levels,

"you're idiocy" is pure gold.

[Counter-puncher]

So after all the huffing a puffing it is far from outrageous for anyone to claim Liston was a bigger man that Joe Louis. Bitter pill for the Boxrec know alls to swallow.

It sounds like you swallowed all the bitter pills.

He does the vast majority of the huffing and puffing too, still, it's good for him to think he is blowing down the odd house or two, even if it does turn out they are mostly windmills he is tilting at.

Oldie as Quixote with Kalan his faithful sancho panza, I like the analogy

[Counter-puncher]

Crawl back under the stone from whence you came you fool. My assertions were RIGHT, Liston was a BIGGER man than Joe Louis.

Unfortunately clueless vermin like you, counter puncher, ambling alp, and a few others contaminate the internet with a mixture of you're idiocy and you're arrogance. Suffice to say you are the kind of scum that need a boxing ring within which to hide. Real violence is beyond you.

People like you make my skin crawl. I envisage you as the type who would try to intimidate women and kids, but faced with a guy with a gun, would lose control of you're bowels.

this is brilliant on multiple levels,

"you're idiocy" is pure gold.

there's so many levels though aren't there?

there's the OTT bile, continually expressed by way of words like 'scum' and 'vermin'

there's the lower-midbrow habit of consistent redundancies of expression, (such as 'pompous idiots' and 'over-inflated ego' in the same sentence), where you can see the dull wit of the inarticulate straining mightily for eloquence that is forever beyond it, a clear case of excess verbiage as overcompensation for a mediocre mind.

there's the frankly bizarre assertion by a supposed boxing fan that boxers are weak people who 'need a ring to hide in' which is really his apogee of weirdness

then there's the hilarious idea that somehow being scared of a man with a gun is a sign of, I don't know, weakness or something? obviously oldie will shortly be on to tell us how he has faced down gun-toting madmen on multiple occasions.....

[Ambling Alp II]

He is really out there. I mean the whole Liston-Louis thing. It is fairly easy to look up how big they were. Louis usually weighed about 200-210; a little lower than 200 a few times and little higher than 210 sometimes. Liston was generally a little heavier than that.
Liston was 6'1, Louis was usually listed around 6'2.
They were obviously very close in size. Yet he argues against that.

If he can't even get that, it's no wonder he is constantly making silly comments about weights as well as fighters from way back.

[BoxBuzz]

Crawl back under the stone from whence you came you fool. My assertions were RIGHT, Liston was a BIGGER man than Joe Louis.

Unfortunately clueless vermin like you, counter puncher, ambling alp, and a few others contaminate the internet with a mixture of you're idiocy and you're arrogance. Suffice to say you are the kind of scum that need a boxing ring within which to hide. Real violence is beyond you.

People like you make my skin crawl. I envisage you as the type who would try to intimidate women and kids, but faced with a guy with a gun, would lose control of you're bowels.

Louis was bigger around the middle where most of a persons mass is located....and it was not fat....and a thinner waist is not always an advantage...in it was probably Kenny Norton's Achilles heel. But with one of them being taller, and the other only a few pounds heavier....I'm not sure you can make much of the difference. Though I suppose on any day that one outweighed the other, you are safe on the technicality. Just seems pretty nuanced to make much over it......I guess if this was a carnival the plastic mustache, or the marble would be the suitable prize.

The Teddy bear would not be in play.

No, but any sane person would make much of the size difference between the chest, bicep, forearm, wrist, fist, thigh, calf, blah, blah, blah.

Some things go beyond the divisive factions of Boxrec and what it perceives as it's establishment, and FACTS and STATS are two of those things. Who gives a toss about what the long standing members of Boxrec think, other than them?

I would imagine the net is full of religious based sites similarly run to Boxrec. " Don't come on here, unless you hate who we hate, and love who we love." A good example is unless Lennox Lewis knocked out everyone he fought, he was nothing special, but if any two bob junkie sexual deviant American fighter has 20 wins in a row, he is automatically an ATG.
Small minded morons with a one size fits all mentality. Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, and Rocky Marciano are all time greats, therefore anyone born after 1930 can not possibly be as good.

