Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comments Thread For: Dillian Whyte Stops Alexander Povetkin in Fourth To Get Revenge

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sid-Knee View Post

    What???? Scoring fights to determine who has won and who hasn't, is different to looking at a fighters capabilities and how useful they are in a ring. They're two completely different criteria's. But you're trying to tell me you look at fighters "Gifts" to determine who has won or not. Sorry, but that's insane and is in no way a criteria used to score fights to determine said winner. If it was, they'd just film them shadow boxing and hitting the heavy bag to come up with a winner. They wouldn't even need to get into a ring and hit each other. This is why you think Ellis is "Great" based on physical gifts. He isn't, he's just decent. How good you are is based on beaten proven opponents. If you can't beat said opponent, even if your physical gifts are far beyond your opponents, then you're not on the same level. Zab Judah, Andre Dirrell, Josh Kelley are nowhere near to a fighter such as Nigel Benn or Carl Froch. They're ATG's because they proved it where it matters. In the ring. Not based on physical gifts.

    The sword analogy doesn't even make sense. It's easy to tell whether a sword is sharp or not. But to determine a winner in a boxing match, you're going to have to score it round by round using correct criteria. It's why they have judges. Although i don't know why when it comes to fights in the US because they always rip off away fighters. Vlasov is the latest victim of corruption when he clearly won the fight. But that's what they're supposed to be for.

    I never said Ali was dominated by Norton? Why would you think this when i've made it very clear to you repeatedly? How is it possible to confuse my words?

    Who called them bums, too??? Are you even reading my posts? It seems you're taking the same route you do with boxing scoring and not actually paying attention. I said they were good world class fighters with limited skills. Not these ATG's with the best boxing ability as they're cast down as. My argument is them not being ATG's. I never said they were bums. Jeez. Now you understand the frustrations when trying to talk honestly and very clearly. It always goes on a mad one. How, i do not know. But it's always the same.

    If you don't think Foreman and Frazier are crude, then i don't know what to say. They're as crude as it gets. Only delusion and severe brainwashing would allow it not to be seen. It's as clear as day. It's there before your very eyes. You cannot miss it.

    Sorry, but you have no argument if you're not willing to break down who won what rounds. Looking at things such as speed, timing, defence etc etc is a completely DIFFERENT argument altogether. We can get to that after we've debated who won or not. But we need to stick to the one subject and not deflect to different arguments.

    Ali's reflexes were so good you could close your eyes and throw a punch in any direction you wanted, but still hit him square in the face. It's the truth. Roy had good reflexes. Ali didn't come close to.

    You don't want to continue this? I always knew it was going to happen. Everyone runs when it gets to the meat of the subject. People just can't deal with the truth. And with the truth staring everyone in the face as much as it does, there is not a single argument to be made for them. It doesn't stand under scrutiny. it never did either.
    I qualified a long time back that I did not claim a fighter won or lost based on evaluating their skills, I simply said I do not enjoy scoring fights, I would rather watch for other things. I also mentioned that scoring is subjective, people tend to see what they want to see. You seem to be projecting what you consider to be significant. Scoring a fight does not speak to looking at many things a figher does in a ring, some people like to sit and tally scores, not what I like to look at. Its not that complicated. We all tally rounds haphhazerdly when watching a match, do you sit down every round and score it? If you do, great, not what interests me.

    You have made all these assumptions here. I don't really want to go through and deconstruct them... Many people who look at fights don't focus primarily on judging the amount of punches thrown a round, make it easy and leave it at that, or don't... Ali and Norton fought at a level where they were competative with each other. My point was I don't have to score each fight to make that determination. Having watched those fights some time ago I was content to leave it at that, and not go back and score each fight. I could, its not worth my time and effort. Thats my point. Simple.

    You called Foreman and Frazier a bum no? lol.

    Ok so you think I have no argument unless I score the fights, and I think you ought to note observable skills from fighters you seek to evaluate... cool. No I don't want to continue this... You have wagered opinions, questioned different ways fighters are evaluated, are unwilling to look and categorize skills, what purpose would it serve? Apparently you also think that scoring rounds is a Must.. regardless of what one seeks to evaluate. Bless you lol. I really have no need to change opinions. Im not here to convince anyone, rather to weight in. If you had something compelling to add, I might be willing to score fights, but I don't see it...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by billeau2 View Post

      I qualified a long time back that I did not claim a fighter won or lost based on evaluating their skills, I simply said I do not enjoy scoring fights, I would rather watch for other things. I also mentioned that scoring is subjective, people tend to see what they want to see. You seem to be projecting what you consider to be significant. Scoring a fight does not speak to looking at many things a figher does in a ring, some people like to sit and tally scores, not what I like to look at. Its not that complicated. We all tally rounds haphhazerdly when watching a match, do you sit down every round and score it? If you do, great, not what interests me.

