Why did Jennings perform so much better vs Wlad than Pedvetkin?

[Sid-Knee]

Yes. I don't understand why that is hard to believe when Marco Huck in his 1st ever fight at HW arguably beat Pedvetkin proving he was on his level.

What exactly did Pedvetkin do vs Wlad that showed he was a world class fighter? What I saw in that ring was a 1 dimensional fighter with 0 body work rushing in like a bum.

And you've got it wrong, I never said Wlad beats Lewis, head to head I give Lewis the edge.

Sorry, got you mixed up with someone else. But you are as crazy as he is, you just have different fighters to be biased about.

Granted, Povetkin didn't do himself any favours in the Huck fight, but he still won it. I had Povetkin by 2. Fighters can have an off night. And besides, i'd pick that Huck to beat any version of Jennings.

Povetkin wasn't allowed to anything against Wlad because any time he got close Wlad used him as a climbing frame. Wlad by rights should have been DQ'd for that awful mess. But still, it doesn't mean Jennings is better than Povetkin based on their fights against Wlad, it doesn't work that way. If they were to fight, Povetkin strips Jennings down good and proper.

[Cutthroat]

Sorry, got you mixed up with someone else. But you are as crazy as he is, you just have different fighters to be biased about.

Granted, Povetkin didn't do himself any favours in the Huck fight, but he still won it. I had Povetkin by 2. Fighters can have an off night. And besides, i'd pick that Huck to beat any version of Jennings.

Povetkin wasn't allowed to anything against Wlad because any time he got close Wlad used him as a climbing frame. Wlad by rights should have been DQ'd for that awful mess. But still, it doesn't mean Jennings is better than Povetkin based on their fights against Wlad, it doesn't work that way. If they were to fight, Povetkin strips Jennings down good and proper.

Huck couldn't even separate himself from Afolabi twice and was already stopped by Cunningham at cruiser. Cunningham himself got brutally KO'd by the fat version of Fury. Adamek was better than all those guys and even he couldn't make a splash at HW.

Pedvetkin looked very average vs Takam as well, he started off 0-4 on the score cards were even up until the 8th round stoppage in an all out brawl. AJ on the other hand dominated Takam from start to finish.

[Sid-Knee]

Huck couldn't even separate himself from Afolabi twice and was already stopped by Cunningham at cruiser. Cunningham himself got brutally KO'd by the fat version of Fury. Adamek was better than all those guys and even he couldn't make a splash at HW.

Pedvetkin looked very average vs Takam as well, he started off 0-4 on the score cards were even up until the 8th round stoppage in an all out brawl. AJ on the other hand dominated Takam from start to finish.

Doesn't matter if Huck had struggles with the top fighters of his weight, he's still better than a nobody like Jennings. Huck won world title fights, something Jennings never had the capabilities to do. So you could do that with every fighter in history if you really wanted to. Bottom line though, Huck AND Povetkin are much better than anything Jennings is capable of.

Takam is also better than Jennings. So Povetkin having a competitive fight with him is neither here nor there.

Povetkin has achieved Amateur and pro a lot more than Jennings. Trying to convince me otherwise is just fruitless on your part. If you want to convince yourself a nobody is better than a great amateur and a good solid pro with a much better resume then fill your boots. Be my guest. It's deranged though.

[paulf]

Pulev is still regarded higher than Jennings yet that fight only took place 6 months prior to the Jennings bout. Wlad ended that bout in 5 rounds.

Why did you make this thread? The answer is right in front of your face, but you want to argue around what's glaringly obvious with moot points.

Wladimir. Aged.

He KO'd Pulved because Pulev was there to be KO'd. Nothing more, nothing less.

And Pulev is now regarded higher because since losing to Wlad he picked up three wins against name fighters, albeit shot ones, in main events while Jennings was KO'd in his next fight and then fought three complete unknowns hidden away on undercards.

This is all obvious stuff, but please, continue to argue about it.

[Cutthroat]

Doesn't matter if Huck had struggles with the top fighters of his weight, he's still better than a nobody like Jennings. Huck won world title fights, something Jennings never had the capabilities to do. So you could do that with every fighter in history if you really wanted to. Bottom line though, Huck AND Povetkin are much better than anything Jennings is capable of.

Takam is also better than Jennings. So Povetkin having a competitive fight with him is neither here nor there.

Povetkin has achieved Amateur and pro a lot more than Jennings. Trying to convince me otherwise is just fruitless on your part. If you want to convince yourself a nobody is better than a great amateur and a good solid pro with a much better resume then fill your boots. Be my guest. It's deranged though.

