"O O" <OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO@webtv.net> wrote in message news:14594-422BE5A4-60@storefull-3114.bay.webtv.net...> DO U GUYS THINK HE IS A LINEAR CHAMPIONS>
Robert Phillips 7 March 2005 15:48:33 [ permanent link ]
O O wrote:> DO U GUYS THINK HE IS A LINEAR CHAMPIONS
Why not? Here are my comments from a previous thread on this topic:
I remember there was some debate that Foreman effectively abandoned his "linear" title by fighting so infrequently (after Moorer, he fought only once each in '95 and '96 and twice in '97) and/or against such inferior competition. Others took it a step further and argued that Foreman actually retired at some point prior to the Briggs fight (which would be called a "comeback" fight then), and therefore the lineage was reset and he carried no linear title into the match against Briggs. Still others argued that the Briggs decision (over Foreman) was so lousy that they refused to recognize it and felt that the lineage remained with Foreman, since Briggs did not "beat" him realistically. Under that line of reasoning, I suppose, the linear title is still with Foreman pending conclusive evidence that he'll never fight again. Or maybe you think that Foreman DID beat Briggs, but has definitely retired, and therefore the linear title has been reset, with Lewis. There are so many possibilities. You'd think that a linear system is pure and immune to real argument...but no.
It's my opinion that if we want to pay attention to a linear system, then retirements and layoffs and bad decisions do not affect it - meaning, in this case, that Briggs indeed won the linear title from Foreman and Lewis from Briggs.
The probelms you site are why the linear mode of thinking and viewing championships doesn't work. It's a nice thing to look up but it doesn't hold up.
"Robert Phillips" <rpie@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:lcXWd.161281$JF2.37287@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>O O wrote:>> DO U GUYS THINK HE IS A LINEAR CHAMPIONS>
Why not? Here are my comments from a previous thread on this topic:>
I remember there was some debate that Foreman effectively abandoned his> "linear" title by fighting so infrequently (after Moorer, he fought only> once each in '95 and '96 and twice in '97) and/or against such inferior> competition. Others took it a step further and argued that Foreman> actually retired at some point prior to the Briggs fight (which would be> called a "comeback" fight then), and therefore the lineage was reset and> he carried no linear title into the match against Briggs. Still others> argued that the Briggs decision (over Foreman) was so lousy that they> refused to recognize it and felt that the lineage remained with Foreman,> since Briggs did not "beat" him realistically. Under that line of> reasoning, I suppose, the linear title is still with Foreman pending> conclusive evidence that he'll never fight again. Or maybe you think> that Foreman DID beat Briggs, but has definitely retired, and therefore> the linear title has been reset, with Lewis. There are so many> possibilities. You'd think that a linear system is pure and immune to> real argument...but no.>
It's my opinion that if we want to pay attention to a linear system,> then retirements and layoffs and bad decisions do not affect it -> meaning, in this case, that Briggs indeed won the linear title from> Foreman and Lewis from Briggs.>
Robert Phillips 8 March 2005 00:20:08 [ permanent link ]
Tom Luffman wrote:> The probelms you site are why the linear mode of thinking and viewing > championships doesn't work. It's a nice thing to look up but it doesn't > hold up.
Exactly. Linear theory is crap, as evidenced by the fact that the only weight classes anybody ever cared to apply it to were light-heavy (because of the Jones-DM controversy) and heavyweight (because it's heavyweight). Further evidence lies in the fact that nobody is discussing the linear lt.heavy championship anymore, because both Jones and DM have lost, and nobody cares about Zsolt Erdei being the linear champ. Nobody ever knew, cared, or discussed who the linear welter, light, or jr.bantam champ was, either.
Stephen Donatelli 8 March 2005 01:06:55 [ permanent link ]
Further evidence lies in the fact that nobody is> discussing the linear lt.heavy championship anymore, because both Jones > and DM have lost, and nobody cares about Zsolt Erdei being the linear > champ. Nobody ever knew, cared, or discussed who the linear welter, > light, or jr.bantam champ was, either.>
Pie
Your right Pie, I always thought that stuff was a bunch of horse crap.
Shannon Briggs was an average HW that was lucky to get that win over a faded and aged Foreman.
Scar TKO "Robert Phillips" <rpie@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:YH2Xd.130965$qB6.25481@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...> Tom Luffman wrote:>> The probelms you site are why the linear mode of thinking and viewing >> championships doesn't work. It's a nice thing to look up but it doesn't >> hold up.>
Exactly. Linear theory is crap, as evidenced by the fact that the only > weight classes anybody ever cared to apply it to were light-heavy (because > of the Jones-DM controversy) and heavyweight (because it's heavyweight).
Mr.Will wrote:> My guess is that linear title being the folklore thing it is tends to
used by people when they like the champ. Foreman benefitted massively
from> it, so did Bowe when dumping belts, and so forth.>
Mr.Will
It's true of all evidence that it is more used to support one's prejudices than to determine likelihood (or "truth"). Thereby, we see people claiming that Lewis's loss (at age 36) against Rahman and close win against VK (at age 38) should be counted to his overall standing, at the same time as claiming that Bowe's performances (at age 28) against Golota should be attributed to the inexorable passage of time.
"Robert Phillips" <rpie@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message> news:YH2Xd.130965$qB6.25481@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...> > Tom Luffman wrote:> > > The probelms you site are why the linear mode of thinking and
viewing> > > championships doesn't work. It's a nice thing to look up but it doesn't> > > hold up.> >
Exactly. Linear theory is crap, as evidenced by the fact that the
only> > weight classes anybody ever cared to apply it to were light-heavy> > (because of the Jones-DM controversy) and heavyweight (because it's> > heavyweight). Further evidence lies in the fact that nobody is> > discussing the linear lt.heavy championship anymore, because both Jones> > and DM have lost, and nobody cares about Zsolt Erdei being the linear> > champ. Nobody ever knew, cared, or discussed who the linear welter,> > light, or jr.bantam champ was, either.> >
It's true of all evidence that it is more used to support one's> > prejudices than to determine likelihood (or "truth"). Thereby, we
people claiming that Lewis's loss (at age 36) against Rahman and
close> > win against VK (at age 38) should be counted to his overall standing,> > at the same time as claiming that Bowe's performances (at age 28)> > against Golota should be attributed to the inexorable passage of time.>
I'll take your bait with one gulp and say that I don't think anybody> attributes Bowe's performances against Golota *purely* to time,
rather,> I think it was more his poor training catching up to him. It's rather> clear that Bowe's conditioning was much more a factor in those two> fights than Lewis's was in his fights against Rahman and Klitschko.
Why on earth would you say that? Lewis was at career-high weights for both of these fights. That was the main reason why I bet on Rahman for the first fight.
That said, it's also apparent fact that boxers "age" at different
rates.> Bowe was hardly the first fighter to be washed up at an unusually> young age and I don't differentiate between heavyweights and> non-heavyweights in this regard the way some do.
So what you're saying is that you don't choose to differentiate between heavyweights and non-heavyweights in this regard, and you fail to state any reasons why this might be so.
It is a commonly held truism of boxing that careers last longer in the heavier classes. You are unable to name any heavyweight other than Bowe who was washed up before 30. I can name dozens of lighter weight fighters washed up before 30. So, by choosing not to differentiate you are simply saying that you don't care about any evidence.
Sometimes the fish steals the bait, though, and I have no intention
turning this into yet another go-round of the "Bowe sucked/Bowe
didn't> suck" debate. You said your piece, I said mine, and you can have the
"5016" <huwgareth@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1110381497.878547.111840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>
Robert Phillips wrote:>> 5016 wrote:>>
It's true of all evidence that it is more used to support one's>> > prejudices than to determine likelihood (or "truth"). Thereby, we> see>> > people claiming that Lewis's loss (at age 36) against Rahman and> close>> > win against VK (at age 38) should be counted to his overall> standing,>> > at the same time as claiming that Bowe's performances (at age 28)>> > against Golota should be attributed to the inexorable passage of> time.>>
I'll take your bait with one gulp and say that I don't think anybody>> attributes Bowe's performances against Golota *purely* to time,> rather,>> I think it was more his poor training catching up to him. It's> rather>> clear that Bowe's conditioning was much more a factor in those two>> fights than Lewis's was in his fights against Rahman and Klitschko.>
Why on earth would you say that? Lewis was at career-high weights for> both of these fights. That was the main reason why I bet on Rahman for> the first fight.>
That said, it's also apparent fact that boxers "age" at different> rates.>> Bowe was hardly the first fighter to be washed up at an unusually>> young age and I don't differentiate between heavyweights and>> non-heavyweights in this regard the way some do.>
So what you're saying is that you don't choose to differentiate between> heavyweights and non-heavyweights in this regard, and you fail to state> any reasons why this might be so.>
It is a commonly held truism of boxing that careers last longer in the> heavier classes. You are unable to name any heavyweight other than Bowe> who was washed up before 30. I can name dozens of lighter weight> fighters washed up before 30. So, by choosing not to differentiate you> are simply saying that you don't care about any evidence.