      You have made all these assumptions here. I don't really want to go through and deconstruct them... Many people who look at fights don't focus primarily on judging the amount of punches thrown a round, make it easy and leave it at that, or don't... Ali and Norton fought at a level where they were competative with each other. My point was I don't have to score each fight to make that determination. Having watched those fights some time ago I was content to leave it at that, and not go back and score each fight. I could, its not worth my time and effort. Thats my point. Simple.

      You called Foreman and Frazier a bum no? lol.

      Ok so you think I have no argument unless I score the fights, and I think you ought to note observable skills from fighters you seek to evaluate... cool. No I don't want to continue this... You have wagered opinions, questioned different ways fighters are evaluated, are unwilling to look and categorize skills, what purpose would it serve? Apparently you also think that scoring rounds is a Must.. regardless of what one seeks to evaluate. Bless you lol. I really have no need to change opinions. Im not here to convince anyone, rather to weight in. If you had something compelling to add, I might be willing to score fights, but I don't see it...
      When the subject is "Who won what fights and such" then yes, you're supposed to score the rounds and come to a conclusion. We then discuss to see if our scoring make sense or not by delving into the facts and what not. I don't look at how pretty Lewis Hamilton's car is and how fast it goes to determine whether he won a race or not. That would be backwards in any sane person's book and would have people laugh at me. Especially when you're disagreeing on who actually won between Norton and Ali.

      Where do i claim Frazier and Foreman are bums? Please point this out to me?

      You're really all over the place here. At first you claimed Ellis was great and disagreed with me on how good he was, then you agreed with me by claiming he was just a decent fighter after all. You're coming up with analogies that really don't make any sense what so ever. You're claiming i'm saying things when i'm not. You're saying things that i'm pointing out to you, only for you to then claim you didn't say it. That's why i asked "Are you even reading what i'm writing, because it looks to me you're not". Sorry, but this is a strange discussion if i'm being honest. If you were a troll just trying to mess with my head, then it would make sense. But if you're actually being serious, then i'm sorry but i'm going to have to point it out. It's like you telling me that a movie i watched is wrong with my description of scenes that took place in said film. I then ask what you think is wrong, only for you come up with scenes that didn't even happen is said movie. In fact, you're talking about a different movie and genre altogether. You then claim you didn't actually watch the movie i'm talking about, but rubbed some pineapples on yourself and had it revealed what happened in said movie without even watching the damn thing. So yes, that's crazy with the subject matter we're discussing here.

      Look, lets keep it simple. OK?

      Lets leave Norton alone. We agree on Young, so it's cool.

      Who did you have winning in the Shavers/Ali fight? I had Shavers by 2 points. Agree? Disagree?
      REDEEMER likes this.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sid-Knee View Post

        When the subject is "Who won what fights and such" then yes, you're supposed to score the rounds and come to a conclusion. We then discuss to see if our scoring make sense or not by delving into the facts and what not. I don't look at how pretty Lewis Hamilton's car is and how fast it goes to determine whether he won a race or not. That would be backwards in any sane person's book and would have people laugh at me. Especially when you're disagreeing on who actually won between Norton and Ali.

        Where do i claim Frazier and Foreman are bums? Please point this out to me?

        You're really all over the place here. At first you claimed Ellis was great and disagreed with me on how good he was, then you agreed with me by claiming he was just a decent fighter after all. You're coming up with analogies that really don't make any sense what so ever. You're claiming i'm saying things when i'm not. You're saying things that i'm pointing out to you, only for you to then claim you didn't say it. That's why i asked "Are you even reading what i'm writing, because it looks to me you're not". Sorry, but this is a strange discussion if i'm being honest. If you were a troll just trying to mess with my head, then it would make sense. But if you're actually being serious, then i'm sorry but i'm going to have to point it out. It's like you telling me that a movie i watched is wrong with my description of scenes that took place in said film. I then ask what you think is wrong, only for you come up with scenes that didn't even happen is said movie. In fact, you're talking about a different movie and genre altogether. You then claim you didn't actually watch the movie i'm talking about, but rubbed some pineapples on yourself and had it revealed what happened in said movie without even watching the damn thing. So yes, that's crazy with the subject matter we're discussing here.

        Look, lets keep it simple. OK?

        Lets leave Norton alone. We agree on Young, so it's cool.