Jennings' group is related to Huck's group as all the best Cruisers moved up lol, you can't call HW trash and try to prop up cruiser when all the best cruisers are at heavy and losing!


Haye, Adamek, Mormeck, Cunningham (already beat Huck) all moved to HW and lost badly to top HWs. Jennings literally beat the guy that beat former #1 guy at cruiser Adamek, Szpilka.


Let me get this straight:
-Pedvetkin is taken seriously after losing in a shut out to Wlad.
-Jennings is dismissed after taking Wlad to a competitive UD.

-Jennings beats undefeated Szpilka & Perez=nobodies
-Pedvetkin beats Perez AFTER Jennings=Great win

-Szpilka beats the former #1 guy at cruiser ahead of Huck=trash

This makes no sense at all. None.

[Cutthroat]

Why did you make this thread? The answer is right in front of your face, but you want to argue around what's glaringly obvious with moot points.

Wladimir. Aged.

He KO'd Pulved because Pulev was there to be KO'd. Nothing more, nothing less.

And Pulev is now regarded higher because since losing to Wlad he picked up three wins against name fighters, albeit shot ones, in main events while Jennings was KO'd in his next fight and then fought three complete unknowns hidden away on undercards.

This is all obvious stuff, but please, continue to argue about it.

How exactly did Wlad age in the matter of 5 months? He was in his prime in December but in May, nope past the deadline?

Pulev was regarded higher before and after losing to Wlad.

Pulev's career best win is over Tony Thompson, after losing his best win has been Chisora not even to 20. He's been fighting the same level of comp. of Jennings who's last couple opponents' record is 63-12

[lolpz]

why did maidana perform better than canelo and pacquiao against mayweather? styles make fights.

This.

/thread

[Mr Objecitivity]

Peter fought Wlad in '05, Wlad was only under Steward's tutelage for 1 year, there is a clear difference in styles between early Wlad & older Wlad which Steward had molded.

By '09 Peter was a shot fighter having been brutalized by the other Klit bro, Chambers still barely beat him by MD.

Robert Garcia said in an interview Perez showed up to their gym drunk (admitted alcoholic) a few weeks until the Pedvetkin fight. Garcia did not want to train him because he said Perez would make them look bad, still he picked him up and his theory was correct. Pedvetkin has yet to KO anyone else in the 1st round aside of maybe 1 other guy.

Why are you insisting on sticking to the same argument, after it's been proven to be fallacious?

It's 'hasty generalization fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty...generalization

You're using one fight, to judge two fighters when both have over 30 fights combined. You do understand, that we need to look at their entire career records and not just one single fight, in order to be able to judge them accurately and non-fallaciously? If not, then you need to take some logic courses!

Predictably, you've made multiple excuses. Wladimir Klitschko only had Emmanuel Steward for 1 year when he fought Samuel Peter? Well then, let me make a counter excuse of my own:

Wlad's wife had post pregnancy depression and was suffering from suicidal problems and thoughts when he fought Bryant Jennings and Tyson Fury. Ergo, that's why he performed worse against Jennings and Fury, as opposed to against Povetkin because he had none of those problems when he fought Povetkin. There's a clear difference in mental sharpness between the Wlad that fought Povetkin, to the Wlad that fought Bryant Jennings and Tyson Fury.

See how easy that was?

Even if we ignore Eddie Chambers and Samuel Peter's performances against Wladimir Klitschko to compare each other. There are plenty more examples. Do want them?

1) David Haye performed better against Monte Barrett with a TKO5 win, compared to Wladimir Klitschko's performance against Monte Barrett with a TKO7 win. But who won between Haye and Wladimir Klitschko? Answer: Wladimir Klitschko

2) Ruslan Chagaev performed better against Francesco Pianeta with a TKO 1 victory, compared to Wladimir Klitschko's performance against Pianeta with a TKO 6 victory. But who won when Chagaev and Wladimir Klitschko fought each other? Answer: Wladimir Klitschko

3) Mariusz Wach performed better against Wladimir Klitschko than Alexander Povetkin did against Wladimir Klitschko because Wach won more rounds, the scorecards in Wach - Wladimir Klitschko fight were closer and Wach wasn't even dropped once, unlike Povetkin. But who won between Alexander Povetkin and Mariusz Wach when they fought each other? Answer: Alexander Povetkin!

Need I go on? Because I can! But more importantly, do you now realize not only how illogical and irrational your argument is, but also how idiotic, childish, foolish and ******ed it is?

I don't care what Mike Perez or his trainer said. It don't necessarily make it true. If you make claims about Mike Perez being drunk, I need actual scientific and indisputable evidence. Otherwise, it's a baseless claim that can be dismissed.

