TYPICAL REPROACHES TO MY BOXING BLOG
You have the right to write insults in your comments ("greatest pile of cr*p", "you racist", "this site is a joke", "You know nothing about boxing", "How can you call yourself a boxing fan?", "Follow another sport", "What drugs are you taking?", "Find yourself another hobby", …) but please know
- that I heard them all before
- that they will only prove my point, especially if you are a Briton/American
- that they won't change anything I write on this site. I will only change something if you have a VALID argument. And I am open to arguments.
"You are a Klitschko nut hugger"
I am not.
I merely like modern heavyweight boxers.
It just so happens that the Klitschkos were the current champs when I started this blog. Had this blog been written in Lennox Lewis times I would have defended Lennox Lewis.
Aside from my general attitude ("Modern boxers are underrated, yesteryear's boxers are overrated") you can not conclude from any article whether I like or dislike any boxer. When I write that "the Klitschkos are the best KO'ers of all time" it's merely a result of the analysis of their KO'statistics. When I write "Riddick Bowe had an incredible jab", then it doesn't mean that I like Riddick Bowe. When I write "Joe Frazier was a featherfist" then it doesn't mean that I dislike Joe Frazier.
"This blog has only one purpose: To diminish the achievements of Muhammad Ali and the boxers of the past"
I spread objective information about Ali and past time boxers (statistics, records, facts, quotes).
If that diminishes these boxers, then so be it.
Whenever I mention subjective (= personal) opinions then I say it so ("It seems…", "in my opinion…", "I have the theory that…", "Possibly…", "Probably…" etc).
But, yes, if you ask me personally then I think that Ali is overrated.
And I think AliFans are extremists as I wrote at Of Klitards and CLAYtons. This is the most retarded boxing blog ever and I won't bother to read it!.
"Stats don't tell the whole story!"
"The Klitschkos haven't beaten one opponent worth cr*p"
A typical reproach against my analyses is to shout "Stats! Stats! Stats! Your stats don't tell the whole story".
Well, fortunately for me "Stats! Stats! Stats!" are "Facts! Facts! Facts!" thus anyone complaining about statistics is complaining about reality ("Arithmetic is not an opinion").
It's true, that a statistic like "1 KO in 1 fight = 100% KO'ratio" is ridiculous but a record of 30, 40, 50 and more fights _IS_ representative. You _CAN_ deduct things from it. You _CAN_ interpret it correctly.
"Everybody can lie with stats"
Another variation of "Stats don't tell the whole story" is "Statistics can lie" or "Liars can use shoddy statistics to prove anything they want" or "You use distorted stats to prove your biased point".
Well, if it's so easy to bend facts and lie with statistics then please be my guest.
I am waiting for stat-based rebuttals to my conclusions.
But please know that I have exposed boxing fans since years to these statistics and they haven't come up with ONE valid counter argument. So far the only things they could come up with (if they happen to disagree with me) was
- "You suck", "Hahaha", "Every expert knows that you are wrong"
- Accuse me of manipulating stats (this accusation usually comes by good-old-time nostalgists, who can't believe how past boxers' records diminish when scrutinized)
- Use cherry-pick statistics and thimblerig tricks, see Of Klitards and CLAYtons. This is the most retarded boxing blog ever and I won't bother to read it!
- Use yawn-inducing counter proofs like "I know somebody who has a higher KO'ratio than the Klitschkos: A boxer with 1 KO in 1 fights"
"Eric Esch Butterbean is the greatest boxer of all time!"
Another variation of "Stats don't tell the whole story" is "If stats told the whole story then Eric Esch Butterbean would be ATG".
The "Butterbean argument" is always used as an example of a superb record (on paper) but terrible record (when scrutinized).
And I agree:
If you ever happen to try to invent a formula (or an automatic algorithm) to calculate a boxer's value based on his record then your formula has to correctly assess special cases like
and has to rank them where it makes sense.
I solved the problem mainly by the introduction of "bums" and "non-bums" which follow a strict mathematical and logical definition:
As soon as you delete bums[?] off the record (either the record of the boxer or the records of his opponents) everything mystically falls into place: The record without bums shows immediately why Lennox Lewis has a good record and why Eric Esch (despite his fantastic seeming record of 77-8) can never overtake greats like ·Joe Louis and others.
