Quote Originally Posted by erics44 View Post

Just a fact that in general bigger boxers would beat smaller boxers, no argument


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.