A bit judgemental.......

You must feel very good about how unencumbered your thinking is. Free from all the odd assumptions the riff raff get from reading or listening, or paying attention to things that appear to be helpful in gaining context or assessment skills.

And wouldn't it be just your luck to wander into a place where EVERYONE is wrong? I mean this is probably the only place where that holds true...what are the odds? Have you always had such bad luck?.......On the upside .....think of how badly you are needed here, and how everyone will celebrate the gift of knowledge that you are selflessly willing to share with the 'regular folk".

You are willing to share.....right? I mean your not just going to give us a peak at your knowledge and insight, and get us looking forward to the daily wisdom, and then wander off to hob nob with your fellow wizards, and eventually leaving us in the lurch?

Time will tell.

[Cygnus475]

If you think modern giants can beat older heavies, fine, but your argument cant only be because "theyre bigger" because there are many examples of smaller or medium sized heavies beating giant ones. Plenty of giants of the past hit hard too.

You cant have it both ways. Either you think wladmir, bowe, lewis etc were more skilled overall than previous heavies or you dont. Size can only take you so far. Many modern SHWs even today lack stamina, chin, speed, head movement, defense, etc, qualities the older generations had in spades. And they could hit pretty damn hard too. That leaves skill and tehnique as the deciding factor.

[Ambling Alp II]

Most of us on here don't really care that much "when" a fighter fought. There have been great fighters at any time in history.
Most us realize that the sport existed before we became interested in it; and that some of the fighters before are time were great and some were not.

The statement: What they have said is, an extremely good BIG fighter will always beat and extremely good smaller one, given that both are of the same calibre.

I highlighted the key parts.
Always- That does means 100% of the time. Obviously that isn't true. There are upsets, lucky punches etc.
The same calibre. If you take two random fighters, one much bigger than the other, the odds are that they aren't the same calibre. Most of the time one of the two is better. Often that is the smaller man.

You seem to think that a weight advantage between a fighter that is 250 and 220 is the same advantage as 150 and 120. It's not. At a certain point, the extra weight stops becoming a advantage. And yes, eventually a disadvantage. Really big fighters usually have poor stamina. They are usually slower. They are usually easier to hit. Once in a blue moon there exception. Lennox Lewis and for a lesser period of time Riddick Bowe were great fighters. However, they are the exception, not the rule.

[Tony1244]

7

I think you have me seriously confused with someone who gives a toss what you and the usual suspects think.

Gosh let us not invite you to the next Christmas party. You sound 'fun'...

Don't do christmas. Atheist.

A lot of atheists and people of other religions go to Christmas parties.

[Kalan]

Most of us on here don't really care that much "when" a fighter fought. There have been great fighters at any time in history.
Most us realize that the sport existed before we became interested in it; and that some of the fighters before are time were great and some were not.

The statement: What they have said is, an extremely good BIG fighter will always beat and extremely good smaller one, given that both are of the same calibre.

I highlighted the key parts.
Always- That does means 100% of the time. Obviously that isn't true. There are upsets, lucky punches etc.
The same calibre. If you take two random fighters, one much bigger than the other, the odds are that they aren't the same calibre. Most of the time one of the two is better. Often that is the smaller man.

You seem to think that a weight advantage between a fighter that is 250 and 220 is the same advantage as 150 and 120. It's not. At a certain point, the extra weight stops becoming a advantage. And yes, eventually a disadvantage. Really big fighters usually have poor stamina. They are usually slower. They are usually easier to hit. Once in a blue moon there exception. Lennox Lewis and for a lesser period of time Riddick Bowe were great fighters. However, they are the exception, not the rule.

You've got to be kidding with your Riddick Bowe obsession... The man ducked every big puncher who was around ... and was beaten to trash at an early age... Lewis was a genuine great fighter and Bowe sh!tcanned his Title Belt rather than get knocked out again by Lewis... Bowe ducked Lewis, Tyson, Mercer, McCall, Ruddock, Tua, and the Klitschko's... He couldn't even get a clear win over the clumsy and punchless Golota, who was a known quitter.

[Cygnus475]

If you think modern giants can beat older heavies, fine, but your argument cant only be because "theyre bigger" because there are many examples of smaller or medium sized heavies beating giant ones. Plenty of giants of the past hit hard too.

You cant have it both ways. Either you think wladmir, bowe, lewis etc were more skilled overall than previous heavies or you dont. Size can only take you so far. Many modern SHWs even today lack stamina, chin, speed, head movement, defense, etc, qualities the older generations had in spades. And they could hit pretty damn hard too. That leaves skill and tehnique as the deciding factor.

This is the qualifier that the nostalgic fans choose to ignore. So for YET ANOTHER time lets try to get the record straight. It is your choice whether you chose to ignore it ( like the nostalgia freaks ) or take it on board.

NO ONE has claimed pure size beats exceptionally good fighters. What they have said is, an extremely good BIG fighter will always beat and extremely good smaller one, given that both are of the same calibre.

It really isn't difficult to understand once people put aside their man love for a particular fighter.

I didnt say that you specifically claimed size wins fights alone. Plenty of people on various boards (who dont know anything about boxing) give stubborn, short, uneducated replies on why they think a bigger fighter would win. They rarely, if ever, try to say its becausr of skill, ring iq, athleicism, etc.

Now again, if you honestly think lewis, bowe, wladmir, etc are the pinnacle of heavyweight boxing in terms of skill i can respect that.

One thing to consider, if two fighters truly have "equal" skill and are equals in everything except size, there are still other x factors. The smaller man may have a better chin. He may have quicker reflexes, hand speed, or faster feet. He may have better stamina. He may have more heart. None of those have anything to do with "skill", they are pure physical attributes or talents that may or may not have anything to do with size and they can all affect the outcome of a fight.

Counter punching, feinting, parrying, slipping punches, defense, combinations, body shots, having good timing, good spacing, balance, accuract, etc, all of those are "mental skills". Even if two fighters are dead even in the mental skills, if the smaller fighter has even some slight advantages in the physical attributes it can make a huge difference.

However, in an actual fight, there are no guarrantees. You cant say "such and such a type of fighter wins against another type because of 'X' attribute 100% if the time" because thats not how fights work, like ever. The nature of fighting is chaos. Anything can happen.

[Cygnus475]

This is the qualifier that the nostalgic fans choose to ignore. So for YET ANOTHER time lets try to get the record straight. It is your choice whether you chose to ignore it ( like the nostalgia freaks ) or take it on board.

NO ONE has claimed pure size beats exceptionally good fighters. What they have said is, an extremely good BIG fighter will always beat and extremely good smaller one, given that both are of the same calibre.

It really isn't difficult to understand once people put aside their man love for a particular fighter.

I didnt say that you specifically claimed size wins fights alone. Plenty of people on various boards (who dont know anything about boxing) give stubborn, short, uneducated replies on why they think a bigger fighter would win. They rarely, if ever, try to say its becausr of skill, ring iq, athleicism, etc.

Now again, if you honestly think lewis, bowe, wladmir, etc are the pinnacle of heavyweight boxing in terms of skill i can respect that.

One thing to consider, if two fighters truly have "equal" skill and are equals in everything except size, there are still other x factors. The smaller man may have a better chin. He may have quicker reflexes, hand speed, or faster feet. He may have better stamina. He may have more heart. None of those have anything to do with "skill", they are pure physical attributes or talents that may or may not have anything to do with size and they can all affect the outcome of a fight.

Counter punching, feinting, parrying, slipping punches, defense, combinations, body shots, having good timing, good spacing, balance, accuract, etc, all of those are "mental skills". Even if two fighters are dead even in the mental skills, if the smaller fighter has even some slight advantages in the physical attributes it can make a huge difference.

However, in an actual fight, there are no guarrantees. You cant say "such and such a type of fighter wins against another type because of 'X' attribute 100% if the time" because thats not how fights work, like ever. The nature of fighting is chaos. Anything can happen.

Which is why I specifically wrote

" two guys of the same calibre " in the post above.

CALIBRE
the quality of someone's character or the level of their ability.
"they could ill afford to lose a man of his calibre"
synonyms: quality, merit, distinction, character, worth, stature, excellence, superiority, eminence, pre-eminence

I know what calibre means.

Im saying unless its a video game youre never gonna get two fighters who are completely equal in EVERY catgory i mentioned, there will always be some x factors.

[BoxBuzz]

No, but any sane person would make much of the size difference between the chest, bicep, forearm, wrist, fist, thigh, calf, blah, blah, blah.

Some things go beyond the divisive factions of Boxrec and what it perceives as it's establishment, and FACTS and STATS are two of those things. Who gives a toss about what the long standing members of Boxrec think, other than them?

I would imagine the net is full of religious based sites similarly run to Boxrec. " Don't come on here, unless you hate who we hate, and love who we love." A good example is unless Lennox Lewis knocked out everyone he fought, he was nothing special, but if any two bob junkie sexual deviant American fighter has 20 wins in a row, he is automatically an ATG.
Small minded morons with a one size fits all mentality. Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, and Rocky Marciano are all time greats, therefore anyone born after 1930 can not possibly be as good.

A bit judgemental.......

You must feel very good about how unencumbered your thinking is. Free from all the odd assumptions the riff raff get from reading or listening, or paying attention to things that appear to be helpful in gaining context or assessment skills.

And wouldn't it be just your luck to wander into a place where EVERYONE is wrong? I mean this is probably the only place where that holds true...what are the odds? Have you always had such bad luck?.......On the upside .....think of how badly you are needed here, and how everyone will celebrate the gift of knowledge that you are selflessly willing to share with the 'regular folk".

You are willing to share.....right? I mean your not just going to give us a peak at your knowledge and insight, and get us looking forward to the daily wisdom, and then wander off to hob nob with your fellow wizards, and eventually leaving us in the lurch?

Time will tell.

Oh,the irony.

Not sure you genuinely understand the word you have summoned in this reactionary retort.

Nevertheless...I have to say, you have a certain sloth like charm that can not be denied.

[IKSRTFO]

The notion that just because there is no weight limit you should just be fat was lost on them. Of course training and nutrition has improved to the point that heavyweights are exhausted after 3 rounds if they go at it.

It's hard to imagine Fury, Wlad, or Wilder going 15 rounds at the rate the older generations did. Heavyweights are bigger and stronger, yes, but it even the most ripped ones have trouble throwing more than 30 punches a round.

[Kalan]

If you think modern giants can beat older heavies, fine, but your argument cant only be because "theyre bigger" because there are many examples of smaller or medium sized heavies beating giant ones. Plenty of giants of the past hit hard too.

You cant have it both ways. Either you think wladmir, bowe, lewis etc were more skilled overall than previous heavies or you dont. Size can only take you so far. Many modern SHWs even today lack stamina, chin, speed, head movement, defense, etc, qualities the older generations had in spades. And they could hit pretty damn hard too. That leaves skill and tehnique as the deciding factor.

This is the qualifier that the nostalgic fans choose to ignore. So for YET ANOTHER time lets try to get the record straight. It is your choice whether you chose to ignore it ( like the nostalgia freaks ) or take it on board.

NO ONE has claimed pure size beats exceptionally good fighters. What they have said is, an extremely good BIG fighter will always beat and extremely good smaller one, given that both are of the same calibre.

It really isn't difficult to understand once people put aside their man love for a particular fighter.

I didnt say that you specifically claimed size wins fights alone. Plenty of people on various boards (who dont know anything about boxing) give stubborn, short, uneducated replies on why they think a bigger fighter would win. They rarely, if ever, try to say its becausr of skill, ring iq, athleicism, etc.

Now again, if you honestly think lewis, bowe, wladmir, etc are the pinnacle of heavyweight boxing in terms of skill i can respect that.

One thing to consider, if two fighters truly have "equal" skill and are equals in everything except size, there are still other x factors. The smaller man may have a better chin. He may have quicker reflexes, hand speed, or faster feet. He may have better stamina. He may have more heart. None of those have anything to do with "skill", they are pure physical attributes or talents that may or may not have anything to do with size and they can all affect the outcome of a fight.