        Who did you have winning in the Shavers/Ali fight? I had Shavers by 2 points. Agree? Disagree?
        Ill look at the Shavers fight again later... That fight is more to my liking. Ill weight in.

        Ellis was not great, he was excellent though... Excellent all rounded fighter, quality through and through...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by billeau2 View Post

          Ill look at the Shavers fight again later... That fight is more to my liking. Ill weight in.

          Ellis was not great, he was excellent though... Excellent all rounded fighter, quality through and through...
          OK, so you had Shavers taking it? I thought it was a very easy fight to score due to not that many punches being thrown and nothing much going on with the inside work with them both just throwing non stop punches at each other and making it harder to score.

          Patterson?? I never saw him beat a single good world class fighter when he was in his prime, but by the time he fought Ali, he was done. What says you?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sid-Knee View Post

            OK, so you had Shavers taking it? I thought it was a very easy fight to score due to not that many punches being thrown and nothing much going on with the inside work with them both just throwing non stop punches at each other and making it harder to score.

            Patterson?? I never saw him beat a single good world class fighter when he was in his prime, but by the time he fought Ali, he was done. What says you?
            Keep something in mind, as this applies regarding Patterson and most heavyweight Champs. Many times a great fighter does not have a fellow great, while in prime to compete with. It has to do with averages concerning the weight of most human beings. In a nutshell, because there are more people in the middle weight classes range of weight, there will be many more talented Fighters in those divisions. For example, in Thailand the heavyweight champion for Thai boxing it's not even considered relevant. The champ is the middleweight title holder.

            so you will see many great Fighters in the heavyweight division who never faced the fellow greats. Now specifically regarding Patterson, I think Patterson had a lot of gifts but I think his chin and his size ultimately could be exploited virtually at any time by another great fighter. I say great, but not atG great...Patterson had Lightning Fast combos, he was tough, and a pretty good chin.

            Patterson was past it, pretty much with Liston,, who regardless never would beat... by the time we are talking Ali...lol. I call Patterson great because he was the youngest champ for a while in the heavyweights. He also did have some great technical abilities. But most historians do not consider Patterson an atg. I certainly don't.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sid-Knee View Post

              When the subject is "Who won what fights and such" then yes, you're supposed to score the rounds and come to a conclusion. We then discuss to see if our scoring make sense or not by delving into the facts and what not. I don't look at how pretty Lewis Hamilton's car is and how fast it goes to determine whether he won a race or not. That would be backwards in any sane person's book and would have people laugh at me. Especially when you're disagreeing on who actually won between Norton and Ali.

              Where do i claim Frazier and Foreman are bums? Please point this out to me?

              You're really all over the place here. At first you claimed Ellis was great and disagreed with me on how good he was, then you agreed with me by claiming he was just a decent fighter after all. You're coming up with analogies that really don't make any sense what so ever. You're claiming i'm saying things when i'm not. You're saying things that i'm pointing out to you, only for you to then claim you didn't say it. That's why i asked "Are you even reading what i'm writing, because it looks to me you're not". Sorry, but this is a strange discussion if i'm being honest. If you were a troll just trying to mess with my head, then it would make sense. But if you're actually being serious, then i'm sorry but i'm going to have to point it out. It's like you telling me that a movie i watched is wrong with my description of scenes that took place in said film. I then ask what you think is wrong, only for you come up with scenes that didn't even happen is said movie. In fact, you're talking about a different movie and genre altogether. You then claim you didn't actually watch the movie i'm talking about, but rubbed some pineapples on yourself and had it revealed what happened in said movie without even watching the damn thing. So yes, that's crazy with the subject matter we're discussing here.

              Look, lets keep it simple. OK?

              Lets leave Norton alone. We agree on Young, so it's cool.

              Who did you have winning in the Shavers/Ali fight? I had Shavers by 2 points. Agree? Disagree?
              “You're claiming i'm saying things when i'm not. You're saying things that i'm pointing out to you, only for you to then claim you didn't say it”


              Silly Billy got you to ? That’s that posters signature move , just don’t make a ban bet with him the forum won’t comply when he loses .

              Comment


              • Originally posted by billeau2 View Post

                Keep something in mind, as this applies regarding Patterson and most heavyweight Champs. Many times a great fighter does not have a fellow great, while in prime to compete with. It has to do with averages concerning the weight of most human beings. In a nutshell, because there are more people in the middle weight classes range of weight, there will be many more talented Fighters in those divisions. For example, in Thailand the heavyweight champion for Thai boxing it's not even considered relevant. The champ is the middleweight title holder.

                so you will see many great Fighters in the heavyweight division who never faced the fellow greats. Now specifically regarding Patterson, I think Patterson had a lot of gifts but I think his chin and his size ultimately could be exploited virtually at any time by another great fighter. I say great, but not atG great...Patterson had Lightning Fast combos, he was tough, and a pretty good chin.

