Comments Thread For: Joshua Hopes Wilder, Parker Wins Gets His Name Near Ali, Tyson

[Elroy The Great]

And Wlad wasnt inactive before Joshua?

Of course it was a life and death fight. Did you not watch it? From the last minute of round 5 to the 8th or 9th round AJ was looking done. Ref would probably have stepped in if Wlad could have landed a few more shots after the KD. Did you not see how wobbly he was?

fury isnt mike and we saw that live. fury was the opposite of mike vs wlad. i cant think of a worse hw title fight.

mike vs the wlad fury fought and he ends wlad within 5 rds.

youre exaggerating the life/death part.

aj got kd. nothing more/less.

[Squ□redCircle34]

Close to Tyson but sorry he wouldn't be able to hold Ali's spitbucket!

Unfortunately i think he loses to Wilder whenever they fight so I don't see it happening!

Now if he beats them all in impressive fashion(not that Takam type win where the ref had to save AJ's crap stamina from burning out) and holds all titles down for the next 5 or 8 years then maybe....Ali!

[Mr Objecitivity]

I can shove 347 peanuts up my ass

nobody has ever done that before

that makes me great

see how dumb that shht sounds ?

WHO, with consideration given to when/how..... nothing else

Actually yes, doing something nobody else has ever done before results to greatness. You're claiming you can shove 347 peanuts up your ass. If you can, then that'd be a great feat. However, you need to prove it first before you can be considered great for it.

Doing something nobody else has ever done before = unique = greatness. Doing something that has been repeated = less unique = less great.

[aboutfkntime]

Actually yes, doing something nobody else has ever done before results to greatness. You're claiming you can shove 347 peanuts up your ass. If you can, then that'd be a great feat. However, you need to prove it first before you can be considered great for it.

Doing something nobody else has ever done before = unique = greatness. Doing something that has been repeated = less unique = less great.

you are talking, Guinness Book of Records-level greatness

which to most people, is utter bollocks, and laughable

who gives a toss how many peanuts someone can shove up their ass

MOST of those records, are beyond ******

people rack their brains thinking up bizarre ****** shht, just to get their name in that book of fools

boxing greatness is completely different

if you are brave enough to discuss ATG-level greatness, then you need to show some respect to truly GREAT fighters of the past.....

1) to even consider boxing greatness, you must level the playing field..... that way you can compare across era's..... WHICH IS VITAL

how you level the playing field..... is you remove all of the dribble/bunk that did not apply to EVERY single fighter since before the great John L Sullivan..... so ABC titles, ESPY's (LOL), etc..... ALL of it..... dump it, because it is dribble

how many world champs you faced during this era may be an impressive record today, but it amounts to absolutely nothing when you are comparing a fighter with guys who fought back when there was only one champ

2) if you remove all of the smoke/mirrors/bling/dribble, it comes down to one thing..... and if you use only one determining factor, you CAN compare across era's

of course, you would have to be an absolute fkn expert who has done a considerable amount of research in order to do that lol..... which does make me laugh at a few comments I see on this site

WHO..... with consideration given to when/how

you CAN apply that logic to every fighter EVER..... and it is the ONLY logic that you can apply to every fighter EVER..... luckily

the only human beings who are truly qualified to discuss greatness have researched/studied the entire field, so they know how highly to rank a particular fighters opposition..... some guys that you/I may never heard mentioned, were bad boys back in their day

[Mr Objecitivity]

you are talking, Guinness Book of Records-level greatness

which to most people, is utter bollocks, and laughable

who gives a toss how many peanuts someone can shove up their ass

MOST of those records, are beyond ******

people rack their brains thinking up bizarre ****** shht, just to get their name in that book of fools

boxing greatness is completely different

if you are brave enough to discuss ATG-level greatness, then you need to show some respect to truly GREAT fighters of the past.....

1) to even consider boxing greatness, you must level the playing field..... that way you can compare across era's..... WHICH IS VITAL

how you level the playing field..... is you remove all of the dribble/bunk that did not apply to EVERY single fighter since before the great John L Sullivan..... so ABC titles, ESPY's (LOL), etc..... ALL of it..... dump it, because it is dribble

how many world champs you faced during this era may be an impressive record today, but it amounts to absolutely nothing when you are comparing a fighter with guys who fought back when there was only one champ

2) if you remove all of the smoke/mirrors/bling/dribble, it comes down to one thing..... and if you use only one determining factor, you CAN compare across era's

of course, you would have to be an absolute fkn expert who has done a considerable amount of research in order to do that lol..... which does make me laugh at a few comments I see on this site

WHO..... with consideration given to when/how

you CAN apply that logic to every fighter EVER..... and it is the ONLY logic that you can apply to every fighter EVER..... luckily

the only human beings who are truly qualified to discuss greatness have researched/studied the entire field, so they know how highly to rank a particular fighters opposition..... some guys that you/I may never heard mentioned, were bad boys back in their day

you are talking, Guinness Book of Records-level greatness

which to most people, is utter bollocks, and laughable

who gives a toss how many peanuts someone can shove up their ass

MOST of those records, are beyond ******

people rack their brains thinking up bizarre ****** shht, just to get their name in that book of fools

boxing greatness is completely different

if you are brave enough to discuss ATG-level greatness, then you need to show some respect to truly GREAT fighters of the past.....

