Originally posted by JAB5239
View Post
sure you can't gauge perfromance levels for both those fighters in an accurate fashion... problem is you guys are way off on the discrepancy levels between both fighters competition.. I have already shown that cumulative opposition winning % is/was EXACTLY the same... so that means they each have faced fighters with the same success levels prior to fighting them. This is actually a FACTUAL occurence...
THERE'S no opinions involved as to why we think one opponent is a better name than another. Let me put it to you this way.. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT numbers off my head.. but let's put it this way... they've each faced fighters that on the average were 22-3 (not exact number) This is a fact... so only thing that's left for you to do is differentiate the quality of the fighters while they have the same exact record.... & how exactly are you doing this?
NAME RECOGNITION>>> hOW THEY FARED AGAINST THERE OPPOSITION? cHANCES are both Vitali & Lewis comp will have fared the same against there comps.. How many times they were ranked? Rankings are also opinion based. Do Vitali & Lennox not have the same amount of championships.. do they not have similar title defense records..
IT COMES down to what you think of there respective opposition & it's an opinion ONLY>. there's no FACTUAL evidence that a RAZOR rUDDOCK OR a David Tua IS BETTER than an a AREolla Or a Peter... SUre Holyfield is better becaus of his achievements.. Lewis might have a few more recognizable names because of the fact that when he was fighting heavyweight boxing was more on the map than now..
THIS IN NO WAY means FIGHTERS were better.. It's ludicrous to even think that a fighter who dominated less & struggled a little bit more is better or more accomplished than a fighter who has destroyed his entire opposition when they ghave amssed the same record.... same championship achievement & they were pitted head to head Fighter A was clearly the superior boxer. yES wE HAVE TO HOLD ONTO OLDSCHOOL but when someone from the newschool is clearly more dominant.. you have to give it up to them. You might all dismiss all the afctual data & numbers i give you but just know that they are 100% real & is the ONLY thing in an argument that is factual.. EVERYTHING ELSE is left for the barber shop..
You all act as if Vitali IS Some Tye Fields reject or Primo Carnera WAANNA bee.. This DUDE HAS AMASSED these record numbers against the HEAVYWEIGHT DIVISION.. SAME FREAKIN DIVISION.. THAT wAS DERIVED IN THE EARLY 1900'S .. tHE fact that you still can't explain away why he's THE ONLY ONE to amass such lofty dominance OUT OF THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF HEAVYWEIGHTS who have fought in the professional ranks.. I'M SORRY but you're all missing the boat..
When Wilt was destroying the NBA. tHERE was a valid reason as to why he was only doing it... HIS comp WAS clearly INFERIOR to the comp that modern day centers faced.. in size skill & talent (this was factual) BECAUSE it was the beginning of bball. Vitali IS ABSOLUTELY NOT facing the worst comp of alltime amongst heavyweight champions... EVEN THE worst of you haters can admit that.. If he were then that will be a valid reason for his dominance but he's not.. HE'S FACING the most physical heavyweights in terms of size..
SO you can't say HE'S FEASTING on smaller hevyweights than other greats faced.. SO that argument is out the window.. He might actually be facing the strongest heavyweight opposition IN TERMS OF PHYSICAL STRENGTH.. tyPICALLY 230 -250 lbs.. SO all that's left is the perceived talent level OF these fighters & after facing Vitali..
THERE talent qoutients DIPS like the Red Sea parts.. SO WE COME UP with an opinion Mostly AFTER they were destroyed by Vitali.. when theree stock wasn't as low pre Vitali.
Comment