                Patterson was past it, pretty much with Liston,, who regardless never would beat... by the time we are talking Ali...lol. I call Patterson great because he was the youngest champ for a while in the heavyweights. He also did have some great technical abilities. But most historians do not consider Patterson an atg. I certainly don't.
                Many people make comments in North America about how bad this era or another is without actually knowing how bad the eras of the past actually are. When you know what you're looking at, you see just how dead they really were.

                I don't even consider Patterson to be a good fighter. Yeah, he had skills, But skills aren't where you prove yourself. Beating other world level fighters is. But not only that, he was yet another who came from a much lower weight. Clearly showing how bad the era was at Heavyweight. He fought what i suppose was a decent fighter in Johansson, but he most certainly wasn't world level. And yet, he lost to him. This was while ducking Liston because he and Cus didn't believe for a second he could win. They were right. Because when he did finally pluck up the courage to get in there with Liston, he was taken out in 1 round. Then again in the first round in the rematch. At no point did he fight and win against anyone remotely world class. When he did, he lost.

                But when it came to fighting Ali, not only had he not proven himself world level regardless of once having the title, but he was well past it. Do you agree the win for Ali over Patterson twice meant nothing? Or do you think it was a world level win, and therefore a good win? You don't make it clear?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sid-Knee View Post

                  Many people make comments in North America about how bad this era or another is without actually knowing how bad the eras of the past actually are. When you know what you're looking at, you see just how dead they really were.

                  I don't even consider Patterson to be a good fighter. Yeah, he had skills, But skills aren't where you prove yourself. Beating other world level fighters is. But not only that, he was yet another who came from a much lower weight. Clearly showing how bad the era was at Heavyweight. He fought what i suppose was a decent fighter in Johansson, but he most certainly wasn't world level. And yet, he lost to him. This was while ducking Liston because he and Cus didn't believe for a second he could win. They were right. Because when he did finally pluck up the courage to get in there with Liston, he was taken out in 1 round. Then again in the first round in the rematch. At no point did he fight and win against anyone remotely world class. When he did, he lost.

                  But when it came to fighting Ali, not only had he not proven himself world level regardless of once having the title, but he was well past it. Do you agree the win for Ali over Patterson twice meant nothing? Or do you think it was a world level win, and therefore a good win? You don't make it clear?
                  Ali was way more capable than Patterson at that time, primarily because Patterson was past it. Most boxing people do not think these fights with Patterson meant much. Actually, Patterson wanted to fight Liston... People around him were trying to prevent the fight... even president Kennedy weighed in asking him not to take on Liston lol. "World class" is relative. Patterson came to his reign at a time when the division was weak. Like I said, there are many times the division was lacking. At his best Patterson had some of the fastest hands at heavyweight but did not have the size, or strength. He was courageous though, much to his detriment. there was no way he was going to beat Liston and everyone,but him knew that.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by billeau2 View Post

                    Ali was way more capable than Patterson at that time, primarily because Patterson was past it. Most boxing people do not think these fights with Patterson meant much. Actually, Patterson wanted to fight Liston... People around him were trying to prevent the fight... even president Kennedy weighed in asking him not to take on Liston lol. "World class" is relative. Patterson came to his reign at a time when the division was weak. Like I said, there are many times the division was lacking. At his best Patterson had some of the fastest hands at heavyweight but did not have the size, or strength. He was courageous though, much to his detriment. there was no way he was going to beat Liston and everyone,but him knew that.
                    OK, so we agree it didn't mean anything.

                    What about Frazier in the Ali rematch? How good a win do you think this was? Frazier had been destroyed by Foreman not that long ago, and didn't actually go on to do anything worthwhile after that loss. Do you rate it? If so, how much do you rate it?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by billeau2 View Post

                      People should really put themselves in Povetkin's place... Your a tough, able mensch... and you have a family to support... Who will put Borscht on the table? I had a Sensei who has since left us who used to make it absolute that before doing any disarm to put yourself in as the weapon holder... You could throw out 95% of the crap that went for legit technique lol. I doubt anyone here would not have taken this fight lol.
                      Povetkin lost as I expected but he got the best payday outside a title fight . He wanted the rematch and was bonded to a contract . Why posters didn’t understand that is just normal around here .
                      billeau2 likes this.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP