BoxRec

gilgamesh wrote: ↑13 Jan 2023, 02:23

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Jan 2023, 16:56 No. It counts against Barrera.
It should also count against Klitschko.
A legitimate loss should count against anyone.
The weaker the opponent, the more it should be counted against him.
The more lopsided the loss, the more it should count against him.
The more times this happens, the more it should count against him.

And wins over weak opponents shouldn't count either.

This isn't exactly rocket science.

All these guys you're writing off as "Weak opponents" could whip your ass with 1 hand tied behind their back

Mine too.

Obviously there are levels in Boxing, but the fact that you write so many fairly meaningful fights off as completely meaningless only when it applies to a guy you're making a case against speaks volumes.

You'd make a sh*tty lawyer Alp.

When I am calling it weak competition, this is in relation to a stronger era. A weak opponent relative to a strong opponent. Obviously they all kill me or you or the average guy off the street.

Meaningful fights? You were forced to bring up guys like Ray Austin.
Just because a fight is a title fight defense doesn't mean that it is meaningful.
Ali had a title defense against Richard Dunn. He was a weak opponent by standards of the day. That successful title defense foes nothing to add to Ali's legacy. At all.

Ali's 2nd fight against Joe Frazier was not even a title fight. That was a much more important fight. More important fight than any Klitschko ever had.

II use the same criteria on everyone, whether they are Klitschko, Barrera, Patterson, Tyson, Tommy Burns whoever.

I am not trying to make a case against Klitschko. I use the same factors for everyone. I don't give Tommy Burns credit for Still waiting on the reasoning why Tommy Burns is not considered one of the top hws of all time.

You'd make a sh*tty lawyer Alp.
Unlike you, I am not trying to act like a lawyer. I am trying to act a judge. A lawyer tries to spin thing in his favor, without trying to be fair. He may use the exact opposite reasoning in a different case if he thought it would help his client.
Like a judge is supposed to do, I try to use the same factors for everyone.

Inconsistency doesn't equate to an era being strong. There seems to be a perception by some that if there is a lot of turnover that means the era is somehow stronger than an era in which one guy is dominating but I don't think that's the case. You shouldn't penalize someone for being dominant simply because fans don't like it.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑13 Jan 2023, 12:05

gilgamesh wrote: ↑13 Jan 2023, 02:23

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Jan 2023, 16:56 No. It counts against Barrera.
It should also count against Klitschko.
A legitimate loss should count against anyone.
The weaker the opponent, the more it should be counted against him.
The more lopsided the loss, the more it should count against him.
The more times this happens, the more it should count against him.

And wins over weak opponents shouldn't count either.

This isn't exactly rocket science.

All these guys you're writing off as "Weak opponents" could whip your ass with 1 hand tied behind their back

Mine too.

Obviously there are levels in Boxing, but the fact that you write so many fairly meaningful fights off as completely meaningless only when it applies to a guy you're making a case against speaks volumes.

You'd make a sh*tty lawyer Alp.

When I am calling it weak competition, this is in relation to a stronger era. A weak opponent relative to a strong opponent. Obviously they all kill me or you or the average guy off the street.

Meaningful fights? You were forced to bring up guys like Ray Austin.
Just because a fight is a title fight defense doesn't mean that it is meaningful.
Ali had a title defense against Richard Dunn. He was a weak opponent by standards of the day. That successful title defense foes nothing to add to Ali's legacy. At all.

Ali's 2nd fight against Joe Frazier was not even a title fight. That was a much more important fight. More important fight than any Klitschko ever had.

II use the same criteria on everyone, whether they are Klitschko, Barrera, Patterson, Tyson, Tommy Burns whoever.

I am not trying to make a case against Klitschko. I use the same factors for everyone. I don't give Tommy Burns credit for Still waiting on the reasoning why Tommy Burns is not considered one of the top hws of all time.

You'd make a sh*tty lawyer Alp.
Unlike you, I am not trying to act like a lawyer. I am trying to act a judge. A lawyer tries to spin thing in his favor, without trying to be fair. He may use the exact opposite reasoning in a different case if he thought it would help his client.
Like a judge is supposed to do, I try to use the same factors for everyone.

Oh you NEEEEVVVVERRRR do that!