Luis Fernando12 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2018, 15:10
candyslim wrote: ↑25 Sep 2018, 15:31
Dear God you can say that again, I'm not going to attempt to answer that point by point, not only do I have a life (well I like it) but I've learnt from bitter experience that arguing with you (Luis) is an exercise in futility.
All I will say is that I object to your lack of respect to all those fighters on your sh1t-list, not just those who are favourites of mine.
Dereck Chisora is a fine fighter not necessarily a fine boxer, and so is Carlos Takam. I would have given the edge to Takam, he was battering Delboy up until the end although probably burning his energy reserves to do it. He's now late thirties which is when the majority of fighters begin to slip. That is what is happening to Povetkin he's 39 years old FFS, he clearly isn't what he used to be, but make no mistake he was on a completely different and higher level than Takam and Chisora, and probably still is.
He broke Joshua's nose in round one and was boxing him extremely well. This isn't just a young giant, but a young giant of real qualiity. It wasn't his lack of stature that cost him the fight but his advancing age, and resulting loss of stamina which meant he couldn't sustain his early superiority. I'm not saying a peak Povetkin would have beaten Joshua but it would have been extremely competitive irrespective of the vast difference in height, reach and to a lesser extent, weight.
I really don't get you Luis. There are frequently posters who piss me off, mostly banned such as ironfrost, magicrap, etc who are simply too stupid to be let out on their own. You wind me up constantly but you are an entirely different animal, on the face of it not unintelligent and even articulate, yet you seem consistently to miss the point in any given situation like currently blaming lack of stature rather than lack of youth.
You remind of the scientist in the joke where having cut all the legs off the spider he finds it no longer runs when he sounds a klaxon right next to it. He concludes that the spider's ears are situated in its legs.
The reality is, Povetkin's performance against Carlos Takam (one of, if not Povetin's best opponent and knockout win) was no better than Dereck Chisora's own performance against Carlos Takam. A totally faded version of Chisora at the very least equaled, if not bettered Povetkin's performance against Takam. And when you take into consideration that Carlos Takam is one of Povetkin's best opponents, that just goes to show that Chisora utterly and thoroughly exposed Povetkin's career resume.
cs: Takam fought a great fight against Povetkin but they were both pretty much at their peak then. I haven't yet seen any evidence that Chisora has begun to decline. Takam made the mistake of going for broke against Chisora and trying to take him out, gambling his energy reserves would be up to the task. At 37 or 38 whatever he is, he was wrong.
Povetkin was thoroughly schooled, out-classed, out-boxed and badly behind on the scorecards by the midpoint against Carlos Takam, until his superior conditioning and fitness allowed him to KO a faded version of Takam. That, is anything but evidence of Povetkin being as skilled as you claim, and Takam only being a 'fine fighter' and not a 'fine boxer'. When Takam actually showed far 'finer' boxing skills than Povetkin, until his stamina had faded, and Povetkin beat him based on his conditioning advantage and not his skill advantages.
cs: It's a long time since I watched that fight but I don't recall Povetkin being out-boxed by Takam although it was highly competetive. It happens. Sometimes one fighter is at the top of his game, other times he's looking a little jaded. Call it 'bio-rythmes' or whatever you like, one fighter beating another doesn't always prove the superiority of that fighter never mind that he is (allegedly in this case) ahead on points up to the stoppage.
Chisora's performance against Takam was indifferent. He too like Povetkin was behind on the scorecards and lost as many rounds, until he turned it around (like Povetkin) by scoring a knockout punch over a faded version of Takam in the later rounds. And he did so, 2 rounds quicker than Povetkin and with far fewer punches landed.
cs: I don't dispute that (other than Povetkin was behind. That's not how I remember it) but the round number is at best insignificant and Takam and Povetkin are now in decline.
So where EXACTLY is the proof of Povetkin being this 'fine' boxer? Or more specifically, a 'finer' boxer than Dereck Chisora? Again, all this really proves is Povetkin at BEST, is at Dereck Chisora's level and no higher. That's no disrespect and shame, since Chisora is anything but a bad boxer. But to rate Povetkin any higher, is GROSS exaggeration and overrating of his abilities / level.
cs: The proof is in Povetkin's record. He has an outstanding amateur record which includes being an Olympic Gold Medal Winner, and he has occupied top contender status for the last decade. Now you're by far the forum's most voluble proponent of the ineffectiveness of the shorter heavyweight, how exactly do you explain how Povetkin managed to achieve this without being a superior technician?