Pinklon Thomas I'm sure there are plenty more maybe Mike Tyson or even Wlad Klitscko???????
Punchy Joe wrote:> "5016" <huwgareth@my-deja.com> wrote in message> news:1110381497.878547.111840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> >
Robert Phillips wrote:> >> 5016 wrote:> >>
It's true of all evidence that it is more used to support one's> >> > prejudices than to determine likelihood (or "truth"). Thereby,
people claiming that Lewis's loss (at age 36) against Rahman and> > close> >> > win against VK (at age 38) should be counted to his overall> > standing,> >> > at the same time as claiming that Bowe's performances (at age
28)> >> > against Golota should be attributed to the inexorable passage of> > time.> >>
I'll take your bait with one gulp and say that I don't think
anybody> >> attributes Bowe's performances against Golota *purely* to time,> > rather,> >> I think it was more his poor training catching up to him. It's> > rather> >> clear that Bowe's conditioning was much more a factor in those two> >> fights than Lewis's was in his fights against Rahman and Klitschko.> >
Why on earth would you say that? Lewis was at career-high weights
both of these fights. That was the main reason why I bet on Rahman
the first fight.> >
That said, it's also apparent fact that boxers "age" at different> > rates.> >> Bowe was hardly the first fighter to be washed up at an
unusually> >> young age and I don't differentiate between heavyweights and> >> non-heavyweights in this regard the way some do.> >
So what you're saying is that you don't choose to differentiate
between> > heavyweights and non-heavyweights in this regard, and you fail to state> > any reasons why this might be so.> >
It is a commonly held truism of boxing that careers last longer in
heavier classes. You are unable to name any heavyweight other than
Bowe> > who was washed up before 30. I can name dozens of lighter weight> > fighters washed up before 30. So, by choosing not to differentiate
are simply saying that you don't care about any evidence.>
Pinklon Thomas> I'm sure there are plenty more> maybe Mike Tyson or even> Wlad Klitscko???????
Thanks for trying to answer the question seriously.
I would argue that none of these 3 went downhill precipitously. Thomas was KO'ed by Tyson in 6 rounds when he was 29, but this wasn't regarded as any kind of an upset - this was when Tyson was supposed to be unbeatable, though Thomas was seen as a live underdog, from what I remember. Prior to this, he'd only lost a close decision. He lost to Holyfield next, after an 18-month layoff and drug problems. Nothing about Thomas suggests that he could have beaten Tyson or Holyfield even without the drug problems.
Mike Tyson didn't fight that often after he was 25, but he retained a lot of his old ability until recently, destroying second-raters, and losing only to hall-of-fame level fighters in Lewis and Holyfield. The difference between Tyson and Bowe can be seen in their fights with Golota - Tyson was older than Bowe when he fought Golota, and had lived much, much harder. But Tyson still had enough to stop Golota quickly.
WK - that one doesn't make much sense to me. He has found his level, and it is just not that high. Are we supposed to believe that he was really a tremendous fighter when he was KO'ing the David Bostices of the world, and that he went downhill when facing tougher opposition? Isn't it easier to believe that he doesn't deal well better opposition?
"5016" <huwgareth@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1110401936.399114.239370@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...>
Punchy Joe wrote:>> "5016" <huwgareth@my-deja.com> wrote in message>> news:1110381497.878547.111840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>> >
Robert Phillips wrote:>> >> 5016 wrote:>> >>
It's true of all evidence that it is more used to support one's>> >> > prejudices than to determine likelihood (or "truth"). Thereby,> we>> > see>> >> > people claiming that Lewis's loss (at age 36) against Rahman and>> > close>> >> > win against VK (at age 38) should be counted to his overall>> > standing,>> >> > at the same time as claiming that Bowe's performances (at age> 28)>> >> > against Golota should be attributed to the inexorable passage of>> > time.>> >>
I'll take your bait with one gulp and say that I don't think> anybody>> >> attributes Bowe's performances against Golota *purely* to time,>> > rather,>> >> I think it was more his poor training catching up to him. It's>> > rather>> >> clear that Bowe's conditioning was much more a factor in those two>> >> fights than Lewis's was in his fights against Rahman and> Klitschko.>> >
Why on earth would you say that? Lewis was at career-high weights> for>> > both of these fights. That was the main reason why I bet on Rahman> for>> > the first fight.>> >
That said, it's also apparent fact that boxers "age" at different>> > rates.>> >> Bowe was hardly the first fighter to be washed up at an> unusually>> >> young age and I don't differentiate between heavyweights and>> >> non-heavyweights in this regard the way some do.>> >
So what you're saying is that you don't choose to differentiate> between>> > heavyweights and non-heavyweights in this regard, and you fail to> state>> > any reasons why this might be so.>> >
It is a commonly held truism of boxing that careers last longer in> the>> > heavier classes. You are unable to name any heavyweight other than> Bowe>> > who was washed up before 30. I can name dozens of lighter weight>> > fighters washed up before 30. So, by choosing not to differentiate> you>> > are simply saying that you don't care about any evidence.>>
Pinklon Thomas>> I'm sure there are plenty more>> maybe Mike Tyson or even>> Wlad Klitscko???????>
Thanks for trying to answer the question seriously.>
I would argue that none of these 3 went downhill precipitously. Thomas> was KO'ed by Tyson in 6 rounds when he was 29, but this wasn't regarded> as any kind of an upset - this was when Tyson was supposed to be> unbeatable, though Thomas was seen as a live underdog, from what I> remember. Prior to this, he'd only lost a close decision. He lost to> Holyfield next, after an 18-month layoff and drug problems. Nothing> about Thomas suggests that he could have beaten Tyson or Holyfield even> without the drug problems.
Ok-OK so it was in his very early thirties that thomas started to decline and what a decline it was though - he went from beating a prime Tim witherspoon for the WBC title to getting stopped by a former middleweight Poncho Carter in the space of less than 7 years.
Mike Tyson didn't fight that often after he was 25, but he retained a> lot of his old ability until recently, destroying second-raters, and> losing only to hall-of-fame level fighters in Lewis and Holyfield. The> difference between Tyson and Bowe can be seen in their fights with> Golota - Tyson was older than Bowe when he fought Golota, and had lived> much, much harder. But Tyson still had enough to stop Golota quickly.
I thought Golota was doing pretty well untill he inexplicably quit,.... ...sure he was down in the first but had recoved his senses pretty much straight away after that, Golota lost that fight more because he was a nutjob than of anything Tyson did to him.
WK - that one doesn't make much sense to me. He has found his level,> and it is just not that high. Are we supposed to believe that he was> really a tremendous fighter when he was KO'ing the David Bostices of> the world, and that he went downhill when facing tougher opposition?> Isn't it easier to believe that he doesn't deal well better opposition?
Its not just about failing reflexes sometimes its about confidence and i think the Corrie Sanders defeat shattered Wlads confidence to the effect that he will never be the same again.
All in all I reckon good fighters last longer at heavyweight because the talent pool is much more shallow in that division than lighter weight divisions - so the degenarative affects of age are not as noticable.
Apologies for the tardiness of this response.> > If you re-read the original post, you'll see that I said that it
unusual for a heavyweight to be washed up *before* 30, and in fact
said> > 28 for Bowe. You appear to have interpreted it as 30.>
Frankly I don't see a useful distinction, and at best, it's splitting
tiny hair. Being washed up at 30 means being washed up before 30,> unless the washing up occurs on the 30th birthday or between 30 and
31.
Well, the way he said it implies that 30 is around the usual age for heavies to go downhill (which is consistent with other sports). I actually don't think it's all that unusual for a fighter of Bowe's caliber to lose contender status before 30. It would probably be unprecedented for a HW of historically significant skill (an above-average champion, let's say) to do so, but run-of-the-mill contenders seem to fade faster. That, again, is consistent with the patterns in other sports (i.e. great players tend to lose value at slower rates than lesser players). The interesting case for our purposes is Frazier, who I believe was still an near-championship-level fighter when he first retired. I also think he is overrated historically...
<snip>
More importantly, you appear to test the "washed-up at 30" claim by> > comparing their careers before and after the age of 30. This would
be a> > stupid way of investigating the claim, even if that claim was the
that was in fact made.>
You know, in anticipation of your response, I *almost* added a P.S.
my previous post, something mildly sarcastic like "Waiting for this> discussion to degenerate into competing definitions of 'washed
up'..."
Actually, the problem is that the stats you provided were simply meaningless to the dicussion since you count all fights in a guy's decline phase, no matter how far into it they go. Any fighter, regardless of how old he was when he was washed up is going to have a relatively poor record after the age of 30. You seem to acknowledge that later so I don't see the problem.
No it's not. I'm not contending your definition of "washed up" - I
contending the time horizon that you are using. You can't test for
precipitous decline at 30 by including all fights up to the age of
40,> > as Isaiah points out.>
I didn't see his post, but as per your initial claim that I was> responding to, I'm using 30 as the cutoff. I'm not sure what 40 or
or 33 or any other age has to do with it. I didn't use 40 as a
cutoff,> nor did I use the time from 31 through 40 as a measuring stick. You> essentially challenged me to find fighters who were washed up at 30.> That's what I did. It's a simple question - were these guys washed
by 30? IMO, they were. 40 is irrelevant.
You included fights at age 40 in your statistics. Therefore your statistics are not helpful to the claim. All I can do is repeat this point. I've repeated it twice already. I know that 40 is irrelevant, and that is why I questioned your stats. Enough of this already, anyway.
Pick one out if you think he did.>
Gerry Cooney. Beaten by Holmes at age 25. Didn't fight again until
28. Scored three meaningless wins over three meaningless opponents -
one of whom fought only one more time (KOby1), another of whom fought
three more times (1-2), and the third of whom went 8-11 after
fighting> Cooney. Another year layoff. Came back to get KOed by MSpinks. Two
and a half year layoff. Two round KO loss to Foreman. That's 3-2,
KO losses, no meaningful wins, in the eight years or so after the
Holmes> loss. That's 3-2, two KO losses, no meaningful wins, after age 25.>
Pie
At last. Let's go with Cooney.
Prior to fighting Holmes, Cooney fought 3 name guys - Jimmy Young, Ron Lyle, and Ken Norton.
Young was 32. He had won two fights in a row, against someone called Don Halpin (4-8), who I don't remember, and John Louis Gardner, who I do remember and was completely incompetent. Six months before that he lost to Michael Dokes. Two fights before that he last twice to Ocasio. Young wasn't a top fighter by any stretch at this point. He had decisioned LeDoux a little while before, but this hardly makes him world class.
Lyle was 39. A year before this he had been KO'ed by someone called Lynn Ball. He wasn't a top-10 fighter by any stretch at this point.
Norton was 38. Since losing to Holmes in their great '79 fight, he had won one against a nobody, been KO'ed by Shavers, drawn with LeDoux, and won an SD against Tex Cobb. Do you think that this made Norton a top fighter at this point in time?
So, Cooney hadn't beaten anyone of any current consequence prior to his fight with Holmes. After losing to Holmes, he won a few against nobodies, and then lost to Spinks and Foreman, both of whom were much better fighters than anyone else he had fought apart from Holmes.
The outcomes of Cooney's fights are entirely consistent. The best three fighters he fought, Holmes, Spinks, and Foreman, he lost to. The rest, he won. There is no evidence for a precipitous decline in Cooney's career.
