BoxRec

I'll start;

Boxer A beat boxer B therefore.....


Or

Boxer A beat Boxer B far more convincingly than Boxer C therefore

I'll start;

Boxer A beat boxer B, Boxer B beat Boxer C therefore.....


Or

Boxer A beat Boxer B far more convincingly than Boxer C therefore

The # 1 worst argument is that the judges said somebody won -- so absolutely he did win.

# 2 is... Losses for legends don't count against them, no matter how bad they looked... And a loss by a contemporary fighter writes him off for good.

# 3 is... Clinching and holding is fine because some referees allow it. Or pushing, shoving, wrestling, heading, palming are fine if a referee allows it.

# 4 is... Athletes shatter the Olympic records of generations past and get better in every sport -- except Boxing -- they were always better in the old days.

#5 is... If somebody is not getting the fights he deserves to get -- it's all his fault because he hasn't fought anybody.

You have to "take" the title from the champion

Fighter A looked better destroying Fighter Z than fighter B looked destroying Fighter Z, so Fighter A would beat Fighter B.

golden oldie wrote:Height, weight, and reach advantages don't count for anything in fights between 2 fighters of equal ability.

True...but this is often used when comparing fantasy fights with greats from different eras. Things like toughness, hunger, hand speed, foot speed and experience aren't used to balance the argument...

golden oldie wrote:

evrenb wrote:

golden oldie wrote:Height, weight, and reach advantages don't count for anything in fights between 2 fighters of equal ability.

True...but this is often used when comparing fantasy fights with greats from different eras. Things like toughness, hunger, hand speed, foot speed and experience aren't used to balance the argument...

Erm, that is why I wrote EQUAL ABILITY. Would you have preferred me to have written equal assets?

It still boils down to the same thing. A good, great, excellent, brilliant ( pick which ever adjective you prefer ) will always beat a smaller version with the same capability.

Agreed. Not all the time, but, MOST OF THE TIME!

golden oldie wrote:Height, weight, and reach advantages don't count for anything in fights between 2 fighters of equal ability.

Yes to reach and weight - I think height can be overwhelming if the separation is too great e.g. Duran-Leonard as compared to Duran-Hearns - I felt as though Duran never had a chance against Tommy's right hand because of the height difference . . . but there are many examples that go the other way, I realize.

Richard Pryor (mimicking a defeated fighter explaining his loss): "I would've hit him, but he kept moving away from me."

golden oldie wrote:

evrenb wrote:

golden oldie wrote:Height, weight, and reach advantages don't count for anything in fights between 2 fighters of equal ability.

True...but this is often used when comparing fantasy fights with greats from different eras. Things like toughness, hunger, hand speed, foot speed and experience aren't used to balance the argument...

Erm, that is why I wrote EQUAL ABILITY. Would you have preferred me to have written equal assets?

It still boils down to the same thing. A good, great, excellent, brilliant ( pick which ever adjective you prefer ) will always beat a smaller version with the same capability.

Has anyone on this Forum ever said that height, weight, and reach advantages don't count for anything between two fighters of equal ability? I have never seen anyone make that claim.

Fighter A KOd fighter B.

Fighter C decisioned fighter B,

so therefore fighter A is better than fighter C

Would make guys like Richard Dunn or Al Blue Lewis supposedly better than Ali.

Tony1244 wrote:Fighter A KOd fighter B.

Fighter C decioned fighter B,

so therefore fighter A is better than fighter C

Would make guys like Richard Dunn or Al Blue Lewis supposedly better than Ali.

So true
and these BS trolls like Kalan and oldengoldie swear by this formula...

evrenb wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:Fighter A KOd fighter B.

Fighter C decioned fighter B,

so therefore fighter A is better than fighter C

Would make guys like Richard Dunn or Al Blue Lewis supposedly better than Ali.

So true
and these BS trolls like Kalan and oldengoldie swear by this formula...

Yeah its like they take the worst performance an use that as a barometer for everything.

Fury beating the unified, long reigning champion for 10 years, with the most title defences, with nobody coming close to beating the hof great. By easily winning this fight makes Fury shit? WTF?

"A man once picked up Red Buttons, so he would beat Muhammad Ali with six months training."

APerno wrote:

golden oldie wrote:Height, weight, and reach advantages don't count for anything in fights between 2 fighters of equal ability.

Yes to reach and weight - I think height can be overwhelming if the separation is too great e.g. Duran-Leonard as compared to Duran-Hearns - I felt as though Duran never had a chance against Tommy's right hand because of the height difference . . . but there are many examples that go the other way, I realize.

Height could be overwhelming if we're speaking about weight. The bigger the weight class, the more suits the taller fighter.

I can't envision a Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Kid Gavilan nor a Wilfred Benitez beating a guy like The Hitman above 147lbs. At 147lbs, is as FAIRER AS WE CAN GET in terms of weight. But at 154lbs and beyond, the advantages are clearly for Tommy Hearns.

APerno wrote:

golden oldie wrote:Height, weight, and reach advantages don't count for anything in fights between 2 fighters of equal ability.

