Max powerism 101:

**ruthless rocco** · 12-10-2014 12:59 AM

MAX POWERISM 101:

--bigger is better
--newer is bigger
∴ newer is better

There you go @maxpower . Now you never have to start another thread or contribute to another post ever again.

**Max Power** · 12-10-2014 01:09 AM

Screw you Rocco!

I haven't started any threads in months. And shouldn't these slanderous ones be in that nasty little hidden board I stumbled across earlier?

You think size is the only factor I look at when I compare boxers? If that were the case then you could easily refute any argument because obviously smaller boxers can and do beat bigger ones. Otherwise there'd be no point to boxing because we'd know who the winners will be.

But I'm sorry, when discussing the HW division, where you are expressly ALLOWED to outweigh your opponent by an unlimited amount, then proportions become extremely important!

In fact, aside from skill, which is a subjective assessment, weight is the next most important and the first most directly measurable important quality in assessing a HW fighter. It's inescapable.

When for instance, Wladimir Klitschko fought the then only undefeated American HW Ray Austin, there was no height or weight advantage for either, they were exactly the same. So Wladimir must have possessed some other feature that was decisive in this fight... QUALITY.

And when 205lb Holyfield lost to Riddick Bowe, his trainers decided for him to bulk up to 215 for the next fight with Bowe which he won. They did NOT think he should further cut his weight for "speed" reasons!

**ruthless rocco** · 12-10-2014 06:13 AM

Whoops my bad! I over complicated the lesson. Let's start over.

MAX POWERISM 101:

Newer is better.

**palmerq** · 12-10-2014 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by Max Power

When for instance, Wladimir Klitschko fought the then only undefeated American HW Ray Austin, there was no height or weight advantage for either, they were exactly the same. So Wladimir must have possessed some other feature that was decisive in this fight... QUALITY.

I don't think ray austin was ever undefeated.

**Max Power** · 12-10-2014 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by palmerq

Originally Posted by Max Power

When for instance, Wladimir Klitschko fought the then only undefeated American HW Ray Austin, there was no height or weight advantage for either, they were exactly the same. So Wladimir must have possessed some other feature that was decisive in this fight... QUALITY.

I don't think ray austin was ever undefeated.

Well he was.. Until he met Wladimir.

In fact even the draw vs Ibragimov was basically a win for Austin. He filed a protest because they did not score a KD during the fight. The panel agreed, did not overturn the decision but based on findings, is what earned Austin his shot.

**p4pking** · 12-10-2014 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by Max Power

Originally Posted by palmerq

Originally Posted by Max Power

When for instance, Wladimir Klitschko fought the then only undefeated American HW Ray Austin, there was no height or weight advantage for either, they were exactly the same. So Wladimir must have possessed some other feature that was decisive in this fight... QUALITY.

I don't think ray austin was ever undefeated.

Well he was.. Until he met Wladimir.

In fact even the draw vs Ibragimov was basically a win for Austin. He filed a protest because they did not score a KD during the fight. The panel agreed, did not overturn the decision but based on findings, is what earned Austin his shot.

Ray Austin - Boxer

**SugarBoxing** · 12-10-2014 11:25 AM

I want to write a word support to @Max Power

that sometimes, very untraditional way of thinking might be very valuable.

**Dark Lord Al** · 12-10-2014 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by Max Power

Screw you Rocco!

I haven't started any threads in months. And shouldn't these slanderous ones be in that nasty little hidden board I stumbled across earlier?

You think size is the only factor I look at when I compare boxers? If that were the case then you could easily refute any argument because obviously smaller boxers can and do beat bigger ones. Otherwise there'd be no point to boxing because we'd know who the winners will be.

But I'm sorry, when discussing the HW division, where you are expressly ALLOWED to outweigh your opponent by an unlimited amount, then proportions become extremely important!

In fact, aside from skill, which is a subjective assessment, weight is the next most important and the first most directly measurable important quality in assessing a HW fighter. It's inescapable.

When for instance, Wladimir Klitschko fought the then only undefeated American HW Ray Austin, there was no height or weight advantage for either, they were exactly the same. So Wladimir must have possessed some other feature that was decisive in this fight... QUALITY.

And when 205lb Holyfield lost to Riddick Bowe, his trainers decided for him to bulk up to 215 for the next fight with Bowe which he won. They did NOT think he should further cut his weight for "speed" reasons!

That's because you were banned.