Curious question here Alex..
On the FantasyFights section you have recently accused me of being "biased", merely for picking a good boxer (Holyfield) over a comparitively bummy one (young Foreman) which is supported by every single line of evidence we could possibly muster (most crushingly, observable and statistical combined).
Yet here you slip Dempsey's name into the thread title as if he were immediately the best guy who could "use gravity" and anybody else is 2nd rate before or after?
How is THAT for bias?
PARTICULARLY when the bloke in question here had a near fully manufactured career even in his OWN era, let alone measured against others..
And of course a few quick video pull ups of Dempsy reveals he was basically a bum who could barely even box! His punches would be considered a joke today against guys like Kovalev's for example!
On the FantasyFights section you have recently accused me of being "biased", merely for picking a good boxer (Holyfield) over a comparitively bummy one (young Foreman) which is supported by every single line of evidence we could possibly muster (most crushingly, observable and statistical combined).
Yet here you slip Dempsey's name into the thread title as if he were immediately the best guy who could "use gravity" and anybody else is 2nd rate before or after?
How is THAT for bias?
PARTICULARLY when the bloke in question here had a near fully manufactured career even in his OWN era, let alone measured against others..
And of course a few quick video pull ups of Dempsy reveals he was basically a bum who could barely even box! His punches would be considered a joke today against guys like Kovalev's for example!
Comment