Counter punching, feinting, parrying, slipping punches, defense, combinations, body shots, having good timing, good spacing, balance, accuract, etc, all of those are "mental skills". Even if two fighters are dead even in the mental skills, if the smaller fighter has even some slight advantages in the physical attributes it can make a huge difference.

However, in an actual fight, there are no guarrantees. You cant say "such and such a type of fighter wins against another type because of 'X' attribute 100% if the time" because thats not how fights work, like ever. The nature of fighting is chaos. Anything can happen.

Saying anything can happen makes no sense.. The world could end tomorrow but there's a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% chance it wont.

Barring a miracle or injury, Byrd could not KO Ike Ibeabuchi or Wladimir Klitschko, who outweighed him by 30 to 35 pounds.. He'd have to outbox them first to start landing hundreds of punches on them.. It was just barely possible for Jimmy Young to stop a healthy George Foreman because he could hit him accurately with multiple light hits. Power is greatly diminished when you're fighting somebody much bigger and stronger than you.

Counter punching, feinting, parrying, slipping punches, defense, combinations, body shots, having good timing, good spacing, balance, accuracy, etc, all of those are NOT "mental skills" they're PHYSICAL skills... Concentration, poise, will power, cleverness, discipline, work ethic, and courage are mental skills... You have to physically practice dribbling, passing, and shooting to get good at them, and you need tons of shadowboxing, mitt work, sparring, and actual fights to master footwork, timing, leading, blocking, parrying, slipping, ducking, rolling, and countering. Concentration, intelligence, courage, and poise have their limits if you lack boxing skills.

Who said anything about Bowe being in the same class as Lewis, the Klitschko Bros, Joshua, or Ortiz??? ... Bowe was too chickenshlt to fight Lewis and would have gotten crushed like Golota and Grant.. Bowe was too dumb to be in that category.. I don't consider him a modern Heavyweight anyway.

The top Heavyweights today do NOT lack stamina, chin, speed, head movement, defense, etc -- and the top Heavyweights of yesteryear did NOT have those qualities in spades.. Frazier was hit like crazy and battered out 3 times.. Ali couldn't get away from left hooks, and lacked head movement and infighting skills.. A young Foreman lacked stamina.. Ken Norton lacked a chin.. Joshua and Ortiz have complete games.

The bigger Heavyweights can just as easily have better chins, quicker reflexes, better hand speed, faster feet, better stamina, more heart ... and yes those things DO have A LOT to do with skills.. The more skilled you get the better you anticipate and see openings and respond to them -- and this makes your reflexes seem faster and your hand speed better.. Your feet get faster the more you practice footwork and speed drills... like your fingers getting faster on the piano the more you practice.

A boxer steps in a little quicker as his intuition gets better.. This improves his stamina because the fewer punches you miss, and the better you defend, the fresher you are, and the faster you break your opponent down -- until your stamina looks unstoppable.. You noticed the rate that Joe Frazier was absorbing punches and failing to land them on the bigger, taller, stronger, and harder punching Foreman.. Stamina wasn't an attribute that came to mind to describe Joe's performance.. Gone in 5 minutes because of small size, short little arms, and defensive ineptitude.

[BoxBuzz]

Good delivery of some interesting stuff.
But honestly what sticks out most here isn't your logic but your opinion.

you sew a lot facts together, and add some pretty good spin, some of it pretty compelling honestly.

And for my money.....and that's all I'm talkin' here is MY TWO CENTS.... you see fighters as way......hmm no, ...way way, ......well...maybe way way way, Too Robotic.

If....we were talking about the scenario presented in the movie "Real Steel". Or the twilight zone episode of "Battling Maxo". I might agree with you more than what I do.

And I don't disagree completely.

But you write off some pretty signature boxing occurrences as if they are just meaningless. Young over Foreman is a good example.

Boxers are human, and they bring with them a whole lot more than what you described. Your take is very nuanced, very thoughtful, and just too robotic to resonate for me personally.

