Originally posted by poet682006
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Judging Boxers Historically: Are We Looking at It Wrong?
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by BigStereotype View PostKobe's a better 3-point shooter (32.7% vs 34%) but MJ is clearly better. I never watched Oscar Robertson play, but I did watch MJ and I have trouble seeing anybody ever play better than he could, especially in the clutch.
Poet
Comment
-
Originally posted by r.burgundy View Postyour a true jack of all trades idiot.darwins theory of evolution is that all life evolved from a common ancestor you dunce
that theory has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that humans are growing taller every decade and species continue to evolve.darwin didnt invent the word evolution lmao
and who the hell is using the words different and better?your making less sense than usual
Here in lays the problem: Your knowledge of just about everything you speak on is so superficial as to be laughable. I'm sorry, but catching the last ten minutes of a show on the Discovery Channel is NOT going to make you knowledgable about a subject. You try (and fail I might add) to make your inane claims sound more solid by trying to make them appear to have scientific backing.....but the truth is you're lack of any real understanding of the science you're misusing just makes you look like an idiot. That kind of scheisse may work on the typical sports fan but NOT with someone who actually has an education.
Poet
Comment
-
Originally posted by r.burgundy View Post1st off like i said,your bball knowledge is actually worse than your boxing knowledge incredibly.
jordan has 5 league mvps,and 6 finals mvps.how many does oscar have?
and has the highest career playoff scoring average,and is 3rd all time for points scored.he led the league in scoring 10 times and 7 consecutively.so how is oscar a better scorer?or even in the discussion to be a better player
as far as kobe,kobe shoots better than mike from 3 and he creates of the dribble better.and as usual you have zero knowledge so you resort to your usual idiotic off topic rant
BTW, Kobe barely knows how to dribble properly.
Poet
Comment
-
the article covers good questions and all, but as Obama pointed out, it is not a demonstration as rigorous as it should be
I would add plugging Pacquiao throughout the article and taking him as no. 1 example of a modern great makes the writer look somewhat like a fanboy with an agenda
here is how I sum up the problem of rating past/modern fighters
- the past is like an ideal, nostalgy come into play a lot
- the lack of distance with modern fighters achievements blurs our perception and judgment
- the sport is not the same that it used to be in many (if not all) ways
I believe the level of activity/number of fights is not as important as the writer makes it out to be though
Take Jim Jeffries for example, Boxingscene rates him 11th (or 12 th ?) AT at HW and he has only had 22 fights, but against top competition most of the time (but maybe we could make a case that he is idolized and ranked high for being a past white champion next to Marciano and Dempsey, whose reigns look pale compared to the ones of black champions such as Johnson, Louis and Ali ?)
Also, I think that beating HOFers and AT greats will always be a superior feat to dominating ordinary contemporaries (but that's me)
I do believe many modern fighters, some of which are still active like Pacquiao and Hopkins, will go up the AT rankings as time goes by and as we get more distance to evaluate and appreciate their achievements
there are so many things that come into play, it really is no piece of cake to compare modern and past fighters in a fair manner...Last edited by Tiozzo; 09-22-2010, 12:37 PM.
Comment
-
Comment