Vitali's mythical poor resume pt 2
Collapse
-
No, what I'm saying is that you dis*****g his resume and the quality of his fighters is bogus. He has faced good competition since he has had a belt.It not so because I think it's so. But are you saying that it is impossible to judge fighters?
I think it is clear that Roy Jones was not as good a boxer lwhen he was in his 40s than before the Tarver fights. I think it is also clear that Muhammad Ali, when he fought Larry Holmes, was not as good a boxer as when he first fought Sonny Liston.
There are few facts in boxing aside from who, when and where. But if we can't state the above two points without having it referred to as opinion (which it is) then what kind of discussion can we have about anything related to boxing?
There's lot of pure speculation out there. I think VK would have beaten LL if not for the cuts. That is speculation. One can argue that LL was coming back and would have won with or without the cut; that 6 rounds does not make a fight. But saying that Roy Jones was better in the late 1990s than he was last year (while technically nothing more than speculation) I think approaches the level of agreed-upon-fact.
I proved why by pointing out how he has defended his title by mostly top ten opposition. There's not much else to say or dispute but you keep doing it.Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
Dude, are you serious? 180 lb Tunney?I think Tunney and Walcott would be difficult fights for both VK and WK. I'm not saying that they would lose - only that it would be difficult. I think Schmeling and Max Baer would also be good fights. And you didn't mention Dempsey or Johnson
It's really hard to compare eras. Would you have VK go back in time, make much less money, have to fight when hurt (thinking of Braddock here) and have much different judging and refs. When you got a TKO loss in 1950s or earlier you were taking some serious punishment. Fights were not stopped quickly as they are today.
Or would you have the fighters of yesteryear fight 12 round fights, have 4-8 months between fights? It's hard to compare and weight is not the end-all-be-all. Especially as much of these modern "big" heavyweights are fat and out of shape. Arreola should have been at least 20 pounds, if not 30 pounds lighter when he took on VK.
You lost all neutral credibility you may have slightly have had now.Comment
-
Yea, as long as getting stunned, punch drunk and KO'd means the same as getting tired of talking to a plaster wall.
And as long as facts are bias hating opinions from a clear complete idiot.
You're post is trash.Comment
-
It is quite clear you don't have any idea about Gene Tunney, one of the great boxers there ever was.
It is also quite clear to me once again that your lie about "having watched boxing since the 80s" is also nothing but that; a lie. All new fans unfortunately jump into the weight boat when they can't back up their arguments with anything but.
Weight doesn't make a fight. David Haye fought against a guy 100 pounds heavier than him, the same difference between a heavyweight and a strawweight and still beat him. Willard-Dempsey, Louis-Carnera etc etc are also fights that prove how easily a small guy can beat a big guy.Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment



Comment