Originally Posted by
Master
He is wrong period.
Wlad has been unbeaten in 10 years because the division is the worst it has ever been. The vast majority of challengers are so far below the standard 1990's that he has remained champion for so long. Wlad is a great heavyweight champion and a good role model but he does not clinically knock out fighters until he is 100% they have no resistance. He takes 10 rounds when it should be 5. He has a vulnerable chin and that is why he fights the way he does with excessive holding.
Better science my ass.
He CAN and DID knock out fighters much quicker and more aggressively in the past, look at the record, watch the fights!
Trouble is his opposition got much better and much more dangerous. He probably still could waste most of them anyway but why would he want to take more damage in the process when he can do it without it? And why would he increase his chance of losing to show off? He completely dissects his opponents, then knocks them out. Safely! That is smart science of boxing whether you have a strong chin or a weak one!
Let's say he has the weakest chin of all time (which is wrong but let's have it your way for now Master), basically your admitting that he is so unbelievably good that he can be successful in the hardest hitting and heaviest era ever on record for 10 years straight with a glass jaw.
LOL Which is it?
Well over in Europe, they consider the 90's a bum era. I have heard many Slavic posters make this claim with decent arguments too! Nationally biased? NO DOUBT!
The truth is, the 90's, 00's and now the 10's were VERY COMPARABLE!
Average boxer weight in Holyfield/Lewis era 220lbs. Average boxer weight in Klitschko (combined) era, 225lbs. Similar records. Look similarly good on film. Sorry but I personally see no clear advantage of either era!
Thanks: 
Likes: 
Dislikes: 
Re: Max powerism 101:
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks