george foreman vs. wladimir klitschko

[knn]

The person who wrote this exam uses the same avenues of logic to arrive at conclusions that you do

He doesn't use anything comparable to my logic. I am analyzing records and watching fights.

Basically you argue that today's heavyweight champions are superior to HWs of 30 years ago because heavyweights of 30 years ago never fought against anyone as large HWs today.

No, this thread is the proof for exact the other way round:
Good-old-time-nostalgists basically argue that then-heavyweights are superior to nowadays heavies because they made an impressive performance in the 70ies.

That logic is convoluted, as several others have pointed out.

Yes, people point out a lot, yet beating a 205lbs guy is beating a 205lbs guy. No matter how you try to argue it away.

Yet you compare height and weight stats that you copied and pasted from boxrec.com as if fights that happened in 1965 are interchangeable with fights that happened in 2005.

Excuse me, but this is EXACTLY what this thread is about: A prime Foreman vs a Prime Wlad.

If a guy like Wlad was born in 1940, who's to say that he'd be a 6'6 240 pound guy?

Wrong thread. Wlad won't shrink in the time machine. So either you have a fight of nowadays Wlad vs 70ies Foreman or you have shrinke'd Wlad (= a fantasy-Wlad who never existed in that form) vs 70ies Foreman.

If Foreman was born in 1980, with the benefit of contemporary nutrition and weight training, who's to say he wouldn't be a 6'6 240 pound guy?

This is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the factual existing 70ies prime Foreman vs the factual existing nowadays prime Wlad.

Stop disparaging Frazier by the way. Dude basically fought the primest version of a post-suspension, undefeated Ali and broke his jaw.

That's not a ****ing warrior. That just shows you how limited Ali was, since he couldn't keep an opponent away. Stop arguing how good Ali was by pointing out how bad he performed ("broken jaw" against a half-blind). This is the same inverted logic as "Wlad is so bad because he dominates so much".

[Tmann400]

He doesn't use anything comparable to my logic. I am analyzing records and watching fights.


No, this thread is the proof for exact the other way round:
Good-old-time-nostalgists basically argue that then-heavyweights are superior to nowadays heavies because they made an impressive performance in the 70ies.


Yes, people point out a lot, yet beating a 205lbs guy is beating a 205lbs guy. No matter how you try to argue it away.


Excuse me, but this is EXACTLY what this thread is about: A prime Foreman vs a Prime Wlad.


Wrong thread. Wlad won't shrink in the time machine. So either you have a fight of nowadays Wlad vs 70ies Foreman or you have shrinke'd Wlad (= a fantasy-Wlad who never existed in that form) vs 70ies Foreman.


This is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the factual existing 70ies prime Foreman vs the factual existing nowadays prime Wlad.


That's not a ****ing warrior. That just shows you how limited Ali was, since he couldn't keep an opponent away. Stop arguing how good Ali was by pointing out how bad he performed ("broken jaw" against a half-blind). This is the same inverted logic as "Wlad is so bad because he dominates so much".

hey knn...whos your favorite heavyweight of all time?

[bodyshot]

...still didn't answer my question. keep that head in the sand bro...

[StarshipTrooper]

Honestly, I don't even bother responding to knn's posts anymore: Having any kind of intelligent discussion with him is impossible. Seriously, talking to knn is similar to trying to explain arithmetic to a spastic window-licker; except spastic window-lickers are more intelligent and easy to teach. Posters like knn make me seriously wonder why I venture out of the Boxing History section.

Poet

[-Blackout-]

Foreman by brutal KO

[knn]

Honestly, I don't even bother responding to knn's posts anymore

Pinky Poet got owned once too often, obviously.

except spastic window-lickers are more intelligent and easy to teach. Posters like knn make me seriously wonder why I venture out of the Boxing History section.

In each and every of your posts you use the word "lick" or "*****" or similar.
Heck, even your first YouTube poem is about cigarettes and *******. Do you have a girl-friend?

[StarshipTrooper]

Pinky Poet got owned once too often, obviously.

More like Poet got bored trying to argue with a redundent twat-waffle who parrots the same non-sensicle tripe in every post.

Poet

[knn]

hey knn...whos your favorite heavyweight of all time?

I don't have one and I am objectively neutral except for 1 thing: I will protect nowadays heavies against the 70ies hype machine where it's needed (e.g. in threads like these). If Arreola were #1 and someone would claim that Arreola had no chance against Archie Moore, then I would jump in, too.

And I will bash Ali until he becomes human again. Ali is so overrated and so above everything, that it's not normal anymore. Ali's biggest luck was that there was no rematch against Foreman.

Let me also add, that Marciano is even more overrated than Ali, however he is far less famous and he was far more obvious not a heavyweight, so I don't mention him too much.

[knn]

More like Poet got bored trying to argue with a redundent twat-waffle who parrots the same non-sensicle tripe in every post.

Calling a record analysis "non-sensicle" (lol) is the last line of defense before the mental machinery breaks down.

You cannot fight against FACTs. Calling facts "nonsense" merely prolongs your humiliation. You know I have won if you

• put knn on your ignore list
• try to overlook my posts
• try to reason that "Despite all facts I still know I am right and KNN is wrong.
• try to reason "I'd rather err with Teddy Atlas than be right with KNN".

[StarshipTrooper]

Calling a record analysis "non-sensicle" (lol) is the last line of defense before the mental machinery breaks down.

You cannot fight against FACTs. Calling facts "nonsense" merely prolongs your humiliation. You know I have won if you

• put knn on your ignore list
• try to overlook my posts
• try to reason that "Despite all facts I still know I am right and KNN is wrong.
• try to reason "I'd rather err with Teddy Atlas than be right with KNN".

You can have all the "facts" in the world (which you manipulate dishonestly) but if your premise is bad than your entire argument falls apart ie. is non-sensicle. Try learning the rules of knowledge before you attempt to manipulate "facts" in the service of a fallacious premise.

Poet