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

[SUBZER0ED]

Jennings boxed Wlad very cautiously on the outside, so Klitschko only had to try to counter and box back. Povetkin tried to rush inside Wlad's reach to land a big shot, so Klitschko grabbed, held and leaned on him to negate the attack and wear him down.

[Cutthroat]

1) The win over Cunningham was a robbery. Most had Cunningham winning, as did I. 2) Cunningham wasn't the number 2 Cruiserweight because he wasn't even fighting at that weight any more. It was done at Heavyweight. 3) Yes, Adamek was shot when Spilka fought him. Trying to dispute that is crazy. And I can see you're very crazy.

Chambers, Chagiev and Takam are better victories than Perez. But that's not the argument here. You're saying I consider it a great victory for Povetkin but not for Jennings when I said nothing of the sort. That was created in your head. At best, you could say it was decent for both of them. But Povetkin clearly put on the superior performance. So Povetkin comes out on top with that one, which actually contradicts your point because you're claiming Jennings is either on the same level or better than Povetkin based on their performances against Wlad. Well, here he is performing a lot better than Jennings against Perez. So your argument goes up in smoke.

1. Cunningham got dropped 3x, that automatically gave Adamek 3 rounds not counting the ones that were 10-8. Cunningham had his moments but at the end of the day the knock downs sealed the fight. No robbery.

2. Cunningham was recognized as the #2 in late 2012 (1.5 years later) by ring at cruiser in 2012. He was ranked ahead of Huck due to already beating him.

3. Adamek beat Chambers in 2012 AFTER losing to Vitali. His record was 5-0 before losing a decision to Glazkov & Szpilka in 2014. A shot fighter would not go 5-0.

Takam-Perez literally drew and Perez is Jenning's leftovers, he did it first, Pedvetkin 2nd. Give credit where credit is due.

Adamek beat Chambers, Perez drew with Takam, and Chagaev hasn't beaten anybody of note, he nearly lost to Travis Walker before fighting Pedvetkin and arguably lost to Vyrchys who nobody has ever heard of.

[Sid-Knee]

1. Cunningham got dropped 3x, that automatically gave Adamek 3 rounds not counting the ones that were 10-8. Cunningham had his moments but at the end of the day the knock downs sealed the fight. No robbery.

2. Cunningham was recognized as the #2 in late 2012 (1.5 years later) by ring at cruiser in 2012. He was ranked ahead of Huck due to already beating him.

3. Adamek beat Chambers in 2012 AFTER losing to Vitali. His record was 5-0 before losing a decision to Glazkov & Szpilka in 2014. A shot fighter would not go 5-0.

Takam-Perez literally drew and Perez is Jenning's leftovers, he did it first, Pedvetkin 2nd. Give credit where credit is due.

Adamek beat Chambers, Perez drew with Takam, and Chagaev hasn't beaten anybody of note, he nearly lost to Travis Walker before fighting Pedvetkin and arguably lost to Vyrchys who nobody has ever heard of.

Cunningham did get dropped, but won pretty much the rest of the rounds to deserve the win. Most called it a robbery so you're in the minority.

A lot can change in a year and a half, and it did. Cunningham was no longer a Cruiserweight so it doesn't count on that basis. You don't keep a ranking by being out of the division for that long.

Loads of shot fighters can get wins if they fight the right fights. Morales had 3 wins after the Diaz loss because he fought bums. He then stepped up big by fighting Maidana in a close loss. Had he have fought the worthless bums Adamek did, he would have won a lot more fights.

Again, most had Takam winning against Perez, so you're in the minority here as well.

Povetkin Blew Perez away in the first round, so that's much more impressive than what Jennings did. And you agree because you were arguing that Jennings is on the same level or better than Povetkin based on the Wlad fight. Don't contradict and be a hypocrite now, that's bull****. Povetkin is a much better fighter. Everyone who knows about boxing will agree. Only deranged people wouldn't. Simple.

[Mr Objecitivity]

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/

You need to first avoid making obvious and basic logical fallacies such as 'Hasty Generalization', before you even become qualified to teach me about 'patterns'.

And if anything, it is you who needs to follow your own advice and stop ignoring patterns. Since it is you, who ignores plethora of patterns.

Here is two that you've been exposed to ignore:

1) There is a historical pattern where between two boxers, one performs better against one common opponent than boxer B, but when that boxer actually faces more common opponents that boxer B faced, or faces boxer B head to head, they prove to be inferior. In this case, Jennings having a better performance against Wladimir Klitschko than Povetkin did, which means nothing! Because against the other common opponent (Mike Perez), Povetkin had an astronomically better performance.