Robert Phillips 15 March 2005 08:01:08 [ permanent link ]
5016 wrote:
I didn't know that they taught writing at college level in the US. Is> it aimed primarily at sports scholarship students? Does it come before> or after the counting classes?
I recognize that you're joking, but it comes from a bizarre premise - at most US colleges and universities, writing is one of the few, VERY few courses that every student must take in order to graduate. Yes, it's that widespread. Look at it this way - I teach at a culinary school, and even *we* have the mandatory writing course. Or were you joking about my casual use of the word "writing" instead of the more descriptive and formal "composition?" Either way, you're capable of better snarkiness than this. ;) This one was far too petty, considering that my use of "writing" there is entirely supported by contemporary definitions and usages. The word isn't limited to being a synonym for "penmanship" or whatever you might be suggesting.
Robert Phillips 15 March 2005 08:09:47 [ permanent link ]
5016 wrote:> Robert Phillips wrote:
nor did I use the time from 31 through 40 as a measuring stick. You>>essentially challenged me to find fighters who were washed up at 30.>>That's what I did. It's a simple question - were these guys washed>> up by 30? IMO, they were. 40 is irrelevant.> You included fights at age 40 in your statistics. Therefore your> statistics are not helpful to the claim.
All statistics were presented as "pre-30th birthday" and "post-30th birthday." I really don't get your attachment to age 40 in your reading of those statistics. Of course fights that took place at age 40, whatever those fights were, are included in the "post-30th" stats, because 40 comes after 30. Nowhere did I mention a 40th birthday, or fights that took place at age 40, so I'm baffled why you keep bringing up that particular age when I didn't. I've never been talking *only* about age 30 but not about 31 and 32 etc. It's a simple before-and-after proposition I was using - before and after age 30.
At last. Let's go with Cooney.> Prior to fighting Holmes, Cooney fought 3 name guys - Jimmy Young, Ron> Lyle, and Ken Norton.
...> The outcomes of Cooney's fights are entirely consistent. The best three> fighters he fought, Holmes, Spinks, and Foreman, he lost to. The rest,> he won. There is no evidence for a precipitous decline in Cooney's> career.
You don't see Cooney's career sputtering to an end after his 1982 fight with Holmes? I guess we're left with nothing but polite disagreement about that.
Gerry Cooney. Beaten by Holmes at age 25. Didn't fight again
until> age> > 28. Scored three meaningless wins over three meaningless opponents ->
one of whom fought only one more time (KOby1), another of whom
fought>
three more times (1-2), and the third of whom went 8-11 after> fighting> > Cooney. Another year layoff. Came back to get KOed by MSpinks.
and a half year layoff. Two round KO loss to Foreman. That's 3-2,> two> > KO losses, no meaningful wins, in the eight years or so after the> Holmes> > loss. That's 3-2, two KO losses, no meaningful wins, after age 25.> >
At last. Let's go with Cooney.>
Prior to fighting Holmes, Cooney fought 3 name guys - Jimmy Young,
Lyle, and Ken Norton.>
Young was 32. He had won two fights in a row, against someone called> Don Halpin (4-8), who I don't remember, and John Louis Gardner, who I> do remember and was completely incompetent. Six months before that he> lost to Michael Dokes. Two fights before that he last twice to
Ocasio.> Young wasn't a top fighter by any stretch at this point. He had> decisioned LeDoux a little while before, but this hardly makes him> world class.>
Lyle was 39. A year before this he had been KO'ed by someone called> Lynn Ball. He wasn't a top-10 fighter by any stretch at this point.>
Norton was 38. Since losing to Holmes in their great '79 fight, he
won one against a nobody, been KO'ed by Shavers, drawn with LeDoux,
won an SD against Tex Cobb. Do you think that this made Norton a top> fighter at this point in time?>
So, Cooney hadn't beaten anyone of any current consequence prior to
fight with Holmes. After losing to Holmes, he won a few against> nobodies, and then lost to Spinks and Foreman, both of whom were much> better fighters than anyone else he had fought apart from Holmes.>
The outcomes of Cooney's fights are entirely consistent. The best
three> fighters he fought, Holmes, Spinks, and Foreman, he lost to. The rest,> he won. There is no evidence for a precipitous decline in Cooney's> career.
