How many fighters of the last 15-20 years can be considered ATG's/legends

[Scott9945]

Yes I've caught some, he was fair athletic but stylistically he was a squared up slugger mainly.

Not that I am supposing Adamek is far removed technically but he IS a notch above in the agility department obviously as evidenced by WATCHING his movements in his own fights. Moorer is more of an in your face fighter, which without the chin to go with it isn't all that smart.

OF course, you can get away with it at 175 a bit more and as we can see the main reasons for Moorer's success there is...

- Cherry picking weak opponents
- Punching power at 175 and the physical strength to bully his opponents there. (As we can see in his fights at this weight.

Unfortunately for Moorer, he did not adapt to the HW division like Adamek did. Adamek clearly fought more with his head and his agility there and perservered whereas Moorer was still stuck in his "175" ways which ultimately cost him.

This inability of Moorer was compounded by the fact that his chin was glass rated at HW whereas Adamek carried his strong chin up with him as did Holyfield which is why these guys performed so well (among other reasons).

On the KO question? I've thought about that and I certainly can see Moorer "surviving" Adamek, who was not a very hard puncher by any measure. But it must also be understood that Moorer HIMSELF is a featherfist at HW and Adamek has a hard chin (and a defensive agility allied to it). Therefore the chances of a shock Moorer KO in light of Adameks performance against truly hard hitting giants, is basically non-existent!

Adamek UD Moorer (close to no punchers chance for Moorer)

And again, I am not inferring triangle theory to suppose that Adamek could likewise thrash Holyfield also. But the fact Holyfield did struggle with Moorer is a NEGATIVE feature of Holyfield nonetheless!

Apart from Holyfield, the next best win on Moorers record is Botha and thereafter they are all humdrum wins like Smith etc who is prbably on the level of Adameks Travis Walker victory or something.

These are the facts.

No, those are 100% opinions. You're entitled to them, but don't insult everyone by claiming that Travis Walker (yikes) being better than two former titleholders is a fact.

[Elroy1]

No, those are 100% opinions. You're entitled to them, but don't insult everyone by claiming that Travis Walker (yikes) being better than two former titleholders is a fact.

Alright then SCOTT!

We can call that one particular point there an "opinion" if you like to!

But when the casual reader pulls up both the records of James Smith and Travis Walker side by side, we can see that it is in fact a very "educated opinion" to put it mildly...

YES Walker is a journeyman today.

YES Smith was a HW champion back then.

Best win being Witherspoon by that early KO, that's good, but also rather fortunate you might add!

And thereafter it's only notable guys like Bruno, the David Price of the 80's.

Also mentionworthy is losses to guys like bloody Marvis Frazier!

So please don't try to sell anybody either that Smith is in another league to Walker. Is is difficult to imagine Walker losing to Marvis!!

[Ben Bolt]

You don’t have to “win” every debate.

Standing up for Adamek is good enough. The Pole surprised me more than once, and going from 175 to challenge Vitali, it certainly proves the guy has a brave heart.

[Scott9945]

Alright then SCOTT!

We can call that one particular point there an "opinion" if you like to!

But when the casual reader pulls up both the records of James Smith and Travis Walker side by side, we can see that it is in fact a very "educated opinion" to put it mildly...

YES Walker is a journeyman today.

YES Smith was a HW champion back then.

Best win being Witherspoon by that early KO, that's good, but also rather fortunate you might add!

And thereafter it's only notable guys like Bruno, the David Price of the 80's.

Also mentionworthy is losses to guys like bloody Marvis Frazier!

So please don't try to sell anybody either that Smith is in another league to Walker. Is is difficult to imagine Walker losing to Marvis!!

Please, stop with the irrelevant convoluted triangle theories. Smith wasn't great, but he was miles better than an often KO'd clubfighter like Travis Walker.

If I were more arrogant, I would state that as a fact.

[Elroy1]

Please, stop with the irrelevant convoluted triangle theories. Smith wasn't great, but he was miles better than an often KO'd clubfighter like Travis Walker.

If I were more arrogant, I would state that as a fact.

Well as you said that is an opinion right.

And like you are entitled to yours, I think that the comparison is atleast plausible. AS I believe a non-biased reader/researcher will also discover if they bother to check it out.

And I agree we should not lose focus...

Let's remember we are establishing how poor Moorer's record is by comparison to Adamek's (and rather poor in general for a HW champ and quality-wise for a LHW champ as well).

And let's not forget the even larger issue that Holyfield STRUGGLED with this Moorer and even lost!

Let's suppose an unnamed champion boxer from the last 10-15 years, be it either Klitschko or any of the other titlists in that time. What has happened or what would happen when they/had they lost to another boxer whom had never before beaten a really notable opponent up to that point?

We would call him "exposed" and a hype job, not because that is necessarily true, but because that's how the business operates today. 1 loss could label you called a bum, even if it's from a NOTABLE opponent!

But this exact situation is what happened with Holyfield, he lost to Moorer, a guy in light of his previous Bowe fights should have easily been able to beat and who had done basically nothing great beforehand.

And yet you are PRAISING Holyfield for his loss here somehow by pumping up Moorer.

But when it happens t a modern fighter whom you automatically have a stigma about, suddenly you apply different rules!

I say good for the goose is good for the gander!

[Ben Bolt]

And I agree we should not lose focus...

You lost focus.

I repeat: you don’t have to “win” every debate.

Frank Zappa: “One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds.”

And you will not change Scott9945’s opinion.
Me myself believe Moorer would have dominated Adamek.
But, that doesn’t mean a I think bad of Adamek – I think he was helluva fighter.

And if you say Adamek would have beaten Moorer, I can't say you're wrong, 'cause they never met, so we don't know for sure.

[krazyn8tive]

Mayweather
Pacquaio
Hopkins
Morales
Barrera
Marquez

Where are your heavyweights?

[billeau2]

Well as you said that is an opinion right.

And like you are entitled to yours, I think that the comparison is atleast plausible. AS I believe a non-biased reader/researcher will also discover if they bother to check it out.

And I agree we should not lose focus...

Let's remember we are establishing how poor Moorer's record is by comparison to Adamek's (and rather poor in general for a HW champ and quality-wise for a LHW champ as well).

And let's not forget the even larger issue that Holyfield STRUGGLED with this Moorer and even lost!

Let's suppose an unnamed champion boxer from the last 10-15 years, be it either Klitschko or any of the other titlists in that time. What has happened or what would happen when they/had they lost to another boxer whom had never before beaten a really notable opponent up to that point?

We would call him "exposed" and a hype job, not because that is necessarily true, but because that's how the business operates today. 1 loss could label you called a bum, even if it's from a NOTABLE opponent!

But this exact situation is what happened with Holyfield, he lost to Moorer, a guy in light of his previous Bowe fights should have easily been able to beat and who had done basically nothing great beforehand.

And yet you are PRAISING Holyfield for his loss here somehow by pumping up Moorer.

But when it happens t a modern fighter whom you automatically have a stigma about, suddenly you apply different rules!

I say good for the goose is good for the gander!

Virtually 90 percent of your nonsense is based on triangle theory.heres an interesting aside: most novice boxing fans subscribe to triangle theory often imagining they have smelt a fine french cheese, when in fact upo n later analysis it turns out to be the smell of the azz....ahe here is why, it took me a while to understand this as well, some of us may hate it, but when you study boxing long enough you find that styles make fights. There are reasons why a guy like hearns fell to hagler but could to some, be considered more formidable....

There is a very good reason why Moorer beat Holy, he happens to be considered, by a whole bunch of fighters in Kronk gym to be one of the very best technical boxer punchers. Holy could not outbox an in shape and focused Moorer. Holy has real problems against very astute technical fighters at times. This is a mere example of why triangle theory is a novice argument and ALL YOUR BS DEPENDS UPON IT!!

If you look at the entire range of opponets for Vitali, Adamek, and even Vlad it is obvious to anyone with any common sense, it is limited. Lewis fought many types of fighters, sure he didnt fight Sanders but he fought briggs and Morrison, both very good strong punchers with good technical skills. Holyfield has fought all ranges of fighter as well. You cannot compare the two sets of fighters, they are classes apart. and triangle theory does not elevate Adamek, or Vitali for that matter.

[Elroy1]

You lost focus.

I repeat: you don’t have to “win” every debate.

Frank Zappa: “One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds.”

And you will not change Scott9945’s opinion.
Me myself believe Moorer would have dominated Adamek.
But, that doesn’t mean a I think bad of Adamek – I think he was helluva fighter.

And if you say Adamek would have beaten Moorer, I can't say you're wrong, 'cause they never met, so we don't know for sure.

I like and support your bit about changing peoples opinions.

And I can respect your position here regarding Moorer/Adamek for the way you have chosen to put it.

I am not trying to win every debate, I am doing what I always do..

I am fronting up the most damaging phenomenon ever to confront any sport, boxing moreso than all others...

"Nutbaggery"

[Ben Bolt]

"Nutbaggery"

English isn't my mother tongue, so had to google 'nutbaggery' for its meaning.

Live and learn.