2) There is a historical pattern where every past heavyweight champion before Wladimir Klitschko, were all either retired before age 39 or losing to far inferior opponents than Tyson Fury. Ergo, based on that pattern, it's logical to conclude that heavyweights are past their best after reaching that age. But it YOU who ignores that pattern and pretends Wladimir Klitschko was still at his best.

So you've just further exposed yourself, checkmated yourself and dug yourself a hole that you can't get out of anymore. You literally have no leg to stand on anymore.

And at no point did I even claim patterns don't exist, or claim I ignore patterns. That's literally another one of your straw man fallacy. Can you post a single comment that doesn't have at least one obvious logical fallacy?

You started going off on a tangent in regards to 'patterns', a totally irrelevant subject because you know you've been exposed and can't address the previous points made that are relevant to this thread.

Don't think you're going to just get away with such ******ed arguments with me. Since I can see through your every fallacy and will be happily exposing them. Your agenda doesn't work with me!


And Wladimir Klitschko did actually have Emmanuel Steward in his corner when he fought Samuel Peter. Just like he did when he fought Eddie Chambers. But still performed better against Wladimir Klitschko than Chambers did. So you can't make any excuses about Wlad having different trainers.

First round KO's aren't a fluke, if a boxer gets totally dominated from start to finish. Which is what happened between Chagaev and Pianeta.

Who performed better against Wladimir Klitschko? Povetkin or Mariusz Wach? And then who won when Wach and Povetkin actually fought each other?

[Scopedog]

The Jennings fight was a rare Klitschko appearance in the US, I get the sense that he wanted to put forward a decent image so he didn't clinch as much.

Honestly both fights were pretty ugly and I wouldn't want to rewatch either.

[stealthradon]

What is age?
Where does the tide come from? Who made it?
Where does the sun sleep at night?

[Cutthroat]

Cunningham did get dropped, but won pretty much the rest of the rounds to deserve the win. Most called it a robbery so you're in the minority.

A lot can change in a year and a half, and it did. Cunningham was no longer a Cruiserweight so it doesn't count on that basis. You don't keep a ranking by being out of the division for that long.

Loads of shot fighters can get wins if they fight the right fights. Morales had 3 wins after the Diaz loss because he fought bums. He then stepped up big by fighting Maidana in a close loss. Had he have fought the worthless bums Adamek did, he would have won a lot more fights.

Again, most had Takam winning against Perez, so you're in the minority here as well.

Povetkin Blew Perez away in the first round, so that's much more impressive than what Jennings did. And you agree because you were arguing that Jennings is on the same level or better than Povetkin based on the Wlad fight. Don't contradict and be a hypocrite now, that's bull****. Povetkin is a much better fighter. Everyone who knows about boxing will agree. Only deranged people wouldn't. Simple.

Cunningham could not drop Adamek once, if those 3 rounds were 10-8 rounds the fight is automatically a draw, all Adamek had to do was win just 1 more round.

Cunningham not being a cruiser doesn't change what he did at cruiser or the fact that he was the #2 guy before moving up.

You're not making any sense, you're calling Morales' & Adamek's opponents bums but at the same time you're propping up guys like Ola Afolabi who was already losing to actual bums before arguably beating Huck 2x.

I don't know why it's hard to believe when Adamek before even fighting Klitschko, was barely capable of defeating Chris Arreola, was he a shot fighter then? Tell us what sort of special talent Arreola was.

Perez barely trained for his Pedvetkin bout, Robert Garcia said in an interview PErez showed up to his gym a few weeks before the fight drunk asking to be trained. Where are the rest of Pedvetkin's 1st round KO's?

And Takam just got KO'd by Chisora of all people, before that he was in pure survival mode vs AJ. Faded just like he did vs Pedvetkin, actually the fight looked very similar with Takam dominating the early rounds.

[Cutthroat]

You need to first avoid making obvious and basic logical fallacies such as 'Hasty Generalization', before you even become qualified to teach me about 'patterns'.

And if anything, it is you who needs to follow your own advice and stop ignoring patterns. Since it is you, who ignores plethora of patterns.

Here is two that you've been exposed to ignore:

1) There is a historical pattern where between two boxers, one performs better against one common opponent than boxer B, but when that boxer actually faces more common opponents that boxer B faced, or faces boxer B head to head, they prove to be inferior. In this case, Jennings having a better performance against Wladimir Klitschko than Povetkin did, which means nothing! Because against the other common opponent (Mike Perez), Povetkin had an astronomically better performance.

2) There is a historical pattern where every past heavyweight champion before Wladimir Klitschko, were all either retired before age 39 or losing to far inferior opponents than Tyson Fury. Ergo, based on that pattern, it's logical to conclude that heavyweights are past their best after reaching that age. But it YOU who ignores that pattern and pretends Wladimir Klitschko was still at his best.

So you've just further exposed yourself, checkmated yourself and dug yourself a hole that you can't get out of anymore. You literally have no leg to stand on anymore.

And at no point did I even claim patterns don't exist, or claim I ignore patterns. That's literally another one of your straw man fallacy. Can you post a single comment that doesn't have at least one obvious logical fallacy?

You started going off on a tangent in regards to 'patterns', a totally irrelevant subject because you know you've been exposed and can't address the previous points made that are relevant to this thread.

Don't think you're going to just get away with such ******ed arguments with me. Since I can see through your every fallacy and will be happily exposing them. Your agenda doesn't work with me!


And Wladimir Klitschko did actually have Emmanuel Steward in his corner when he fought Samuel Peter. Just like he did when he fought Eddie Chambers. But still performed better against Wladimir Klitschko than Chambers did. So you can't make any excuses about Wlad having different trainers.

First round KO's aren't a fluke, if a boxer gets totally dominated from start to finish. Which is what happened between Chagaev and Pianeta.

Who performed better against Wladimir Klitschko? Povetkin or Mariusz Wach? And then who won when Wach and Povetkin actually fought each other?

1. Where are all of Pedvetkin's other 1st round KO's? Can you list all of them or was it merely a fluke? It's either one or the other.

Robert Garcia didn't even want to train Perez because he said he'd make them look bad, he did.

2. Klitschko stayed in shape, the other guys did not, he does not fit the pattern. Prime Klitshcko is around 240, he maintained that shape into his 40's.

Prime Tyson for example was in the 210 range, beefed up to 220+, Foreman 215 to 250+, Holmes 210 to 220+, Ali 210 to 220+, Lewis 240 to 250+, etc.

Wlad does not fit this pattern as he stayed in shape. It's logical to conclude these fighters faded faster because they did not maintain their physical shape. Judging a fighter based off age alone rather than how they actually look physically is pretty idiotic you have to admit .

[Mr Objecitivity]

1. Where are all of Pedvetkin's other 1st round KO's? Can you list all of them or was it merely a fluke? It's either one or the other.

Robert Garcia didn't even want to train Perez because he said he'd make them look bad, he did.

2. Klitschko stayed in shape, the other guys did not, he does not fit the pattern. Prime Klitshcko is around 240, he maintained that shape into his 40's.

Prime Tyson for example was in the 210 range, beefed up to 220+, Foreman 215 to 250+, Holmes 210 to 220+, Ali 210 to 220+, Lewis 240 to 250+, etc.

Wlad does not fit this pattern as he stayed in shape. It's logical to conclude these fighters faded faster because they did not maintain their physical shape. Judging a fighter based off age alone rather than how they actually look physically is pretty idiotic you have to admit .

1) Where are Bryant Jenning's other split decision victories like against Mike Perez? Can you list them all, or was it a fluke? It's either one or the other.

Where are Lennox Lewis's other eye cut stoppages like against Vitali Klitschko? Can you list them all, or was it a fluke? It's one or the other.

2) Wladimir Klitschko had 69 fights. That = mileage. Not just from getting hit, but from 2 decades of continuous training camps which eventually breaks down and weakens the human body. How someone looks has nothing to do with how they would perform. That's what is idiotic!

What other fighters with 69 fights, performed better than Wladimir Klitschko at age 40 against opponents at the caliber of Joshua and Fury?

If you can't name any, then yes, he does fit the pattern. A boxer's physique doesn't tell us how good their performance is going to be.

It's logical to conclude that Wladimir Klitschko was faded after 60+ fights from 2 decades of getting hit and rigorous training camps.

So where is the actual scientific evidence of Mike Perez's problems? Are you going to provide it, or are you going to continue telling me what his trainer said, which is totally irrelevant.

[daggum]

did someone miss the worst fight of all time with 187 clinches? if you did miss it...great job do not watch it! final warning