Muhammad Ali Responds To Floyd Mayweather Jr.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

http://www.corbisimages.com/images/C...b-82ab58b06cec

Joe Frazier...

http://collegedegreesearch.net/wp-co...B4-Finance.jpg

Calvin Brock.

AS you say... Nuff said!

Since when have asthetics even mattered in boxing?n Lol why do you get on a boxing forum when you clearly DKSAB.

[Elroy1]

Since when have asthetics even mattered in boxing?n Lol why do you get on a boxing forum when you clearly DKSAB.

Come on man..

Calvin Brock was bigger than Frazier and any of his opponents, more conditioned and was demonstratably in another league entirely than any of the 60's/70's champs when it came to skills.

He was the last remaining undefeated American HW at the time he fought Klitschko. It was about after this point that the American public gave up on HW boxing and instead of getting behind their countrymen, decided that they would sell them all out, start to play down the era and the acievements of non-US boxers in it by trashing their OWN boxers as unworthy and retreat into a mythological past that never really happened.

We are not talking about mere aesthetics here, we are talking about a combination of evidence that falls directly in line with "common sense".

Frazier never fought anybody like Calvin Brock..

And he would never WANT to have fought anybody like that either!

Brock.. Whom Wladimir convincingly wasted. Whom isn't even really considered a career highlight these days??

Surely you can understand the discrepancy between nutbag mythology and REALITY is polar opposite here?

[Mr.MojoRisin']

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/BevvhpWPbAw/hqdefault.jpg

http://www.boxnews.com.ua/photos/103...Ibragimov4.jpg

Calvin Brock

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam...-story-top.jpg

Joe Frazier

I can find bad pictures of your fighter too.

Calvin Brock didn't even beat any great fighters. Anyone can look good against bums.

[Elroy1]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/BevvhpWPbAw/hqdefault.jpg

http://www.boxnews.com.ua/photos/103...Ibragimov4.jpg

Calvin Brock

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam...-story-top.jpg

Joe Frazier

I can find bad pictures of your fighter too.

Calvin Brock didn't even beat any great fighters. Anyone can look good against bums.

Ok so we'll forget the funny pictures business then. Admittedly I picked the worst extrapolations there. But suffice to say that Brock was athletic most of his career and Frazier was unathletic for most of his.

The bottom comment I find most disturbing...

Brock and Frazier have numerically similar records at a glance but you wrongly assume FRAZIER'S is better based on his having FAME names, which were popularised by the US in order to generate heroes and money, whereas this became increasingly difficult to do in the era of Brock because boxing had then become a global sport and one in which the US was no longer a hegemon.

The truth is disturbingly opposite...

The resume of Calvin Brock is approximately 100x better than that of Joe Frazier

Based on opponents weight at bout (Brock's record consist of all HW boxers whereas only HALF of Frazier's opponents were HW's!) More accurately, Brocks opponents were an average 25lbs heavier than Fraziers! That's an enormous difference!

Now you might claim that in an individual fight, that kind of weight difference isn't significant but regardless of that debate it can't be denied that over a population of fights like 30 fights, an average weight difference in opposition of that amount DOES convey compelling statistical evidence!

The other factor is the records of the opponents. IT turns out that Calvin Brock's opposition mostly had GOOD records, which they in turn achieved against other more decent opponents than Frazier's opponents opponents.

Frazier by contrast fought mostly bum record opponents with only some decent opposition by record, which they in turn achieved by facing bummier opposition that Brocks opponents opponents.

And that's how to properly analyse a boxing record, not with fame names, but with facts.

It is backed up by video. Frazier looks like **** and so does his opponents. Brock looks good on film and his opponents looked substantially better than what Frazier had.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Ok so we'll forget the funny pictures business then. Admittedly I picked the worst extrapolations there. But suffice to say that Brock was athletic most of his career and Frazier was unathletic for most of his.

The bottom comment I find most disturbing...

Brock and Frazier have numerically similar records at a glance but you wrongly assume FRAZIER'S is better based on his having FAME names, which were popularised by the US in order to generate heroes and money, whereas this became increasingly difficult to do in the era of Brock because boxing had then become a global sport and one in which the US was no longer a hegemon.

The truth is disturbingly opposite...

The resume of Calvin Brock is approximately 100x better than that of Joe Frazier

Based on opponents weight at bout (Brock's record consist of all HW boxers whereas only HALF of Frazier's opponents were HW's!) More accurately, Brocks opponents were an average 25lbs heavier than Fraziers! That's an enormous difference!

Now you might claim that in an individual fight, that kind of weight difference isn't significant but regardless of that debate it can't be denied that over a population of fights like 30 fights, an average weight difference in opposition of that amount DOES convey compelling statistical evidence!

The other factor is the records of the opponents. IT turns out that Calvin Brock's opposition mostly had GOOD records, which they in turn achieved against other more decent opponents than Frazier's opponents opponents.

Frazier by contrast fought mostly bum record opponents with only some decent opposition by record, which they in turn achieved by facing bummier opposition that Brocks opponents opponents.

And that's how to properly analyse a boxing record, not with fame names, but with facts.

It is backed up by video. Frazier looks like **** and so does his opponents. Brock looks good on film and his opponents looked substantially better than what Frazier had.

Calvin Brock fought 66% of his fights against bum records compared to Frazier who fought only 35% bum records

http://boxrec.com/boxer/147

http://boxrec.com/boxer/32493

You need to reanalyze their records because you obviously don't know **** about either of these fighters.

[Elroy1]

Calvin Brock fought 66% of his fights against bum records compared to Frazier who fought only 35% bum records

http://boxrec.com/boxer/147

http://boxrec.com/boxer/32493

You need to reanalyze their records because you obviously don't know **** about either of these fighters.

Again, you are choosing to look at all of Frazier's opponents as real HW opponents.

You need to then consider only those good opponents Frazier fought which were comparable to the era of Brock.

Obviously most of Brocks opponents could not pad up their records with cruisers and subcruisers like the majority of Fraziers did.

You will do the same as guys like you always do for Frazier. Try to sell him as a decent opponent by focussing on small aspects of his record or career, rather than link it all together into a big picture.

He was a bum, pure and simple. And the ONLY reason he is defended at all is because he beat another famous bum, Ali, the pride and joy of the American boxing community.

Were Calvin Brock to be inserted into the 70's history, he would have been unstoppable and you would TODAY be the one claiming that the current era is weak, that the 70's was the golden era and guys like Klitschko and all his opponents could never have held a candle to guys like Brock!

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Again, you are choosing to look at all of Frazier's opponents as real HW opponents.

You need to then consider only those good opponents Frazier fought which were comparable to the era of Brock.

Obviously most of Brocks opponents could not pad up their records with cruisers and subcruisers like the majority of Fraziers did.

You will do the same as guys like you always do for Frazier. Try to sell him as a decent opponent by focussing on small aspects of his record or career, rather than link it all together into a big picture.

He was a bum, pure and simple. And the ONLY reason he is defended at all is because he beat another famous bum, Ali, the pride and joy of the American boxing community.

Were Calvin Brock to be inserted into the 70's history, he would have been unstoppable and you would TODAY be the one claiming that the current era is weak, that the 70's was the golden era and guys like Klitschko and all his opponents could never have held a candle to guys like Brock!

Sounds like you just have a hard on for Brock and other ****ty fighters in general. Whats next, Peter Buckley is the p4p GOAT?

[Elroy1]

Sounds like you just have a hard on for Brock and other ****ty fighters in general. Whats next, Peter Buckley is the p4p GOAT?

No.

I just don't think you can really compare fighters from now to then...

It's just that contenders like Brock would be undisputable champs in other eras for as long as they boxed without any serious competition and nobody else would really even want to be a HW boxer.

Bums today would be champs and top contenders of those eras, I mean the guys that can't even LAND a shot against Klitschko, with LOSING records today, would hardly ever if ever lose in the 70's or prior.

And practically none of the ATG's, HOFers and champs from Dempsey, through Louis to Ali and all in between would be anything but absolute cans in the Klitschko era.

And everybody ****ing knows it!!

It's just hardly anybody has the BALLS to admit it here!

[Easy Work.]

No.

I just don't think you can really compare fighters from now to then...

It's just that contenders like Brock would be undisputable champs in other eras for as long as they boxed without any serious competition and nobody else would really even want to be a HW boxer.

Bums today would be champs and top contenders of those eras, I mean the guys that can't even LAND a shot against Klitschko, with LOSING records today, would hardly ever if ever lose in the 70's or prior.

And practically none of the ATG's, HOFers and champs from Dempsey, through Louis to Ali and all in between would be anything but absolute cans in the Klitschko era.

And everybody ****ing knows it!!

It's just hardly anybody has the BALLS to admit it here!

So youre saying guys like tommy hearns and sugar ray leonard are worse than Ortiz and guerrero for example?

[Elroy1]

So youre saying guys like tommy hearns and sugar ray leonard are worse than Ortiz and guerrero for example?

I think you can stretch it as far back to Hearns and Leonard as being competitive and even championship material on a lb for lb basis in terms of lighter weights.

But any further back than that is ridiculous.

Ray
Robinson for example and Jake LaMotta would be pretty bummy guys today at whartever weight they fought