Yes to reach and weight - I think height can be overwhelming if the separation is too great e.g. Duran-Leonard as compared to Duran-Hearns - I felt as though Duran never had a chance against Tommy's right hand because of the height difference . . . but there are many examples that go the other way, I realize.

It's more than height... Shorties Pacquiao and Cotto had little trouble with the taller Margarito -- after he was stripped of his plastered wraps AM never stopped anyone... But If somebody has significant height, weight, reach, power, speed, skill, intelligence, conditioning, coaching, and experience advantages over you??? Good luck...especially if you're a smaller, shorter heavyweight who gets hit, knocked down, pounded, beaten up, and brutalized.

Kalan wrote:

APerno wrote:

golden oldie wrote:Height, weight, and reach advantages don't count for anything in fights between 2 fighters of equal ability.

Yes to reach and weight - I think height can be overwhelming if the separation is too great e.g. Duran-Leonard as compared to Duran-Hearns - I felt as though Duran never had a chance against Tommy's right hand because of the height difference . . . but there are many examples that go the other way, I realize.

It's more than height... Shorties Pacquiao and Cotto had little trouble with the taller Margarito -- after he was stripped of his plastered wraps AM never stopped anyone... But If somebody has significant height, weight, reach, power, speed, skill, intelligence, conditioning, coaching, and experience advantages over you??? Good luck...especially if you're a smaller, shorter heavyweight who gets hit, knocked down, pounded, beaten up, and brutalized.

I agree. But, that's with Antonio Margarito. Put Pacman and Miguel Cotto against greats like Mike McCallum or Thomas Hearns, at 154lbs, and they don't got a chance in hell.

McCallum/cotto would be a good fight.

golden oldie wrote:

cfang wrote:

evrenb wrote:
So true
and these BS trolls like Kalan and oldengoldie swear by this formula...

Yeah its like they take the worst performance an use that as a barometer for everything.

Another fantasist.

Never mind their worse performances, take the best performances of Johnson, Louis, Marciano, Liston, Foreman or Frazier, and tell us how that equates to them being able to do the same or better against Lewis, or a Klitchko brother.

You will notice I haven't put Ali in there because I am quite happy in the knowledge he beats EVERY Heavyweight who EVER lived, no matter how big, strong,powerful or fast they were.

A guy like Marciano may make a top 10 all time HW list. Does that mean he could have beaten LL or a Klitschko in his 185 LBS frame? Almost certainly not. A lot of people would say Marciano would be more like 220 LBS today or their measuring the talent pound for pound. Unquestionably athletes are bigger, stronger, faster than they were in yesteryear. On things that be preciously measured such as the mile run, it is easy to see.

But when doing all time lists, I think most people measure how great someone was for their time. Babe Ruth would have to be a top 10 all time hitter, but he was obviously facing a lower caliber of pitcher.

Styles make fights. An early 1970s Foreman may have done quite well against a Klitschko (especially Wlad's chin) or LL. Foreman was about 220.

Shut up....

No.....YOU shut up...

I will not!!!!....you sir should shut up....

.......not gonna happen..........so....YOU SHUT UP!!!


NO WAY AHOLE>>>>YOU SHUT UP>>>NOW...

Nope...YOU SHUT UP


and on....and on.

People always compare how you did versus common opponents.. That information is out there and is at least a little pertinent to any analysis.

It's certainly not decisive information...but it gives you clues... Guys who Ali fought Frazier knocked stiff.. Guys who gladly fought Ali, such as Cooper and Mildenberger refused to even consider a fight with a young Frazier.. Chuvalo turned down all offers to fight Sonny Liston -- probably the only guy he wouldn't fight because the tough Canuk even fought Frazier and Foreman -- which for an immobile punching bag they weren't the best choices to go with.

Just from seeing how Frazier fared against Ali opponents I knew he would be a killer opponent for Ali.. However Frazier had the shortest prime of any Heavyweight I've ever seen.. His health was already on the downslide when he met Ali in MSG.. Doctors previously diagnosed him with dangerously high blood pressure and an enlarged heart.. However he was driven by will.. Beating Ali was his life's dream, and once he accomplished it he wasn't the same.. Motivation is often a prime driver of winning performances.

Although comparing common opponents makes some sense -- comparing styles, skills, and physicality makes more sense... To do that you need to know something about the sport of Boxing and have some background in it... If you don't have any expertise, you just talk about the records and who they fought and who looked good against who and who didn't, and what you think their skills and abilities are and aren't... and that's the way 95% of discussions evolve.

Look at you....talkin' about the size of the fight in the dog.

You're comin' round!

Tony1244 wrote:

golden oldie wrote:

cfang wrote:
But when doing all time lists, I think most people measure how great someone was for their time. Babe Ruth would have to be a top 10 all time hitter, but he was obviously facing a lower caliber of pitcher.

A classic rule of historical methodology: "Judge a man by the standards of his day." (If he was great in his day, he is 'great') -

APerno wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:

golden oldie wrote:

A classic rule of historical methodology: "Judge a man by the standards of his day." (If he was great in his day, he is 'great') -