You make excuses about Povetkin's age. But you totally and conveniently ignore the FACT that Povetkin was utterly schooled, humiliated, embarrassed, out-classed, dismantled and made to look like total fodder by a washed up, 37 year old Wladimir Klitschko whilst Povetkin was still in his prime. Let's also not forget that all of this happened in Povetkin's home country of Russia.
cs: It is no disgrace to lose to an ATG like Wladimir Klitschko who was then at the peak of his career and who went undefeated for ten years or so. Add to that Wlad fought like a ferkin octopus that night and couldn't have had too much of an argument had he been disqualified. I always find it interesting that "Drug cheat Povetkin" clearly a reprehensible human being (that's sarcasm btw) never once to my knowledge, has used that as an excuse for his defeat. Whenever I've seen him asked about it in interviews, he always says how he was beaten by the better man and he's tried to learn from his mistakes that night. I like Povetkin. I think he got badly stitched up by the WBC but you don't hear him whining about the raw deal he got.
What makes you think ANY version of Povetkin could've done any better against Anthony Joshua, if Joshua really decided to use his physical size and strength, when Povetkin was 100% useless and ineffective against another similar SUPER - HEAVYWEIGHT in Wladimir Klitschko?
cs: Fukc me why am I even bothering to converse with you?
cs: Povetkin was at least holding his own against Joshua. He's 39 years old and has been looking his age for his last three fights. If he were still at his peak it is surely obvious that he would have been able to sustain his success against Joshua for longer than the six rounds that he actually did. "If Joshua really decided to use his physical size and strength"??? You mean you think AJ was getting his nose busted to make it more interesting, and was holding back? Or maybe you mean using his size and strength to tie Povetkin up any time he got close and use his weight to lean all over him and tire him out like Wlad did?
cs: Kiitschko isn't or wasn't just any 6' 6" heavyweight, he is a future hall of famer. What's more he cheated outrageously against Sasha and was allowed to get away with it.
If you don't claim peak Povetkin would've beaten Joshua, then what are you claiming? Are you claiming Joshua would've beaten any version of Povetkin (basically agreeing with me)? If so, what are we even arguing over?
cs: What we are arguing over as per usual is your obsession with size to the exclusion of almost all else, and your constant disparaging of boxers who are deserving of any boxing fan's admiration and respect.
If you think Joshua beats any version of Povetkin. Then you probably subconsciously believe and know deep down that Joshua's size is too big a factor for Povetkin to ever overcome. But it does't seem like you want to ever admit that for whatever reason! Maybe because you're trying to convince yourself that such isn't the case?
cs: I have said on numerous occasions that being taller and heavier is an advantage but one that can be overcome by the smaller man if he is good enough. The problem is when the bigger man is of equal ability then the size issue assumes a greater importance. As the old saying goes "A good big'un will usually beat a good little'un". Where we differ is that I regard the advantage in height and weight to be but one factor in resolving the result of a boxing match, whereas to you it assumes a disproportionate and all-consuming importance.
Joshua proved that even the skill gap between the two isn't that great. Since Joshua jabbed the much shorter Povetkin's body to bits. That doesn't happen to elite skilled shorter boxers, which Povetkin evidently proved not to be. But when you add Joshua's SIGNIFICANT size advantage, then this bout was never going to be anything other than a disgraceful mismatch.
cs: I really don't know how you can call that a mismatch. Povetkin was unquestionably a top contender on merit, had been so for many years, won a number of the first six rounds breaking the nose of the very talented much bigger world champion. If you think Povetkin is not an elite skilled shorter (heavyweight) boxer then you Sir, are a fool.
If Joshua decided to really use his size and physical strength, this fight wouldn't have gone 3 rounds. The reason why Povetkin looked as competitive as he did, was because Joshua decided to also match / beat Povetkin in the skill department. If even Wladimir Klitschko really committed to a knockout against Povetkin, Povetkin would've been put to sleep after the very first knockdown Wlad inflicted on Povetkin in the 2nd round. A disinterested Wlad literally scored accidental knockdowns after accidental knockdowns over the suspect chinned Povetkin. That's how far below Povetkin is, to GENUINE ELITE SUPER HEAVYWEIGHTS like Anthony Joshua and Wladimir Klitschko.
cs: Oh stop already. I set out to answer you point by point but I'm losing the will to live. How many more times have we got to go over the same points?
I understand that mere height and reach disadvantages can be negated by a skilled shorter boxer with shorter reach, assuming both boxers are functionally the same weight. However, height + reach + functional weight (weight being the most important factor) simply can't be negated, if all are combined,.
cs: Do you Luis? Do you really? It's very clear to me that you don't.
