barry, I see u are still unable to answer a simple question, and still do not know the definition of the word FACT.
But please do keep trying. You're very entertaining.
Rate their chins
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
Re: re
Yes, you are correct. Thanks for correcting my mistake.Decagon wrote:No, that's an opinion.
re
>>>barry, I see u are still unable to answer a simple question, and still do not know the definition of the word FACT.<<<
It’s not that I am unable, but as usual it’s just a waste of time trying to explain it to you! Not that it is going to help you, but you want FACT compared to your opinion...here you go:
FACT: Jack Dempsey and Rocky Marciano were never really stopped, unless you count the Flynn bout, which in the case we will count that, so Dempsey was stopped one time, TKO, by a pretty hard-hitting fighter, but lets not forget that Dempsey was no where near his best when this occurred, whereas Liston and Frazxier were arguably in they're primes, Dempsey was never put down for good in his prime, which that is FACT.
FACT, in the other instances where Dempsey went down he rose very quickly and very clear-headed to knockout out his opponent.
FACT---Liston was stopped three times, one of which was one of the lightest knockout punches that anyone has ever seen.
FACT---Frazier was stopped three times...none of which was he able to shake off the punches. Opinion---Foreman was a much harder hitting fighter than Willard, or Firpo...
FACT...Dempsey got up from the best that Firpo had to offer...
FACT---Frazier was not able to shake off the best that Foreman gave!
FACT: The obvious facts of the issue outweigh opinion, which is what I stated and which most people were able to understand.
Now saying that Dempsey had a better chin than Frazier is opinion, but the argument is a lot stronger when there is actual FACT to back the claim…as I presented…does it make me right…no, but it sure makes me seem like I know more of what I am talking about by basing opinion on fact instead of just opinion!
Now is that plain enough for you, or would you like to add some more opinion to challenge actual FACT?
It’s not that I am unable, but as usual it’s just a waste of time trying to explain it to you! Not that it is going to help you, but you want FACT compared to your opinion...here you go:
FACT: Jack Dempsey and Rocky Marciano were never really stopped, unless you count the Flynn bout, which in the case we will count that, so Dempsey was stopped one time, TKO, by a pretty hard-hitting fighter, but lets not forget that Dempsey was no where near his best when this occurred, whereas Liston and Frazxier were arguably in they're primes, Dempsey was never put down for good in his prime, which that is FACT.
FACT, in the other instances where Dempsey went down he rose very quickly and very clear-headed to knockout out his opponent.
FACT---Liston was stopped three times, one of which was one of the lightest knockout punches that anyone has ever seen.
FACT---Frazier was stopped three times...none of which was he able to shake off the punches. Opinion---Foreman was a much harder hitting fighter than Willard, or Firpo...
FACT...Dempsey got up from the best that Firpo had to offer...
FACT---Frazier was not able to shake off the best that Foreman gave!
FACT: The obvious facts of the issue outweigh opinion, which is what I stated and which most people were able to understand.
Now saying that Dempsey had a better chin than Frazier is opinion, but the argument is a lot stronger when there is actual FACT to back the claim…as I presented…does it make me right…no, but it sure makes me seem like I know more of what I am talking about by basing opinion on fact instead of just opinion!
Now is that plain enough for you, or would you like to add some more opinion to challenge actual FACT?
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Barry,
Facts don't always outweigh opinion. It depends on how important the facts are to the issue that you are discussing.
For example using your logic, Vitaly Klitschko must have had a better chin than Marciano,Dempsey, Liston or Frazier since it's a fact that he was never knocked down and hurt less often. After all it's only opinion that his competition was much worse than Marciano, Liston, Dempsey and Frazier.
Also why was it so important to you in a previous thread (when you were saying that Lennox Lewis wasn't better than Burns) that Tommy Burns had never been counted out (though he was stopped twice), but with Joe Frazier it doesn't matter that he was never counted out?
The level of competition that a fighter faces has to be considered when rating him. Unfortunately, you have to use opinion to determine how good the competition was.
If not, then you could make a serious arguement that Calvin Brock is the 2nd best heavyweight of All-Time since it's a fact that he is undefeated. It's just people opinions that his competition hasn't been that good.
Facts don't always outweigh opinion. It depends on how important the facts are to the issue that you are discussing.
For example using your logic, Vitaly Klitschko must have had a better chin than Marciano,Dempsey, Liston or Frazier since it's a fact that he was never knocked down and hurt less often. After all it's only opinion that his competition was much worse than Marciano, Liston, Dempsey and Frazier.
Also why was it so important to you in a previous thread (when you were saying that Lennox Lewis wasn't better than Burns) that Tommy Burns had never been counted out (though he was stopped twice), but with Joe Frazier it doesn't matter that he was never counted out?
The level of competition that a fighter faces has to be considered when rating him. Unfortunately, you have to use opinion to determine how good the competition was.
If not, then you could make a serious arguement that Calvin Brock is the 2nd best heavyweight of All-Time since it's a fact that he is undefeated. It's just people opinions that his competition hasn't been that good.
Re: re
Wasn't Dempsey KO'd, not TKO'd, by Flynn? Says he was on his back for 20 seconds on BoxRec.barry wrote:>>>barry, I see u are still unable to answer a simple question, and still do not know the definition of the word FACT.<<<
It’s not that I am unable, but as usual it’s just a waste of time trying to explain it to you! Not that it is going to help you, but you want FACT compared to your opinion...here you go:
FACT: Jack Dempsey and Rocky Marciano were never really stopped, unless you count the Flynn bout, which in the case we will count that, so Dempsey was stopped one time, TKO, by a pretty hard-hitting fighter, but lets not forget that Dempsey was no where near his best when this occurred, whereas Liston and Frazxier were arguably in they're primes, Dempsey was never put down for good in his prime, which that is FACT.
FACT, in the other instances where Dempsey went down he rose very quickly and very clear-headed to knockout out his opponent.
FACT---Liston was stopped three times, one of which was one of the lightest knockout punches that anyone has ever seen.
FACT---Frazier was stopped three times...none of which was he able to shake off the punches. Opinion---Foreman was a much harder hitting fighter than Willard, or Firpo...
FACT...Dempsey got up from the best that Firpo had to offer...
FACT---Frazier was not able to shake off the best that Foreman gave!
FACT: The obvious facts of the issue outweigh opinion, which is what I stated and which most people were able to understand.
Now saying that Dempsey had a better chin than Frazier is opinion, but the argument is a lot stronger when there is actual FACT to back the claim…as I presented…does it make me right…no, but it sure makes me seem like I know more of what I am talking about by basing opinion on fact instead of just opinion!
Now is that plain enough for you, or would you like to add some more opinion to challenge actual FACT?
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
re
>>>>The level of competition that a fighter faces has to be considered when rating him. Unfortunately, you have to use opinion to determine how good the competition was.<<<
Of course the competition has to be considered, but to form the opinion of how good the competition is a person needs to use the actual facts of the fighters career to form the opinion...you can't just say, well I think this guy was better than that guy because his record looks better.
>>>If not, then you could make a serious arguement that Calvin Brock is the 2nd best heavyweight of All-Time since it's a fact that he is undefeated.<<<<
Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense...who has Brock beat? Dempsey on the other hand has a slew of quality opponents on his record!
Of course the competition has to be considered, but to form the opinion of how good the competition is a person needs to use the actual facts of the fighters career to form the opinion...you can't just say, well I think this guy was better than that guy because his record looks better.
>>>If not, then you could make a serious arguement that Calvin Brock is the 2nd best heavyweight of All-Time since it's a fact that he is undefeated.<<<<
Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense...who has Brock beat? Dempsey on the other hand has a slew of quality opponents on his record!
It sure doesnt appear as if your taking competition into account Barry:Of course the competition has to be considered, but to form the opinion of how good the competition is a person needs to use the actual facts of the fighters career to form the opinion...you can't just say, well I think this guy was better than that guy because his record looks better.
FACT...Dempsey got up from the best that Firpo had to offer...
You even suggested that Dempsey would tear into Foreman in the same exact manner as he did to Willard.FACT---Frazier was not able to shake off the best that Foreman gave!
It doesnt take a rocket scientist or even more than a little common sense to realize that Foreman is several leagues above Willard and Firpo. They werent as strong as George ,they didnt hit as hard as George, they werent as tough as George...they werent even better boxers than George! They make Gorge almost resemble Willie Pep the way they fought.
re
>>>It sure doesnt appear as if your taking competition into account Barry<<<
Really…care to elaborate, or explain whereas you see this, or can you?
>>>You even suggested that Dempsey would tear into Foreman in the same exact manner as he did to Willard.<<<
Now where exactly did I suggest this, or even hint at it? Nowhere, because I never said it, it's just assumed made up bullshit!
Although I think Dempsey would tear Foreman a new one, it wouldn't be as easy as Willard!
>>>It doesnt take a rocket scientist or even more than a little common sense to realize that Foreman is several leagues above Willard and Firpo. They werent as strong as George ,they didnt hit as hard as George, they werent as tough as George...they werent even better boxers than George! They make Gorge almost resemble Willie Pep the way they fought.<<<
No shit Sherlock!
