I have attempted for some time to get Elroy to make a cogent argument for his statements, so that his ideas might be grounded in some empirical indicator, fact, even anecdotal source. My idea was to corner him and make him reveal this argument if he would not do so voluntarily. Well, it took a while but mission accomplished!
Please find the argument listed below: I welcome any commentary but lets not have any ad hominum attacks please. These type attacks sustain bad arguments, agendas and other such BS. Besides if we take away ad hominum attacks it virtually takes away 95% of Elroy's arguments advanced...So I will make an exception for Elroy, to be fair. And to be clear Elroy's arguments usually depend on castigating the poster and little else.
Heres the argument for posterity
Elroy states that Tyson Fury is feather fisted
I point out that in fact Fury has a KO percentage similar to Vlad Klitchsko's percentage. I also show that KO percentages vary considerably in the heavyweight division, with fighters having everything from 50% all the way up to 95%. In fact, Fury and Klitsko are among the higher percentages in the division with Wilder having the best. I also point out a typical type percentage for at least two active fighters. My point here is to show that according to stats, Vlad is not necessarily such a bigger puncher than Fury. I am not making a statement that the stats should determine the answer, merely that they should show that Fury is not feather fisted.
Elroy discusses "the big picture" and he wants to say in this case that the reason Vlad is such a better puncher than Fury is because of the difference in competition faced by both men....Does this statement sound familiar? its the same statement made by Elroy when describing older fighters compared to newer fighters. Elroy is using the same argument in a different guise: that Fury has not faced the competition that Vlad has faced. The implication being that if he had, his KO percentage would be lower
Now, Elroy has few options to make his point. In point of fact, Elroy does partially concede the point (see Fury Klitsko thread), fair enough... but still wants to push that Klitsko is a big puncher and..More important, that Fury is not a big puncher.
To be crystal clear: Even though Fury has fought common opponents, beat & rocked Vlad on at least one occasion and beat Vlad easily, Elroy believes that Vlad is a stronger puncher because of the difference in competition faced.
The first problem for Elroy is... What else can he claim? Elroy has a belief that he has to justify, namely... There has to be a reason why Vlad is a stronger puncher, unless the belief is false. And while Elroy, like most dogmatic, agenda driven posters, cannot be wrong, the numbers tell a different story about the comparative punching of Fury versus Vlad. When one reasons deductively If a belief is false, then there may not be a way to deduce a reason for the belief! Or, one may be driven to support an argument that is wrong upon closer inspection. But lets look at Elroy's claim more closely...how it is part of the "big picture."
If Elroy wants to claim that Today's fighters are so superior, then how is it that Fury can be fighting such different competition than Vlad Klitchko in the same division? If fighters have evolved so much...how is it that a guy who fought at least a few common opponents with Vlad Klitcho, beat Vlad K, obviously had him rocked with at least one punching sequence,could fight such different competition than Vlad K? With such superior methods, and genetic evolution, can there exist such tremendous variation in the heavyweight division?
For Elroy these variations are not marginal in any sense of the word... Fighters today are so much better, that even fighters like Ali and Frazier skillwise according to Elroy, would get beat by the most average fighter in the division today. And its not just the size of fighters, it has to do with skills as well, training methods, etc. One can infer that these methods permeate boxing as a whole... For example, Elroy tells us "Duran was merely a poor mans Pacquio." Although as we can see when we look at the scale of these exhortations by Elroy it becomes illogical.
Elroy then wants us to believe that within this evolved group, there is such a variation in skills, that one fighter, fighting at the same time as another, in the same heavyweight division, can fight guys with such a tremendous variation of skill that one guy's KO ratio is invalid compared to another. This is despite fighting at the same time, in the same division, having several common opponents, and...the alleged weaker of the two fighters, rocking and ultimately defeating the alleged stronger fighter, by a considerably wide margin.
Elroy wanted big picture, well here it is. It is totally illogical and self contradictory to say that fighters are better today, and then turn around and say that there is such a tremendous variation in skill levels with fighters today. If such variation actually existed, in the heavyweight division, such that Fury could fight such different comp than Vlad, then there is no way that one could say the majority of heavyweight fighters today are better fighters.
The illogical nature of the Elroy's claim comes with the scale of the differences, i.e. the "big picture." For both scenerios to be plausable it would mean that fighters have not only gotten so much better, but, even among these fighters, there is an equally gigantic measure of different abilities...such that in the heavyweight division one guy can have fought guys who are so much better....
First off, how many fighters are there in the heavy weight ranks? enough for this amount of variation? Second, given the superiority of these methods, and given the natural talents of fighters in a given division the amount of variation Elroy depends upon could not exist...Especially considering the other factors...namely that Fury fought common opponents, beat Vlad by a wide margin, and fights at the same time as Vlad.
Fighters are so much improved today yet there is so much difference in the division that two heavyweights can fight totally different levels of competition, with the other facts mentioned is implausible. Its probably logically possible, but not to the scale envisioned by Elroy. From a big picture perspective its a ridiculous assertion, and thats my point.
