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

[Elroy1]

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.

Ah yes the old styles make fight business.

First of all, to make more accurate comparisons in light of this theory (I agree triangulation is very crude, but notably not without it's own predictive value) and should be augmented with this as the next step toward a more accurate formula. To make a more accurae comparison we need to "level the playing field".

We achieve this by observing how fights played out between fighters of similar styles and attributes.

Fortunately, Holyfield and Adamek are extremely closely correlated with respect to nearly everything and to a similar but somewhat lesser extent Moorer with his more abysmal chin.

Unfortunately we cannot compare Moorer to any similar styled opponents to those of Adamek because the guy never actually FOUGHT any good opponents with the qualities of Adameks opponents.

What you CAN say Bill you have me here s that Holyfield and Moorer fought each other but we can perhaps claim that Adamek didnt fight a similar type opponent to himself, although one might like to CHECK that because it is difficult to ascertain at a glance.

However Adamek and Holyfield, the main event here, DID in fact fight similar styled opponents, most notably they fought LEnnox and Vitali.

Basically we have come full circle now, and I can claim that Vitali beat Adamek easier becase Vitali was intrinsically better than LEnnox.

And of course you and the other OTNB will maintain the opposite that LEnnox struggled more with Holyfield because Holyfield was intrinsically better than Adamek.

This is now a stalemate.

Might as well move on to something else.

The point about Vitali's depth of resume I believe has been upheld quite well compared to the nutbag alternative.

For the record I view Vitali Klitschko's resume as being the top 3 of all time.

I DO believe that Holyfield may have fought the better opponents overall, but whereas Vitali domiantly beat the living crap out of all of his Holyfield LOST to many of his top opponents and with a HW record of only 26-10 it is impossible to promote him above Vitali.

You have only a handful of boxers to ever match Vitali in even an achievement sense and arguably Vitali's resume is unbeaten in many categories.

Take Vitali (and Wladimir) out of the picture for the last 15 years and suddenly there are HOF, ATGers GALORE!

Vitali=SuperPredator

[Elroy1]

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

Live and learn.

OTNB "Old Time Nutbaggery"

also described as the American mythology mill or the Nostalgist hype machine...

Is the elaborate hoax created, popularised and perpetuated by the nationalist US boxing machine in order to save face in light of basically being almost totally kicked out of boxing after over a century of dominance.

It is a 2 headed attack...

The oldest method involved insane promotion of ancient great boxers of home origin and holding them to some mythical standard against todays boxers who are shunned in light of those who came before- all this in direct conflict with an entire mountain of crushing evidence and nothing to support the former besides cyclical and self referring "evidence".

The latest attack is recent and is a response to the exposure of OTNB. With the avent of computer technology, we have boxrec and uploaded fight videos so the previous nutbag claims of past greatness can now be immediately debunked.

Seeing the dramatic drop in support for OTNB and its constant decline and realising the end is near, a new angle was needed. NOW we are faced with a new series of American excuses such as...

"We would still have the best HW boxers but they are all playing basketball or NRL now" and a host of other garbage.

These are being used to further debunk the current regime and allows them to postulate an alterntive universe in which their boxers are still good.

This has lately been carried to the extreme by the WBC, basically orchestrating a "Western HW champion" where only American fighters were allowed to participate for it and now is locked down on home soil not to be risked to foreign competition.

Basically a return to older times prior to the 90's where thr "world" HW championship was more accurately described as the "US and British HW championship".

Nutbaggery - defined for you!

[Elroy1]

As an aside, talking about the validity of using "predictive formulas" in boxing, we start with the very simple triangle theory and coontinue to build it up with further notions like styles make fights, and you eventually come to my "MP theory".


MP standing for "Max Power"- another signature of mine on another forum.

This is fully mathematical and has several levels of refinement and augmentations in itself but serves to give the greatest possible accuracy akin to "studying the form" in horse racing and "insider trading" with stocks.

Of course it has had it's own limitations pointed out on this very forum not that long ago even in the Dome.

We then move on to a further addition to MP theory I call the "total quality assessment" which allies to math closely to the video performance. Of course video can be subjective but we can quantify things from video also if necessary.

I try to utilise total quality assessments where possible when giving fighter or match appraisals, it's this big picture thinking that slays OTNB attempts to focus on narrow aspects for its validity.

It should be noted that the notions f HOF and ATG, by their very definitions are totally irrelevant and inferior to such methods based on fact, not subjective opinion. (where possible).

[LacedUp]

I don't dislike black fighters, I like many black fighters. I am a proponent of Mike Tyson and Holyfield himself in actual fact and in this very debate am supporting Eddie Chambers who last time I checked was black!

You come off as absolutely moronic when you try to label me a racist as you will never find any indication in all of my posts.

As for the content of your reply..

Chambers would not last 4 rounds with Cooper..

Yet he managed to beat Brock and Peter and Dimitrenko and went the distance with Povetkin and Adamek and all the way right to the very end of round 12 against Klitschko????

Hmmm, but bum Cooper stops him in 4?

Doesn't quite add up does it!!

And then theres this doozy...

That Moorer would whoop Adamek real bad.

Yes we can clearly see that being the case with such Chambers, McBride, Grant, Arreola and Golota on his win record among others and making to round 10 vs V.Klitschko.

Meanwhile Moorer is getting sparked out clean by George "Send me a telegram to warn me of the punch" Foreman and David "I can't even box" Tua

Again.. Very suspiciously doubtful!

Yeah, because Klitschko has beaten Chambers - Otherwise it would have been the other way around. And that's THE ONLY reason you're saying something positive about him. Same goes for Adamek. Funny that he's not part of your "cruiserweight bum campaign" since he's smaller than good fighters of the past.