The only thing you have done here in this thread is just go into a tirade that is based entirely on something I never said...plain and simple! Never did I ever say, or suggest that Willard was anywhere near Foreman's league in terms of skill, or any other area.
Although I have not said this prior, Willard was just as tough as Foreman, but that’s about the only thing Willard compares similar to Foreman in other than actual size.
This is the kind of crap that really makes me laugh! Making up shit is a lot worse than basing opinion on assumption! Why don't you stick to what I actually say instead of making up shit that I never even hinted at?
Really…care to elaborate, or explain whereas you see this, or can you?
>>>You even suggested that Dempsey would tear into Foreman in the same exact manner as he did to Willard.<<<
Now where exactly did I suggest this, or even hint at it? Nowhere, because I never said it, it's just assumed made up bullshit!
Although I think Dempsey would tear Foreman a new one, it wouldn't be as easy as Willard!
>>>It doesnt take a rocket scientist or even more than a little common sense to realize that Foreman is several leagues above Willard and Firpo. They werent as strong as George ,they didnt hit as hard as George, they werent as tough as George...they werent even better boxers than George! They make Gorge almost resemble Willie Pep the way they fought.<<<
No shit Sherlock!
The only thing you have done here in this thread is just go into a tirade that is based entirely on something I never said...plain and simple! Never did I ever say, or suggest that Willard was anywhere near Foreman's league in terms of skill, or any other area.
Although I have not said this prior, Willard was just as tough as Foreman, but that’s about the only thing Willard compares similar to Foreman in other than actual size.
This is the kind of crap that really makes me laugh! Making up shit is a lot worse than basing opinion on assumption! Why don't you stick to what I actually say instead of making up shit that I never even hinted at?
The meat of your entire argument reads as though actual results of fights, rather than competition should be used to rate chins. Obviously Im not the only one who understood this from what you wrote. If I'm wrong, I respectfully request that you elaborate a point a little more. No need to throw a hissy fit over it.Really…care to elaborate, or explain whereas you see this, or can you?
See below. Or is there another barry on this forum?Now where exactly did I suggest this, or even hint at it? Nowhere, because I never said it, it's just assumed made up bullshit!
>>>How would the 13 stone Dempsey tear into the 17 stone Foreman and more than likely knock him out?<<<
The exact same manner that the 13 stone Dempsey tore into the 18 stone Willard and knocked him out...any other questions?
and also:
These quotes are at the very least "hints" that you think Dempsey would tear into Foreman in the same manner he did Willard. Do you even read what you post?Dempsey would probably brutalize Foreman in the same kind of manner that he did Willard…
re
>>>The meat of your entire argument reads as though actual results of fights, rather than competition should be used to rate chins.<<<
Exactly what does that suppose to mean?
>>>Obviously Im not the only one who understood this from what you wrote. If I'm wrong, I respectfully request that you elaborate a point a little more. No need to throw a hissy fit over it.<<<
I’m not throwing a hissy fit, I just cannot stand when people start making up shit that I never even came close to saying!!!!
>>See below. Or is there another barry on this forum? <<
>>>How would the 13 stone Dempsey tear into the 17 stone Foreman and more than likely knock him out?<<
Yes and exactly where in that did you come up with the idea that I said that Willard was the same caliber of fighter as Foreman and that Dempsey would knock Willard out as easy as he did Willard?
>>>These quotes are at the very least "hints" that you think Dempsey would tear into Foreman in the same manner he did Willard. Do you even read what you post?<<<
Oh bullshit!!! Do some of you need everything drawn out in big, connecting pictures? There is nothing “hints” about it…nowhere, in any sentence of mine, will you find where I have said, or “hinted” that Willard is on par with Foreman…it is just made up crap that someone incorrectly assumed!
Though I think Dempsey would tear into Foreman in the same manner as he did Willard…but most people understand that tearing into Foreman in the same manner as Willard does not mean the same thing as Dempsey would tear into and beat Foreman and knock him out as easily as Willard…
If a person does not plainly state something in a sentence, then I never assume that he is saying, or “hinting” at something he did not say…unless it is just plain obvious that he means that certain “something!”
I apologize if I seem asshole-ish, but I hate when someone makes up something and then tries to pretend that I said it, or that I somehow meant it that way though I never said it!
Exactly what does that suppose to mean?
>>>Obviously Im not the only one who understood this from what you wrote. If I'm wrong, I respectfully request that you elaborate a point a little more. No need to throw a hissy fit over it.<<<
I’m not throwing a hissy fit, I just cannot stand when people start making up shit that I never even came close to saying!!!!