Povetkin only KO'ed Perez and 1 other guy in the first round? So what? What's your point? There is a first and a last time to many things.

Lennox Lewis, for the first and for the last time in his career, stopped Vitali Klitschko with eye cuts. He never stopped any other opponent like that. So what's your point?

Wladimir Klitschko, for the first and for the last time in his career, KO'ed Eddie Chambers in the last 10 seconds of the fight. He never KO'ed any other opponent in the last 10 seconds of the 12th / final round. So again, what's your point?

You're getting exposed here! And I'll be happy to continuously expose clownish arguments like the ones you post.

[techliam]

Another thinly veiled Wilder>Joshua thread

No shame

[Cutthroat]

Why are you insisting on sticking to the same argument, after it's been proven to be fallacious?

It's 'hasty generalization fallacy:


You're using one fight, to judge two fighters when both have over 30 fights combined. You do understand, that we need to look at their entire career records and not just one single fight, in order to be able to judge them accurately and non-fallaciously? If not, then you need to take some logic courses!

Predictably, you've made multiple excuses. Wladimir Klitschko only had Emmanuel Steward for 1 year when he fought Samuel Peter? Well then, let me make a counter excuse of my own:

Wlad's wife had post pregnancy depression and was suffering from suicidal problems and thoughts when he fought Bryant Jennings and Tyson Fury. Ergo, that's why he performed worse against Jennings and Fury, as opposed to against Povetkin because he had none of those problems when he fought Povetkin. There's a clear difference in mental sharpness between the Wlad that fought Povetkin, to the Wlad that fought Bryant Jennings and Tyson Fury.

See how easy that was?

Even if we ignore Eddie Chambers and Samuel Peter's performances against Wladimir Klitschko to compare each other. There are plenty more examples. Do want them?

1) David Haye performed better against Monte Barrett with a TKO5 win, compared to Wladimir Klitschko's performance against Monte Barrett with a TKO7 win. But who won between Haye and Wladimir Klitschko? Answer: Wladimir Klitschko

2) Ruslan Chagaev performed better against Francesco Pianeta with a TKO 1 victory, compared to Wladimir Klitschko's performance against Pianeta with a TKO 6 victory. But who won when Chagaev and Wladimir Klitschko fought each other? Answer: Wladimir Klitschko

3) Mariusz Wach performed better against Wladimir Klitschko than Alexander Povetkin did against Wladimir Klitschko because Wach won more rounds, the scorecards in Wach - Wladimir Klitschko fight were closer and Wach wasn't even dropped once, unlike Povetkin. But who won between Alexander Povetkin and Mariusz Wach when they fought each other? Answer: Alexander Povetkin!

Need I go on? Because I can! But more importantly, do you now realize not only how illogical and irrational your argument is, but also how idiotic, childish, foolish and ******ed it is?

I don't care what Mike Perez or his trainer said. It don't necessarily make it true. If you make claims about Mike Perez being drunk, I need actual scientific and indisputable evidence. Otherwise, it's a baseless claim that can be dismissed.

Povetkin only KO'ed Perez and 1 other guy in the first round? So what? What's your point? There is a first and a last time to many things.

Lennox Lewis, for the first and for the last time in his career, stopped Vitali Klitschko with eye cuts. He never stopped any other opponent like that. So what's your point?

Wladimir Klitschko, for the first and for the last time in his career, KO'ed Eddie Chambers in the last 10 seconds of the fight. He never KO'ed any other opponent in the last 10 seconds of the 12th / final round. So again, what's your point?

You're getting exposed here! And I'll be happy to continuously expose clownish arguments like the ones you post.

Boxers hiring trainers to improve is common & is a pattern that can be observed not just in boxing but in sports in general. I still see you haven't learned what a pattern is smh.

Here is a list off the top of my head, thousands of case examples:
Pacquiao, Cotto hiring Roach to take them to the next level
Maidana hiring Robert Garcia
Lennox Lewis hiring Emmanuel Steward
Tyson losing D'Amato
Golovkin hiring Abel Sanchez

Many of these guys were looking sub par at best prior to hiring said trainers & would become entirely different fighters years after.

You can literally count the amount of clinches that Wlad used before & after, 2 completely different fighters lol.

1. There is an 8 year gap between when Wlad first beat Barret & when Haye beat him, Completely irrelevant.

2. 1st round KO's are generally flukes, a pattern in boxing, again you seem not to recognize what patterns are? I wonder how you do on IQ tests when they ask for patterns? Yikes.

3. Wach performed better vs Pedvetkin with closer scorecards.


Really, I encourage for you to learn what patterns are in reasoning
https://www.learner.org/teacherslab/math/patterns/