Let me tell you something. Eddie Chambers is a very good fighter, he also has a good chin - And he does very well against guys who'll box him.

All of the guys you mentioned, Povetkin, Klitschko, Peter were all better heavies than Bert Cooper, no question about it. But they were all trying to box him.

Povetkin was pretty green when they fought, and won with activity, he never hurt Chambers. Povetkin still had the amateur style when they fought and he fought and threw something like 80 punches per round in that fight. But not like now, when he has bad intentions.

Peter was a bit past his prime, but still very strong. He had lost a lot of quickness and that led Chambers to be able to actually box him a little bit. If Peter was in his prime, Chambers would have been destroyed.

That leads me to Wlad - Leaning, boxing, non-committing, clinching. That happened so much for 12 rounds that Stewart was literally disgusted with Wlad in the corner. That's the only reason Chambers lasted 12 rounds. Wlad could have done what he did in the 12th, in the 1st. But he fights a little like a wimp.

Bert Cooper on the other hand, against someone his own size was absolutely devastating in the first 4-5 rounds. He was quick, and extremely powerful with both hands and went for it. No feeling out or anything like that. Which is why he had Holyfield on queer street in their fight.

I actually watched all of these fights, I watched all of Chambers fights with these guys, and I don't think you did. You sound very much like someone who just goes on Boxrec.

[Elroy1]

Yeah, because Klitschko has beaten Chambers - Otherwise it would have been the other way around. And that's THE ONLY reason you're saying something positive about him. Same goes for Adamek. Funny that he's not part of your "cruiserweight bum campaign" since he's smaller than good fighters of the past.

Let me tell you something. Eddie Chambers is a very good fighter, he also has a good chin - And he does very well against guys who'll box him.

All of the guys you mentioned, Povetkin, Klitschko, Peter were all better heavies than Bert Cooper, no question about it. But they were all trying to box him.

Povetkin was pretty green when they fought, and won with activity, he never hurt Chambers. Povetkin still had the amateur style when they fought and he fought and threw something like 80 punches per round in that fight. But not like now, when he has bad intentions.

Peter was a bit past his prime, but still very strong. He had lost a lot of quickness and that led Chambers to be able to actually box him a little bit. If Peter was in his prime, Chambers would have been destroyed.

That leads me to Wlad - Leaning, boxing, non-committing, clinching. That happened so much for 12 rounds that Stewart was literally disgusted with Wlad in the corner. That's the only reason Chambers lasted 12 rounds. Wlad could have done what he did in the 12th, in the 1st. But he fights a little like a wimp.

Bert Cooper on the other hand, against someone his own size was absolutely devastating in the first 4-5 rounds. He was quick, and extremely powerful with both hands and went for it. No feeling out or anything like that. Which is why he had Holyfield on queer street in their fight.

I actually watched all of these fights, I watched all of Chambers fights with these guys, and I don't think you did. You sound very much like someone who just goes on Boxrec.

Oh BRAVO!!!

You really deserve a round of applause for this one LacedUp, even by my own standards.

Admittedly I stand in absolute awe now, the way you have taken a really good career, made a "positive/negative sandwich" to throw off bias suspicion and then proceeded to belittle all of Chambers achievements in support of a 25 year in the past bum.

Only you could have pulled that off Lacey!

For the record, Michael Moorer and others mentioned for example in this particular episode we're discussing, do not make my cruiserweight bum campaign either if that is what your getting at.

I purely reserve that notion for cruiser sized fighters who would no longer be competitive at modern HW (such as Ali, Louis, Frazier etc)

OBVIOUSLY we are talking about an intrinsically tougher class of fighters altogether.

Of course when referring to someone like Bert Cooper as a bum, I'm doing so completely objectively!

Of course I have seen Coopers fights you bloody moron, don't forget who you are talking to here right!

Suffice to say all one needs to do is a read through Berts record to see his best and possibly only notable win was Joe Hipp! Amongst the sea of losses to everything remotely better than that.

[IronDanHamza]

Where are your heavyweights?

Not included on my list clearly.

[LacedUp]

Oh BRAVO!!!

You really deserve a round of applause for this one LacedUp, even by my own standards.

Admittedly I stand in absolute awe now, the way you have taken a really good career, made a "positive/negative sandwich" to throw off bias suspicion and then proceeded to belittle all of Chambers achievements in support of a 25 year in the past bum.

Only you could have pulled that off Lacey!

For the record, Michael Moorer and others mentioned for example in this particular episode we're discussing, do not make my cruiserweight bum campaign either if that is what your getting at.

I purely reserve that notion for cruiser sized fighters who would no longer be competitive at modern HW (such as Ali, Louis, Frazier etc)

OBVIOUSLY we are talking about an intrinsically tougher class of fighters altogether.

Of course when referring to someone like Bert Cooper as a bum, I'm doing so completely objectively!

Of course I have seen Coopers fights you bloody moron, don't forget who you are talking to here right!

Suffice to say all one needs to do is a read through Berts record to see his best and possibly only notable win was Joe Hipp! Amongst the sea of losses to everything remotely better than that.

I'm talking to the biggest troll on the forum who will do anything to big up Klitschko's resume, to the point of prostituting yourself to gay **** like Yusuf Mack.

You obviously don't know much about boxing and I don't believe for one second you've even seen any of Eddie Chambers' fights, maybe except for Klitschko let alone Bert Cooper and the rest of the heavyweights you've mentioned.

Hell, I doubt you've even seen Adamek's fights.

So yeah, don't worry. I definitely haven't forgotten who I'm speaking to.