1) to even consider boxing greatness, you must level the playing field..... that way you can compare across era's..... WHICH IS VITAL

how you level the playing field..... is you remove all of the dribble/bunk that did not apply to EVERY single fighter since before the great John L Sullivan..... so ABC titles, ESPY's (LOL), etc..... ALL of it..... dump it, because it is dribble

how many world champs you faced during this era may be an impressive record today, but it amounts to absolutely nothing when you are comparing a fighter with guys who fought back when there was only one champ

2) if you remove all of the smoke/mirrors/bling/dribble, it comes down to one thing..... and if you use only one determining factor, you CAN compare across era's

of course, you would have to be an absolute fkn expert who has done a considerable amount of research in order to do that lol..... which does make me laugh at a few comments I see on this site

WHO..... with consideration given to when/how

you CAN apply that logic to every fighter EVER..... and it is the ONLY logic that you can apply to every fighter EVER..... luckily

the only human beings who are truly qualified to discuss greatness have researched/studied the entire field, so they know how highly to rank a particular fighters opposition..... some guys that you/I may never heard mentioned, were bad boys back in their day

1) In regards to Guinness Book of Records-level greatness being bollocks and laughable to most people. To many people, boxing as a sport is also bollocks and laughable so what's your point? All of that is subjective.

2) As for who gives a toss how many peanuts someone can shove up their ass. Perhaps those who value talent and skills which are unique. One might even ask who gives a toss about the sport of boxing. Again, these are all subjective.

3) As for most of the records being ******. One can also justifiably claim that the sport of boxing and everything associated with it is also ******. Once again, these are all subjective point of views.

4) As for judging boxing 'greatness', I agree. To be objective, one must use a method which accounts for feats displayed and displayable by boxers from every era due to the opportunity being available. It is unfair to use feats which a modern boxer may accomplish which a past boxer hasn't, because the past boxers didn't have the opportunity to achieve such feats. Hence, comparing eras can be futile sometimes because things can change too much from era to era. For example, how do we compare Rocky Marciano's feats against sub modern heavyweights (boxers weighing below 200 pounds) that of lennox Lewis's feats against modern heavyweights (boxers weighing 200 pounds or more)? It's like comparing apples to oranges. We must apply a modern standard and if past boxers don't fulfill modern standard, then the comparison is mostly futile.

5) As for using the criteria: WHO..... with consideration given to when/how. I agree with this. I haven't got a problem with this criteria what so ever!

[black.ink]

Tyson is arguably a top 10 HW of all-time, yet you put the likes of Parker and Wilder in Tyson's era they would be fringe contenders.

You can only beat what is around, but you can not compare this era of HWs to the 70s and 90s.

[aboutfkntime]

1) In regards to Guinness Book of Records-level greatness being bollocks and laughable to most people. To many people, boxing as a sport is also bollocks and laughable so what's your point? All of that is subjective.

2) As for who gives a toss how many peanuts someone can shove up their ass. Perhaps those who value talent and skills which are unique. One might even ask who gives a toss about the sport of boxing. Again, these are all subjective.

3) As for most of the records being ******. One can also justifiably claim that the sport of boxing and everything associated with it is also ******. Once again, these are all subjective point of views.

I am all about the boxing, and care very little about anything else.....

the ass peanut-shoving contest does not even compare with say beating prime Foreman, which was a monumental task that very few could realistically achieve

not interested in any of that other stuff

4) As for judging boxing 'greatness', I agree. To be objective, one must use a method which accounts for feats displayed and displayable by boxers from every era due to the opportunity being available. It is unfair to use feats which a modern boxer may accomplish which a past boxer hasn't, because the past boxers didn't have the opportunity to achieve such feats. Hence, comparing eras can be futile sometimes because things can change too much from era to era. For example, how do we compare Rocky Marciano's feats against sub modern heavyweights (boxers weighing below 200 pounds) that of lennox Lewis's feats against modern heavyweights (boxers weighing 200 pounds or more)? It's like comparing apples to oranges. We must apply a modern standard and if past boxers don't fulfill modern standard, then the comparison is mostly futile.

5) As for using the criteria: WHO..... with consideration given to when/how. I agree with this. I haven't got a problem with this criteria what so ever!

yea, it is the obvious template that historians use

I really like the bold..... GOOD post !!