Ok.... put them on a football field for all I care. For Leonard to win, he has to land something. To land something, he has to come within reach of Sasquatch. Unless Leonard's allowed to throw stuff, which I guess he wouldn't be. Point is..... Valuev would win..... thereby "proving" eric's "brilliant" point that bigger boxers are the better boxers.
Sort of like a hummingbird and a grizzly? Like that you mean?
What's the point here?
Remove Sasquatch is he's too slow for you, and substitute any other mediocre heavyweight against Leonard.
Leonard will still be 20 times the boxer the heavyweight is, but will lose..... thus appearing to prove Eric's asinine point about bigger boxers being better boxers.
You guys are still arguing this point? Obviously bigger fighters would beat smaller fighters (to an extent anyways). That's why there are weight classes.
It's like in basketball. If you are semi athletic and are at least 7 feet tall you will probably get into the NBA even though some guy who is 5 feet tall is way more skilled.
In boxing, that's why we have p4p lists. Obviously chocolatito wouldn't beat Joshua even though he is way more skilled. That's why chocolatito is p4p ranked higher. He is more skilled. That's how boxing has worked for over 100 years. We just accept it. That is also why HWs tend to become more popular because they really end up being the fighters that could beat anybody else in the world because of their size.
With all that said, I enjoy watching smaller weights a lot more than bigger ones. IMO boxing is best from about lightweight to middleweight.
I agree with @Ron Swanson, Leonard would beat Valuev, absolutely no problem.
@erics44, wtf is going on in that head of yours?😂😂
Just a fact that in general bigger boxers would beat smaller boxers, no argument
Doesn't take away from the entertainment of the smaller weights
Think there's a lot of confusion between who is the best lb4lb and who is the best![]()
Officially the only saddo who has had a girlfriend
I'm a masochist by nature and will just continue hammering away.
Try to follow me here:
You said, and I quote, "the best boxers in the world are the bigger boxers"
I tried to explain that just because a bigger boxer would beat a smaller boxer in the ring, it doesn't mean he's the better boxer.
Loads of people tried to help out with that, giving you examples of how that works in real life. You know... the p4p concept.
You countered with confounding analogies about cricket, etc.
I'll try one more time, because I must love pain.
Mythical matchup between Chocolatito and Deontay Wilder.
Chocolatito is several times the boxer Deontay Wilder is. Agree? Please say yes, even if just to humor me.
Chocolatito also weighs about 115 pounds.
Deontay is a big and powerful heavyweight, but an amateurish boxer.
Put them in the ring together. Who wins? Please say Deontay.
Ok, let's go back to your quote. Mind you, I'm exhibiting a lot of patience here.
"The best boxers in the world are the bigger boxers."
Deontay is much bigger than Chocolatito.
Does that make him a better boxer? Please say no, and avoid further embarrassment.
So p4p, Chocolatito is better than Deontay.
In the ring, at their actual sizes, Deontay wins 100 times out of a 100.
Does any of this make a dent in there?
If not, it's probably my fault. I'm not really good at simplifying things below a certain level.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks