Hughie Fury vs. Alexander Povetkin - 31 August 2019

[sturm vogel]

We compare skill sets. We can't compare competition because one fought in a different time. We can compare the skills based on what both did and do because we have video.

Of course we can compare competition, and we can form opinions. Mine is that Bugner beats Hughie 8 out of 10 times.

Can't compare competition from non-contemporaries. Why? Because there is none we can compare with! One last fought 30 years ago!

[margaret thatcher]

I read this thread again, some people were rather generous to Hughie in scoring this. He didn't deserve even a draw.

The guy must land like 5 percent of his jabs, he starts moving out of distance before his shots can even get in range.

[ironbeard]

Of course we can compare competition, and we can form opinions. Mine is that Bugner beats Hughie 8 out of 10 times.

Can't compare competition from non-contemporaries. Why? Because there is none we can compare with! One last fought 30 years ago!

Of course we can. You can cover your eyes and ears if you prefer but those comparisons are made every day.

[sharpei_louis]

Can't compare non-contemporaries but by god you better be accurate if you say someone is 'x' times better than someone else....

[sturm vogel]

Can't compare competition from non-contemporaries. Why? Because there is none we can compare with! One last fought 30 years ago!

Of course we can. You can cover your eyes and ears if you prefer but those comparisons are made every day.

I think what you mean is you can make conjectures, I wrote about comparisons. There is a difference. For example if two fighters have both fought a common opponent, a comparison can be made; if two fighters have either not fought each other or fought a common opponent, than only a conjecture can be made.

[ironbeard]

Of course we can. You can cover your eyes and ears if you prefer but those comparisons are made every day.

I think what you mean is you can make conjectures, I wrote about comparisons. There is a difference. For example if two fighters have both fought a common opponent, a comparison can be made; if two fighters have either not fought each other or fought a common opponent, than only a conjecture can be made.

Comparisons are made all day every day of individuals who never competed against each other or against common opponents. Whole eras are compared. Legacies are compared.

Just stop.

[sturm vogel]

"COMPARE, verb transitive

1. To set or bring things together in fact or in contemplation, and to examine the relations they bear to each other, with a view to ascertain their agreement or disagreement;" [Websters]

One cannot "compare" two things or events that never happened.
We can or may make conjectures about such things or events.

Just stop.

[Heretic]

But the big difference is that Bugner's losing efforts to Ali (first fight) and Frazier were top notch performances that established him as a legitimate, world-class contender. After the world saw those 1973 Bugner efforts, everyone knew that Joe was unquestionably one of the top eight heavies in the world. After the Frazier fight, some people even speculated that Bugner might be the world's fifth best heavyweight, right behind Ali, Foreman, Frazier, and Norton.

By contrast, Hughie's losing efforts confirm that he is merely a fringe contender. Not a legitimate world-class fighter in any way (as Bugner was). But rather, a top-20 or top-25 guy.

Therefore, no comparison between Bugner and Hughie.

We compare skill sets. We can't compare competition because one fought in a different time. We can compare the skills based on what both did and do because we have video.

And here is why most of those comparisons fail. That method fails to take size in to the equation.

People are watching those skilled fighters from old videos and think those guys could beat everyone today. And they forget that they weight 50 lbs less.

Compare the skill set of Bivol to AJ and with this method you come up with Bivol winning the fight if it happens

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Who cares where hughie fury would rank in the 70s. He sucks now and is so boring he makes john ruiz look like gatti.

[gilgamesh]

Who cares where hughie fury would rank in the 70s. He sucks now and is so boring he makes john ruiz look like gatti.

Yeah Hughie is boring as all hell. Hell for that matter Tyson ain't exactly exciting in the ring. The most exciting things he's done is get knocked down

He did look excellent last time out against that Schwarz fella though I'll give him that. Maybe Otto Wallin will allow him to put on another such performance.

[ironbeard]

"COMPARE, verb transitive

1. To set or bring things together in fact or in contemplation, and to examine the relations they bear to each other, with a view to ascertain their agreement or disagreement;" [Websters]

One cannot "compare" two things or events that never happened.
We can or may make conjectures about such things or events.

Just stop.

First of all, your cherrypicked definition proves my point not yours, brain sturgeon.

Definition of comparison
1 : the act or process of comparing: such as
a : the representing of one thing or person as similar to or like another
His poetry invites comparison with the poems of Robert Frost.
b : an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities
His faults seem minor by comparison.
a comparison of the sports cars
2 : identity of features : SIMILARITY
several points of comparison between the two
3 : the modification of an adjective or adverb to denote different levels of quality, quantity, or relation

Call it whatever you choose. Deny the obvious if you prefer.

People can and do compare boxers, singers, poets, religious leaders, politicians, other athletes, cars, movies, rock bands, musicians, firearms, strains of cannabis, alcoholic beverages, ice cream, games, and pretty much everything else imaginable from different eras.

You are completely, as in 100% wrong.

[sturm vogel]

"COMPARE, verb transitive

1. To set or bring things together in fact or in contemplation, and to examine the relations they bear to each other, with a view to ascertain their agreement or disagreement;" [Websters]

One cannot "compare" two things or events that never happened.
We can or may make conjectures about such things or events.

Just stop.

First of all, your cherrypicked definition proves my point not yours, brain sturgeon.

Definition of comparison
1 : the act or process of comparing: such as
a : the representing of one thing or person as similar to or like another
His poetry invites comparison with the poems of Robert Frost.
b : an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities
His faults seem minor by comparison.
a comparison of the sports cars
2 : identity of features : SIMILARITY
several points of comparison between the two
3 : the modification of an adjective or adverb to denote different levels of quality, quantity, or relation

Call it whatever you choose. Deny the obvious if you prefer.

People can and do compare boxers, singers, poets, religious leaders, politicians, other athletes, cars, movies, rock bands, musicians, firearms, strains of cannabis, alcoholic beverages, ice cream, games, and pretty much everything else imaginable from different eras.

You are completely, as in 100% wrong.

You brought in so many examples you lost proper consistency for a reasonable argument. All of those examples are not relevant to this topic. Correct reasoning has specific principles. As we are arguing about boxers our examples need to be kept to boxers. This is also a principle of logic.

In English, the oldest definitions are the truest. Websters 1828 dictionary is not only truer than what you posted, I also cited the source. You did not cite your source.

The continuation of a fallacy -no matter how great the number of practitioners- does not make the fallacy true.

My argument stands: boxers of different eras cannot be compared; we can only make conjectures of how they would perform either against each other or against each other's competition. Why? Because we cannot compare things and events that never happened, we can only speculate or postulate how and what outcomes may be.

[ironbeard]

First of all, your cherrypicked definition proves my point not yours, brain sturgeon.



Call it whatever you choose. Deny the obvious if you prefer.

People can and do compare boxers, singers, poets, religious leaders, politicians, other athletes, cars, movies, rock bands, musicians, firearms, strains of cannabis, alcoholic beverages, ice cream, games, and pretty much everything else imaginable from different eras.

You are completely, as in 100% wrong.

You brought in so many examples you lost proper consistency for a reasonable argument. All of those examples are not relevant to this topic. Correct reasoning has specific principles. As we are arguing about boxers our examples need to be kept to boxers. This is also a principle of logic.

In English, the oldest definitions are the truest. Websters 1828 dictionary is not only truer than what you posted, I also cited the source. You did not cite your source.

The continuation of a fallacy -no matter how great the number of practitioners- does not make the fallacy true.

My argument stands: boxers of different eras cannot be compared; we can only make conjectures of how they would perform either against each other or against each other's competition. Why? Because we cannot compare things and events that never happened, we can only speculate or postulate how and what outcomes may be.

Reasonable argument? Why didn’t you just bold your entire inane post? Maybe that would be especially convincing.

Whether you want to bury your ostrich head in the sand and continue holding up really bold posters declaring that we cannot compare boxers from separate eras or not, the rest of us are going to go on comparing their eras, styles, resumes, skills, gifts, punching power, etc.. Out of those comparisons we will form individual opinions on who was more accomplished and who would win if they magically were able to fight.

I hope that tiny hole is comfortable.

This is not 1828. This is also not an English debating society. Your pedanticism is a clear sign of desperation.

[sturm vogel]

You brought in so many examples you lost proper consistency for a reasonable argument. All of those examples are not relevant to this topic. Correct reasoning has specific principles. As we are arguing about boxers our examples need to be kept to boxers. This is also a principle of logic.

In English, the oldest definitions are the truest. Websters 1828 dictionary is not only truer than what you posted, I also cited the source. You did not cite your source.

The continuation of a fallacy -no matter how great the number of practitioners- does not make the fallacy true.

My argument stands: boxers of different eras cannot be compared; we can only make conjectures of how they would perform either against each other or against each other's competition. Why? Because we cannot compare things and events that never happened, we can only speculate or postulate how and what outcomes may be.

Reasonable argument? Why didn’t you just bold your entire inane post? Maybe that would be especially convincing.

Whether you want to bury your ostrich head in the sand and continue holding up really bold posters declaring that we cannot compare boxers from separate eras or not, the rest of us are going to go on comparing their eras, styles, resumes, skills, gifts, punching power, etc.. Out of those comparisons we will form individual opinions on who was more accomplished and who would win if they magically were able to fight.

I hope that tiny hole is comfortable.

This is not 1828. This is also not an English debating society. Your pedanticism is a clear sign of desperation.

Did you not understand the argument I presented? I ask because your reply is a response to some other argument not that which I presented.

In sequential order, not in order of importance:

1. Emoticons do not support an argument; they are discretionary devices to indicate writers emotions; they are not a rebuttal.

2. Attempting to malign a poster is not a rebuttal to an argument; it is only a reply.

3. A writing expressing the intentions of other posters is an assumption in reply; it is not a rebuttal.

4. Insults are not a rebuttal to an argument; they are only a reply.

5. I believe you are attempting to refute that comments, conjectures, suppositions, etc. cannot be made about fighters from different eras. This is not an argument I have made. There is a difference. I summarize, in bold type, again: we may write what we will about fighters from different eras, but comparisons are not only futile, they are impossible. For example, we cannot know how well Stanley Ketchel would compete today no more than we can know how well Daniel Jacobs would compete had he lived in Ketchel's era. Not certain what there is to refute here as this is long been considered a settled point.

A reply is not a rebuttal to an argument; it is only a reply.

[skanksta]

Reasonable argument? Why didn’t you just bold your entire inane post? Maybe that would be especially convincing.

Whether you want to bury your ostrich head in the sand and continue holding up really bold posters declaring that we cannot compare boxers from separate eras or not, the rest of us are going to go on comparing their eras, styles, resumes, skills, gifts, punching power, etc.. Out of those comparisons we will form individual opinions on who was more accomplished and who would win if they magically were able to fight.

I hope that tiny hole is comfortable.

This is not 1828. This is also not an English debating society. Your pedanticism is a clear sign of desperation.

Did you not understand the argument I presented? I ask because your reply is a response to some other argument not that which I presented.

In sequential order, not in order of importance:

1. Emoticons do not support an argument; they are discretionary devices to indicate writers emotions; they are not a rebuttal.

2. Attempting to malign a poster is not a rebuttal to an argument; it is only a reply.

3. A writing expressing the intentions of other posters is an assumption in reply; it is not a rebuttal.

4. Insults are not a rebuttal to an argument; they are only a reply.

5. I believe you are attempting to refute that comments, conjectures, suppositions, etc. cannot be made about fighters from different eras. This is not an argument I have made. There is a difference. I summarize, in bold type, again: we may write what we will about fighters from different eras, but comparisons are not only futile, they are impossible. For example, we cannot know how well Stanley Ketchel would compete today no more than we can know how well Daniel Jacobs would compete had he lived in Ketchel's era. Not certain what there is to refute here as this is long been considered a settled point.

A reply is not a rebuttal to an argument; it is only a reply.

You may like this comic strip....

http://viz.co.uk/2018/12/04/mr-logic-tea/

[ironbeard]

Reasonable argument? Why didn’t you just bold your entire inane post? Maybe that would be especially convincing.

Whether you want to bury your ostrich head in the sand and continue holding up really bold posters declaring that we cannot compare boxers from separate eras or not, the rest of us are going to go on comparing their eras, styles, resumes, skills, gifts, punching power, etc.. Out of those comparisons we will form individual opinions on who was more accomplished and who would win if they magically were able to fight.

I hope that tiny hole is comfortable.

This is not 1828. This is also not an English debating society. Your pedanticism is a clear sign of desperation.

Did you not understand the argument I presented? I ask because your reply is a response to some other argument not that which I presented.

In sequential order, not in order of importance:

1. Emoticons do not support an argument; they are discretionary devices to indicate writers emotions; they are not a rebuttal.

2. Attempting to malign a poster is not a rebuttal to an argument; it is only a reply.

3. A writing expressing the intentions of other posters is an assumption in reply; it is not a rebuttal.

4. Insults are not a rebuttal to an argument; they are only a reply.

5. I believe you are attempting to refute that comments, conjectures, suppositions, etc. cannot be made about fighters from different eras. This is not an argument I have made. There is a difference. I summarize, in bold type, again: we may write what we will about fighters from different eras, but comparisons are not only futile, they are impossible. For example, we cannot know how well Stanley Ketchel would compete today no more than we can know how well Daniel Jacobs would compete had he lived in Ketchel's era. Not certain what there is to refute here as this is long been considered a settled point.

A reply is not a rebuttal to an argument; it is only a reply.

If you are an instructor of any flavor or a trial lawyer your classes or juries look a lot like . . .




Your only hope is that they absorb your drivel in their dreams.

I am not suffering through any more of your posts. I am busy comparing Lomassiah to Harry Greb.

[ironbeard]

Did you not understand the argument I presented? I ask because your reply is a response to some other argument not that which I presented.

In sequential order, not in order of importance:

1. Emoticons do not support an argument; they are discretionary devices to indicate writers emotions; they are not a rebuttal.

2. Attempting to malign a poster is not a rebuttal to an argument; it is only a reply.

3. A writing expressing the intentions of other posters is an assumption in reply; it is not a rebuttal.

4. Insults are not a rebuttal to an argument; they are only a reply.

5. I believe you are attempting to refute that comments, conjectures, suppositions, etc. cannot be made about fighters from different eras. This is not an argument I have made. There is a difference. I summarize, in bold type, again: we may write what we will about fighters from different eras, but comparisons are not only futile, they are impossible. For example, we cannot know how well Stanley Ketchel would compete today no more than we can know how well Daniel Jacobs would compete had he lived in Ketchel's era. Not certain what there is to refute here as this is long been considered a settled point.

A reply is not a rebuttal to an argument; it is only a reply.

You may like this comic strip....

http://viz.co.uk/2018/12/04/mr-logic-tea/

I have no idea if the resident brain sturgeon does, but I enjoyed it.

[sturm vogel]

You may like this comic strip....

http://viz.co.uk/2018/12/04/mr-logic-tea/

I have no idea if the resident brain sturgeon does, but I enjoyed it.

Yes, it is evident you cannot follow an argument no refute one. Thanks for your replies.

[ironbeard]

I have no idea if the resident brain sturgeon does, but I enjoyed it.

Yes, it is evident you cannot follow an argument no refute one. Thanks for your replies.

[oogiebe]

Did you not understand the argument I presented? I ask because your reply is a response to some other argument not that which I presented.

In sequential order, not in order of importance:

1. Emoticons do not support an argument; they are discretionary devices to indicate writers emotions; they are not a rebuttal.

2. Attempting to malign a poster is not a rebuttal to an argument; it is only a reply.

3. A writing expressing the intentions of other posters is an assumption in reply; it is not a rebuttal.

4. Insults are not a rebuttal to an argument; they are only a reply.

5. I believe you are attempting to refute that comments, conjectures, suppositions, etc. cannot be made about fighters from different eras. This is not an argument I have made. There is a difference. I summarize, in bold type, again: we may write what we will about fighters from different eras, but comparisons are not only futile, they are impossible. For example, we cannot know how well Stanley Ketchel would compete today no more than we can know how well Daniel Jacobs would compete had he lived in Ketchel's era. Not certain what there is to refute here as this is long been considered a settled point.

A reply is not a rebuttal to an argument; it is only a reply.

You may like this comic strip....

http://viz.co.uk/2018/12/04/mr-logic-tea/

LMFAO!!!! How did you find something so utterly perfect!

[Ilya Muromets]

What are people arguing about?

[oogiebe]

What are people arguing about?

The usual "nothing." Long winded pundents doing their thing.

[Ilya Muromets]

What are people arguing about?

The usual "nothing." Long winded pundents doing their thing.

Oh.

[skanksta]

You may like this comic strip....

http://viz.co.uk/2018/12/04/mr-logic-tea/

LMFAO!!!! How did you find something so utterly perfect!

“Mr Logic” from Viz !

Viz comic is genius if you haven’t seen it before ..

http://viz.co.uk/

[oogiebe]

LMFAO!!!! How did you find something so utterly perfect!

“Mr Logic” from Viz !

Viz comic is genius if you haven’t seen it before ..

http://viz.co.uk/

Oh dear! I think I'm gonna be addicted to it! Hilarious!