View Single Post
#103
Old 11-18-2012, 12:13 AM
kenso
Undisputed Champion
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Biloxi, MS
Age: 25
Posts: 1,740
Rep Power: 10 kenso has a reputation beyond reputekenso has a reputation beyond reputekenso has a reputation beyond reputekenso has a reputation beyond reputekenso has a reputation beyond reputekenso has a reputation beyond reputekenso has a reputation beyond reputekenso has a reputation beyond reputekenso has a reputation beyond reputekenso has a reputation beyond reputekenso has a reputation beyond repute
Points: 1,803,237.65
Bank: 1,051,336,173.83
Total Points: 1,053,139,411.48
Send a message via AIM to kenso
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jel View Post
Yes, but what you can do is pull out certain fighters guys like Lennox,Wlad,Vitlai,Tyson fought during their physical/boxing primes that were like inferior versions of each other.
I get what you are saying . I'm only pointing out the "hypocrisy" (for lack of a better word ATM) in the "analysis" that is constantly being put forth on these fantasy match ups. If someone wants to break down a fight, then we should list specific reasons why - like you have previously in the thread. That is what makes good discussion. What does NOT make good discussion is saying that a fighter would have lost to another for *arbitrary reason* when this *arbitrary reason* applies to almost every great heavyweight in history.

Some of the most common ones are:
1. Said fighter lost to a bum
2. Said fighter has the tools to win
3. Said fighter has never faced someone on the level of other fighter

Aside from that, there is also blatant idiocy/hate or "nuthuggery" of fighters. People often post under the guise of an unbias fan, but usually offer no more analysis than "Tyson was the greatest of ALL TIME" or "Klitschko fights in the weakest era ever, he's a joke". The problem is, that most of the time, there is no legitimate analysis going on. We just have a bunch of people throwing the same three reasons(or similar ones) that I listed above back and forth at each other in favor and against both fighters.

My personal thoughts on the original question:

The idea that Klitschko is no more than a 70s HW bum in a "poor era" is quickly fading. He is approaching a historic run of title defenses, represents himself and the sport very well, and comes in as good shape as any HW in history has. There is a reason he is in discussions like these. If you are one of the few that still feel Klitschko isn't the real deal, then don't even bother adding to the thread, because you are likely blind, or stupid.
Reply With Quote
kenso is offline