Some occasions we would agree....I think the Douglas - Tyson fight is an event where we find common ground. Something that did not surprise you or I as much as it did most people.

I'll tell you a fight I got completely wrong, and was very humbled at what I thought I knew......and that's Joe Calzaghe vs Jeff Lacey.....didn't see that comin. Though when I go back and look closer...I do recognize my error.

Have you had any of those types of surprises? I don't think you've ever mentioned a single one along the way here. An outcome you just didn't see comin?


Oh....and if I understand your take on Riddick Bowe correctly, I'd call that a lame assessment. His problem wasn't his ability, it was his lack of serious commitment. And maybe just lack of intellectual prowess. He also took it all too seriously in a dram way. I don't think he was at all afraid of Lennox, I just think he was petty, and not interested in sharing. At his best he would delivered a bad night to Lennox.....in my opinion.

However a smarter boxer always has an advantage over his opponent, and brains alone can go a long way to equalizing a situation. So I woudn't be fully confident that Bowe wouldn't suffer a mental lapse, giving Lennox an edge.

[Kalan]

I never saw fighters as robots. Exactly the opposite.

It shows how thick and unthinking you are to come up with such tripe after reading so many of my posts.. It seems you still can't get your brain around anything I'm posting about. Try to think this one through.

Robots fight in science fiction movies like the Terminator series... In Rocky IV they characterized the Russian Heavyweight as a robotic villain which was lowbrow, nationalist, ideological, simplistic, and not creative at all -- and I can say the same for all the Rocky movies... However the original theme song was brilliant and no robot could ever match it. When Stallone said he wrote some of those movie scripts in 3 or 4 days I believe it.

You see, many people believe humans are supremely sophisticated, moist robots -- and all our thoughts and actions are programmed and predetermined... That all the decisions we make and free will itself are just an illusion -- we're powerless to do anything differently than we do because our thoughts and actions are the sum total of everything we know and have experienced.. But I reject that stupidity.. We're not robots.. Humans have a free will and we can change our behavior on a dime if and when we want. We're free to kill each other---which makes people feel powerful, defiant, triumphant, satisfied, or whatever they believe they'll get from evil acts---or we're free to develop the Tesla or whatever else our talents can achieve for the world.

Some boxers box for enjoyment and to entertain people.. Some do it because they want to beat people up and bask in glory.. Some people do it because they see it as a way to pay the bills and a way out of the ghetto.. Some box because it's a family tradition or to please their father.. Some do it because they're fascinated by the sweet science, and the trickery and skills needed to match wits with the best masters out there. But for whatever reason anyone chooses to box, they don't do it because they're an automaton created in a lab.

I think we're impelled to do things because of individual talents and traits that we're born with -- but we're not compelled to do anything.

[Kalan]

Good delivery of some interesting stuff.
But honestly what sticks out most here isn't your logic but your opinion.

you sew a lot facts together, and add some pretty good spin, some of it pretty compelling honestly.

And for my money.....and that's all I'm talkin' here is MY TWO CENTS.... you see fighters as way......hmm no, ...way way, ......well...maybe way way way, Too Robotic.

If....we were talking about the scenario presented in the movie "Real Steel". Or the twilight zone episode of "Battling Maxo". I might agree with you more than what I do.

And I don't disagree completely.

But you write off some pretty signature boxing occurrences as if they are just meaningless. Young over Foreman is a good example.

Boxers are human, and they bring with them a whole lot more than what you described. Your take is very nuanced, very thoughtful, and just too robotic to resonate for me personally.

Some occasions we would agree....I think the Douglas - Tyson fight is an event where we find common ground. Something that did not surprise you or I as much as it did most people.

I'll tell you a fight I got completely wrong, and was very humbled at what I thought I knew......and that's Joe Calzaghe vs Jeff Lacey.....didn't see that comin. Though when I go back and look closer...I do recognize my error.

Have you had any of those types of surprises? I don't think you've ever mentioned a single one along the way here. An outcome you just didn't see comin?


Oh....and if I understand your take on Riddick Bowe correctly, I'd call that a lame assessment. His problem wasn't his ability, it was his lack of serious commitment. And maybe just lack of intellectual prowess. He also took it all too seriously in a dram way. I don't think he was at all afraid of Lennox, I just think he was petty, and not interested in sharing. At his best he would delivered a bad night to Lennox.....in my opinion.

However a smarter boxer always has an advantage over his opponent, and brains alone can go a long way to equalizing a situation. So I woudn't be fully confident that Bowe wouldn't suffer a mental lapse, giving Lennox an edge.

And as far as fight results surprising me.. I've never really been surprised at an outcome.. certainly not the Calzaghe-Lacy match, because Lacy was thick headed and one dimensional, with a ton of defensive flaws and he also loaded punches and got hit real good.

The thing you have to remember about Boxing.. There isn't just one possible outcome to a fight.. There's the most likely outcome -- and there's all the other possible outcomes... You check the what you believe are the real odds against the betting odds... and It's either a good bet or it's not.. That way, if you're good, you'll make a good deal more than you'll lose -- because you WILL lose (at times) no matter how brilliant you are.. And that shouldn't surprise you.

[Ambling Alp II]

The stats show that Liston usually weighed a little more. Louis was taller. Therefore, as I said earlier, they were about the same size. You are almost never going to find two human beings that are exactly the same height, weight, waist, etc. You lump Lewis and the Klitschkos in as the same size. They aren't exactly.

Of course Louis and Liston weren't exactly the same size. They were about the same; same as Lewis and the Klitschko's were about the same size.

[Kalan]

The Klitschko's are taller than Lewis but Lewis put on more muscle, going up to 257...

Liston is obviously a much bigger man than Louis... He's closer to Patterson at 190 then Liston at 215...

In their 1st fight Louis appeared to be the same size, but not as sturdy, as 192-pound Max Schmeling... He was a few pounds heavier but got knocked kicking

[Kalan]

I don't think Schmeling could have done that to Liston...

[Ambling Alp II]

The Klitschko's are taller than Lewis but Lewis put on more muscle, going up to 257...

Liston is obviously a much bigger man than Louis... He's closer to Patterson at 190 then Liston at 215...

In their 1st fight Louis appeared to be the same size, but not as sturdy, as 192-pound Max Schmeling... He was a few pounds heavier but got knocked kicking

No Liston is not. Louis was a little taller, and Liston did not outweigh him by that much. Liston was often under 215 and Louis was usually over 200. Louis actually had fights where he weighed more than Liston.
Louis was bigger than Schmeling. There are many pictures of them standing by each other as well as their fights.

Liston lost to Marty Marshall, who (gasp) was not that big. I don't think that would have happened to Louis.

[Kalan]

The Klitschko's are taller than Lewis but Lewis put on more muscle, going up to 257...

Liston is obviously a much bigger man than Louis... He's closer to Patterson at 190 then Liston at 215...

In their 1st fight Louis appeared to be the same size, but not as sturdy, as 192-pound Max Schmeling... He was a few pounds heavier but got knocked kicking

No Liston is not. Louis was a little taller, and Liston did not outweigh him by that much. Liston was often under 215 and Louis was usually over 200. Louis actually had fights where he weighed more than Liston.
Louis was bigger than Schmeling. There are many pictures of them standing by each other as well as their fights.

Liston lost to Marty Marshall, who (gasp) was not that big. I don't think that would have happened to Louis.

You are wrong yet again.

The stats of Louis and Liston are there for all to see on the third page of this thread, and Liston is patently the bigger man in every meaningful dimension. Chest, biceps, forearms, thighs, calf's wrist, fist etc, etc. Wishful thinking or revisionism on your part will NEVER alter those facts.

Louis was a small Heavyweight... When he weighed 213 and change for Marciano that was the fattest and most out of shape he was in for his entire career.. He had no strength or nothing.. He was a sitting duck compared to the lithe and lean cat who took Max Baer apart at 197 ... in his peak fight. Max of course was almost as hittable as his much bigger brother Buddy, -- who was one of the most punchable and hardest chinned Heavyweights I've ever seen.