Additionally I never ever rely on a single statistic. I would never claim "Boxer X is better than Boxer Y because his KO'ratio is the best of the world". Just like Google uses dozens of parameters to assess the significance of a web page, I rely on multiple statistics to analyze a record.
"A win is a win is a win" -OR- "KO'ing proves nothing"
Especially AliFans may point out that "KO'ratios don't matter, as long as one wins".
AliFans do it for 2 reasons:
- They don't want to accept that Ali would be hardly any threat for modern boxers. Please read Of Klitards and CLAYtons. This is the most retarded boxing blog ever and I won't bother to read it! and Muhammad Ali vs Wladimir Klitschko – Fact-based analysis and prediction. Additionally if one makes "punching power" a valuable asset Ali instantly loses the ranking.
- They consider brawling a "better style" than KO'ing. Please read Wladimir Klitschko sucks because he KOs his opponents: "Chin > Fists."
Therefore a typical AliFan will claim that KO'ratio is a rather irrelevant statistic.
However, usually when someone has complaints such as "Stats don't tell the whole story" he is not complaining in the sense of "50 fights are too inconclusive to make an assessment".
Instead he is trying to HIDE facts.
Especially good-old-time nostalgists HATE facts. They love to live in Myth Land (where Prime George Foreman is actually heavy, Tyson has no losses and Ali has scored more than 5 KOs (FIVE!) in the whole decade of the 1970ies (within 12 rounds in real heavyweight fights).
And they LOVE to claim that "fame > real-world achievements". You will find that they often use "glorious fame instead of boring facts" as the final killer argument that supersedes every argument:
- "all your blah blah stats and blah blah blah percentages couldnt even come up with one=====one==== one dam fight [of the Klitschkos] worth crap"
- "stats is not boxing, big fights is boxing, historical fights is boxing"
- "you can blow all day long with your percentages and anatomical record break downs but know, Vitali Klitschko nor Wladimir Klitschko will ever reach the top of those who land marked boxing with land mark wins"
- "with all your stats and percentages, can you give me one fight… worth the great stage- thrilla in manilla, maxy and joe, rock and walcott, rumble in the jungle, bear vs braddock"
- (all original quotes)
In other words: As the last resort they try to devalue facts by claiming that "nobody has ever heard of these opponents" and that no one ever "saw a Klitschko fight on the front page" while "the real greats have famous fights" and "Ali will always be remembered as the greatest no matter what achievements future boxers will achieve".
Welcome to Orwell's world:
- "Fame is Quality"
- "Hype is Proof"
- "1 fight tells you more than 49 fights"
- "Don't watch! Listen!"
- "Nostalgia is the essence of truth"
- "The past! The past! The glorious past!"
And the sad truth is that past-time boxers are SO OVERHYPED that NOBODY can ever name a famous MODERN boxer because in the USA even Ali's bum opponents (e.g. ·Jimmy Young, 34-19) are more famous than modern boxers.
Thus the TYPICAL response of Americans and Britons regarding modern boxers is…
- "Who the heck is that?"
- "Haha, THAT guy? That guy is a bum!"
- "Please do us a favour and name ONE, just ONE, opponent worth mentioning and not the bums that he usually fights"
- (and if they don't want to call modern boxers bums:) "Ali beat several Hall of Famers while there is nobody like that on Klitschkos record", which I mention at Of Klitards and CLAYtons. This is the most retarded boxing blog ever and I won't bother to read it!.
Aside from Ali also Mike Tyson fans love to dwell in names:
"wlad is not even half the destroyer tyson was————-not to mention that wlad's oppositon isnt chit compared to tyson's========tyson dealt with razor [with whom Tyson went full 12 rounds], holyfield [whom Tyson lost to twice], douglas [who KO'ed Tyson],lennox [who KO'ed Tyson] and whatever–wlad doesnt have one dam name worth chit to his reusme"
Thus the "fame-name argument" is indeed a killer argument which EVERY modern boxer will always lose because America's Mythology Mill of the 1970s did a magnificent job of fabricating… NAMES.
Thus it's extremely important to stick to facts and to always remember
Everyone can have a fame-name and be it only for having a big mouth
Ali (and his opponents) are so ridiculously overhyped that NOT EVEN other US-AMERICAN boxers are considered to be a worthy comparison. In such an environment disregard and hate for ex-Soviet boxers are the default:
"Ali stops Wladimir on friday night, then pitches a shut out against Vitali on saturday!"
Kevin Rooney, Jr., boxer and son of Mike Tyson's trainer
"Klitchkos wouldn't lay a hand on Ali. If he did nothing, nothing would happen!"
Rick Scharmberg, box journalist
"Blasphemous!" Then walked away like I said a bad word!
Henry "Discombobulated" Jones, ring announcer, reacting to the question whether Klitschko could beat Ali.
To even consider Ali being beat by a modern heavyweight is unthinkable. When you talk about Ali you talk about the untouchable king above kings during the time of the supremacy of 1970s boxers.
The HAWAI lie ("Height And Weight Are Irrelevant")
The cascade of excuses
There is a typical sequence of reproaches. I call this "cascade of excuses".
Sometimes some excuses are skipped, but overall a talk with American/British boxing fans goes like this:
Typical first reactions:
"Haha, you know sh*t about boxing. What a bunch of cr*p!"
"Go find yourself another hobby"
"I began to laugh when you wrote that…"
"I stopped reading when you said that…"
- "Although my boxer (e.g. Ali) statistic-wise is worse than your boxer, my boxer is still better because stats don't tell the whole story" (typical reaction by fans who have been owned by stats = facts)
- "Boxer X has fought the better opponents than your boxer" or "It's the resume that counts. If one would go by stats then LaMar Clark (or whomever) would be the greatest boxer of the world" (completely ignoring that I usually delete bums off the record) or "Your boxer just fights bums, my boxer fought hall-of-famers"
- "If your boxer is so good how come he lost against Boxer Y?" (giving non-typical examples as proofs)
- "Well, my boxer was pre-prime/ post-rime/ shot" (excusing losses away)
- "My boxer has scored more KOs in round 5-9 than your boxer" (inventing useless statistics)
- "Boxer X's opponents have fought the better opponents" (complete speculation about a boxer's opponents opponents)
- "It's not only WHOM you beat but also HOW" (sorry, but boxing is neither figure skating nor Irish dancing)
- "My boxer was more FEARED than your boxer" (typical reproach by Tyson fans)
- "My boxer has beaten more FAMOUS opponents than your boxer" (typical reproach Americans/Britons)
- "The majority consensus is that my boxer is better than your boxer" (the majority consensus, too, is not based on facts but on childhood memories and propaganda)
- "You suck! I hate you!" (Insulting and, if you are discussing in a forum, adding some naughty smilies).
After years I have learned that my statements will always cause such reactions because fans HATE IT when their favorite childhood bubbles are popped (e.g. "Wladimir Klitschko is a faster KO'er than Mike Tyson").
Unplugging from the Clay Matrix
And you know what? I don't mind these reactions. The heftier they are the speedier the process of unplugging from the matrix. The truth will sink in because stats are facts and resistance against facts is futile.
"Ali is a featherfist? I wonder what George Foreman would say to that!"
Ali has a 34% KO'Ratio in real heavyweight fights within 12 rounds. See Joe Frazier vs Klitschko -OR- is Chris Byrd a better puncher than Earnie Shavers?.
Ali is a heavyweight featherfist. One or a few examples where he managed to KO someone are irrelevant. It's the full record that counts.
Ali is probably the most featherfisted champ of all time (= "like a butterfly") as you can see at Boxing eras (4) Golden Age of Heavyweight -OR- Is the Klitschko era the first heavyweight era in history?.
"Heavyweight Triangulation doesn't work"
This is sometimes mentioned when someone argues like this:
- Boxer A beats Boxer B
- Boxer B beats Boxer C
- Therefore Boxer A beats Boxer C
- Boxer A KO'es Boxer C in round #1
- Boxer B KO'es Boxer C in round #12
- Therefore Boxer A is a harder puncher than Boxer B.
This is called "triangulation" and I agree that IT DOES NOT WORK.
Because by that logic Chris Byrd would be a harder puncher than Mike Tyson, since Byrd KO4 Ribalta while Tyson KO10 Ribalta.
And Wladimir Klitschko would be a harder puncher than… HIMSELF, since Wladimir UD12 Samuel Peter (1st fight) and Wladimir KO10 Samuel Peter (2nd fight).
And rematches would always yield the same results as the first matches.
What I am doing on this website here is NOT triangulation.
My approach is completely different (= not a triangulation). My approach is to compare WHOLE CAREER RECORDS and to compare boxers against the same SET OF OPPONENTS.
For example I could compare:
- How did Boxer A fare against heavier-than-self opponents? (He lost all fights)
- How did Boxer C fare against heavier-than-self opponents? (He won all fights)
- Therefore Boxer C has a better record against heavier-than-self opponents.
I specialize in comparing WHOLE records, not triangulating single opponents.
"Why do you convert KOs in round 13+ to non-KOs?"
Unless otherwise stated I convert KOs in rounds 13+ to non-KO wins. The main reason is that one couldn't compare KO'ratios properly otherwise.
Now, somebody might claim "If a fight is scheduled for 15 rounds, then the boxers adjust accordingly and thus it's only natural that a KO comes in rounds 13-15".
For a long time I have thought about that argument and I think it's wrong.
NOBODY plans to KO his opponent so late (especially at heavyweight). If a KO happens so late then it wasn't because of a plan but because of a FAILURE of a plan.
This is highly supported by the fact that KOs in rounds 13, 14, 15+ are extremely rare. In Ali's era there were 2600+ fights (including sub-200 fights) but there have only been 6 of such "overlate KOs".
Additionally I feature the statistic "Rounds per KO", which INCLUDES overlate KOs:
To calculate it I add up "all rounds of all fights" and then check how many KOs were achieved in all fights.
So if someone has 3 fights (UD10, KO22, KO25) then the figure would be "2 KOs per 56 rounds" (10 rounds +21.5 rounds +24.5 rounds). I personally prefer this rounds-per-KO statistic to all other KO statistics since
- it includes even overlate KOs
- it unites KO'ratio and KO'speed into 1 statistic
It is the most accurate, fair, understandable and meaningful KO statistic possible.
"Why do you erase fights below 200 lbs from the record?"
I do not erase any fights from records. I merely call them how they are called now: CRUISERWEIGHT.
I compare 200+ fights to 200+ fights and 175+ fights to 175+ fights. This is elaborated at length at Boxing eras (1) The best heavyweight era of all time -OR- Is Roy Jones Jr. a better cruiser than Rocky Marciano?
If in the future heavyweight will be defined as 300+ lbs then Wladimir Klitschko can not be compared to these future 300-pound heavyweights anymore. It's an obvious no-brainer.
"Why don't you consider performance at the Olympic Games, sparring sessions, Amateur championships?"
Because they are different sports with different sets of rules and head gears.
There are boxers who perform extremely well in sparring ("all-time-gym-greats", "head gear kings", "stars of sparring") but fail miserably in professional bouts.
And a statement like "Boxer X has been knocked down in sparring" is near meaningless, because especially in sparring the boxer may have tried different moves and strategies… which failed. Not a big deal. Fight night counts, not sparring day.
Additionally "sparring rumors" tend to be highly unreliable ("I heard he was knocked out 3 times by his sparring partners!").
And very rarely do I mention Olympia. For me it's a very honorable achievement to win a medal at the Olympic games, but it has no further meaning for the pro career until the medalist steps into a pro ring and delivers.
"Before someone criticizes Ali he should become a boxer himself!"
This reproach is as stupid as "Before someone criticizes George W. Bush he should become a president" and only topped by "Before someone talks about suicide he should kill himself".
Please also note that the opposite would apply, too: "Before someone praises a boxer he should become a boxer himself".
"You cannot criticize Ali for racism! You haven't been there in those times"
With such arguments you could hardly ever criticize ANYTHING. Do you criticize slavery? Do you criticize child labor? Do you criticize Adolf Hitler? Do you have opinions about dinosaurs? Well, I guess you haven't been there either.
And besides: A lot of people have been there in those times and they weren't racist. Being racist in the 1960s/1970s was not the default.