>>See below. Or is there another barry on this forum? <<
>>>How would the 13 stone Dempsey tear into the 17 stone Foreman and more than likely knock him out?<<
Yes and exactly where in that did you come up with the idea that I said that Willard was the same caliber of fighter as Foreman and that Dempsey would knock Willard out as easy as he did Willard?
>>>These quotes are at the very least "hints" that you think Dempsey would tear into Foreman in the same manner he did Willard. Do you even read what you post?<<<
Oh bullshit!!! Do some of you need everything drawn out in big, connecting pictures? There is nothing “hints” about it…nowhere, in any sentence of mine, will you find where I have said, or “hinted” that Willard is on par with Foreman…it is just made up crap that someone incorrectly assumed!
Though I think Dempsey would tear into Foreman in the same manner as he did Willard…but most people understand that tearing into Foreman in the same manner as Willard does not mean the same thing as Dempsey would tear into and beat Foreman and knock him out as easily as Willard…
If a person does not plainly state something in a sentence, then I never assume that he is saying, or “hinting” at something he did not say…unless it is just plain obvious that he means that certain “something!”
I apologize if I seem asshole-ish, but I hate when someone makes up something and then tries to pretend that I said it, or that I somehow meant it that way though I never said it!
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
Re: re
You're right, it doesn't mean the same thing, because most people think that if Dempsey tore iinto Foreman in the same manner that he did Willard he would get KO'd pretty easily.barry wrote:Though I think Dempsey would tear into Foreman in the same manner as he did Willard…but most people understand that tearing into Foreman in the same manner as Willard does not mean the same thing as Dempsey would tear into and beat Foreman and knock him out as easily as Willard…
And yes, that is just an opinion not a fact.
Decagon there is another insidious dynamic in play here. Some of us no matter what we have seen on tape or read can be pretty driven by what we have seen with our own two eyes or heard with our own two ears or otherwise tactily experienced in life.
I read and review and I'm drawn toward Dempsey being very competitive if not perserveing. Then I think what I have Seen big George do in real time and I'm back in the other camp. Keeping your "center" when you assess these things is crtical and challenging.
There are good reasons to beleive Dempsey could get it done....and yet I don't think he would because I have seen George with my own eyes catch people I never thought he would catch....and destroy them.
Then of course there were the Peralta, Ali and Young fights......and then I get to thinking Dempsey could do it.
The point of your last paragraph is very compelling and can show how one can be ambivelant in these matters.
These positives and negatives impact our assessments...in my case most strongly when Archie Moore and Aaron Pryor are mentioned. I have personally experienced things that have I drawn conclusions from and I'm not so certain that these conclusions are of poor quality based on on the fact that they have "subjective" qualities.
Sometimes "subjective" information can be very poweful and on occasion give you deep insight if you integrate them into your thinking carefully.
And sometimes it can trash your entire perspective.
I read and review and I'm drawn toward Dempsey being very competitive if not perserveing. Then I think what I have Seen big George do in real time and I'm back in the other camp. Keeping your "center" when you assess these things is crtical and challenging.
There are good reasons to beleive Dempsey could get it done....and yet I don't think he would because I have seen George with my own eyes catch people I never thought he would catch....and destroy them.
Then of course there were the Peralta, Ali and Young fights......and then I get to thinking Dempsey could do it.
The point of your last paragraph is very compelling and can show how one can be ambivelant in these matters.
These positives and negatives impact our assessments...in my case most strongly when Archie Moore and Aaron Pryor are mentioned. I have personally experienced things that have I drawn conclusions from and I'm not so certain that these conclusions are of poor quality based on on the fact that they have "subjective" qualities.
Sometimes "subjective" information can be very poweful and on occasion give you deep insight if you integrate them into your thinking carefully.
And sometimes it can trash your entire perspective.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Re: re
Barry, You are taking what I said out of context. Read it again. You were previously saying that Facts out weigh opinion, well they don't always.barry wrote:>>>>The level of competition that a fighter faces has to be considered when rating him. Unfortunately, you have to use opinion to determine how good the competition was.<<<
Of course the competition has to be considered, but to form the opinion of how good the competition is a person needs to use the actual facts of the fighters career to form the opinion...you can't just say, well I think this guy was better than that guy because his record looks better.
>>>If not, then you could make a serious arguement that Calvin Brock is the 2nd best heavyweight of All-Time since it's a fact that he is undefeated.<<<<
Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense...who has Brock beat? Dempsey on the other hand has a slew of quality opponents on his record!
I was just making a point with Calvin Brock. Of course he hasn't beaten anyone and I don't think he is the 2nd best heavyweight ever. I was just pointing out that you have to use opinion to rate fighters, if you just go by facts he is undefeated and Dempsey lost some fights.
I do agree with you that you need weigh facts to form a solid opinion.