This thread should serve as proof that Elroy's assertions are not only ridiculous, but logically impossible.
Please find the argument listed below: I welcome any commentary but lets not have any ad hominum attacks please. These type attacks sustain bad arguments, agendas and other such BS. Besides if we take away ad hominum attacks it virtually takes away 95% of Elroy's arguments advanced...So I will make an exception for Elroy, to be fair. And to be clear Elroy's arguments usually depend on castigating the poster and little else.
Heres the argument for posterity
Elroy states that Tyson Fury is feather fisted
I point out that in fact Fury has a KO percentage similar to Vlad Klitchsko's percentage. I also show that KO percentages vary considerably in the heavyweight division, with fighters having everything from 50% all the way up to 95%. In fact, Fury and Klitsko are among the higher percentages in the division with Wilder having the best. I also point out a typical type percentage for at least two active fighters. My point here is to show that according to stats, Vlad is not necessarily such a bigger puncher than Fury. I am not making a statement that the stats should determine the answer, merely that they should show that Fury is not feather fisted.
Elroy discusses "the big picture" and he wants to say in this case that the reason Vlad is such a better puncher than Fury is because of the difference in competition faced by both men....Does this statement sound familiar? its the same statement made by Elroy when describing older fighters compared to newer fighters. Elroy is using the same argument in a different guise: that Fury has not faced the competition that Vlad has faced. The implication being that if he had, his KO percentage would be lower
Now, Elroy has few options to make his point. In point of fact, Elroy does partially concede the point (see Fury Klitsko thread), fair enough... but still wants to push that Klitsko is a big puncher and..More important, that Fury is not a big puncher.
To be crystal clear: Even though Fury has fought common opponents, beat & rocked Vlad on at least one occasion and beat Vlad easily, Elroy believes that Vlad is a stronger puncher because of the difference in competition faced.
The first problem for Elroy is... What else can he claim? Elroy has a belief that he has to justify, namely... There has to be a reason why Vlad is a stronger puncher, unless the belief is false. And while Elroy, like most dogmatic, agenda driven posters, cannot be wrong, the numbers tell a different story about the comparative punching of Fury versus Vlad. When one reasons deductively If a belief is false, then there may not be a way to deduce a reason for the belief! Or, one may be driven to support an argument that is wrong upon closer inspection. But lets look at Elroy's claim more closely...how it is part of the "big picture."
If Elroy wants to claim that Today's fighters are so superior, then how is it that Fury can be fighting such different competition than Vlad Klitchko in the same division? If fighters have evolved so much...how is it that a guy who fought at least a few common opponents with Vlad Klitcho, beat Vlad K, obviously had him rocked with at least one punching sequence,could fight such different competition than Vlad K? With such superior methods, and genetic evolution, can there exist such tremendous variation in the heavyweight division?
For Elroy these variations are not marginal in any sense of the word... Fighters today are so much better, that even fighters like Ali and Frazier skillwise according to Elroy, would get beat by the most average fighter in the division today. And its not just the size of fighters, it has to do with skills as well, training methods, etc. One can infer that these methods permeate boxing as a whole... For example, Elroy tells us "Duran was merely a poor mans Pacquio." Although as we can see when we look at the scale of these exhortations by Elroy it becomes illogical.
Elroy then wants us to believe that within this evolved group, there is such a variation in skills, that one fighter, fighting at the same time as another, in the same heavyweight division, can fight guys with such a tremendous variation of skill that one guy's KO ratio is invalid compared to another. This is despite fighting at the same time, in the same division, having several common opponents, and...the alleged weaker of the two fighters, rocking and ultimately defeating the alleged stronger fighter, by a considerably wide margin.
Elroy wanted big picture, well here it is. It is totally illogical and self contradictory to say that fighters are better today, and then turn around and say that there is such a tremendous variation in skill levels with fighters today. If such variation actually existed, in the heavyweight division, such that Fury could fight such different comp than Vlad, then there is no way that one could say the majority of heavyweight fighters today are better fighters.
The illogical nature of the Elroy's claim comes with the scale of the differences, i.e. the "big picture." For both scenerios to be plausable it would mean that fighters have not only gotten so much better, but, even among these fighters, there is an equally gigantic measure of different abilities...such that in the heavyweight division one guy can have fought guys who are so much better....
First off, how many fighters are there in the heavy weight ranks? enough for this amount of variation? Second, given the superiority of these methods, and given the natural talents of fighters in a given division the amount of variation Elroy depends upon could not exist...Especially considering the other factors...namely that Fury fought common opponents, beat Vlad by a wide margin, and fights at the same time as Vlad.
Fighters are so much improved today yet there is so much difference in the division that two heavyweights can fight totally different levels of competition, with the other facts mentioned is implausible. Its probably logically possible, but not to the scale envisioned by Elroy. From a big picture perspective its a ridiculous assertion, and thats my point.
This thread should serve as proof that Elroy's assertions are not only ridiculous, but logically impossible.
Comment