Another thing is that Pie apparently is trying to argue that Bowe was a great fighter by demonstrating that his career pattern was similar to guys like Gerry Cooney and Buster Mathis! I think that's the best argument against him. It's not much of a stretch to say that Bowe was the Gerry Cooney of the 1990s. Lucky for Bowe Holyfield wasn't as good as Holmes.
His career may have ended, but his record doesn't show a precipitous> decline at this age. Cooney lost to three fighters in his career. All> three fighters he lost to went on to win (further) heavyweight> championship fights. None of the fighters he beat went on to even fight> for the championship.>
After the Holmes fight, Cooney did not lose to anyone who one would not> have expected him to lose to based on the evidence accumulated to that> point. Therefore, there is no evidence to show a significant decline> for Cooney at the age you stated.
Many expected him to destroy Michael Spinks, Would the Gerry Cooney who fought so hard for 13 rounds against a prime Larry Holmes have folded in only 5 against a natural Light Heavy in Spinks.Of course many also expected Spinks to win but a doubt no more than a tiny minority expected it to be as Quick as it was.
Punchy Joe wrote:> > His career may have ended, but his record doesn't show a precipitous> > decline at this age. Cooney lost to three fighters in his career.
three fighters he lost to went on to win (further) heavyweight> > championship fights. None of the fighters he beat went on to even
fight> > for the championship.> >
After the Holmes fight, Cooney did not lose to anyone who one would
have expected him to lose to based on the evidence accumulated to
that> > point. Therefore, there is no evidence to show a significant decline> > for Cooney at the age you stated.>
Many expected him to destroy Michael Spinks, Would the Gerry Cooney
fought so hard for 13 rounds against a prime Larry Holmes have folded
only 5 against a natural Light Heavy in Spinks.Of course many also
expected> Spinks to win but a doubt no more than a tiny minority expected it to be as> Quick as it was.
That natural light-heavy beat a not-far-past-prime Holmes shortly before, in case you missed it. There isn' much doubt that Michael Spinks was a better heavyweight than Cooney.
In any case, by this point, Cooney was over 30, so this isn't very relevant to the discussion.
Robert Phillips 17 March 2005 03:54:18 [ permanent link ]
5016 wrote:> Robert Phillips wrote:>>Measuring whole careers is how one concludes that a fighter is truly>>washed up (which I define as irreversible), and not merely suffering>>through a temporary rough period that happens to correspond with his>>30th birthday but which he eventually overcomes.>>I don't find this to be too questionable a method to use.> I'm not going to repeat myself for the 4th time. I can't explain it any> better.
Nor can I, so let's move on.
So now we're back to "I just think he was washed up at age 28, even> though there isn't any proof". That is exactly the same statement you> made about Bowe, so this doesn't help the case at all. Try picking a> heavyweight whose *record* indicates that they were washed up at 28,> rather than one for whom I'm supposed to just accept your opinion on.
Gerry Cooney. (See previous posts.) Otherwise, I'm supposed to just accept your opinion that he was washed up. Essentially, that's what you're doing - accepting your opinion. I'm accepting mine.
Robert Phillips 17 March 2005 04:54:59 [ permanent link ]
Punchy Joe wrote:
Are you telling me Spinks was a Equal or better Heavyweight than Holmes and > a more powerfull puncher too.> After all it took him just 5 rounds to blow away Cooney yet Holmes was taken > 13 hard rounds by the same man.> Are you honestly trying to say that Spinks beat the same Cooney that Holmes > did.> Dont make me laugh.
In any case,>>by this point, Cooney was over 30, so this isn't very>>relevant to the discussion.> You said their was no evidence he was washed up at this point - their > clearly is> So it is relevant to the discussion, if its not relevant why are you > yourself discussing it......doh!
He's discussing it because I offered Gerry Cooney as one name on a laundry list of heavyweights who were arguably washed up by 30. 5016 challenged me to name one, so I named a whole list of them. He disagrees. By the way, Cooney was 30 years and roughly 10 months against Spinks. But you're correct - Cooney had clearly declined between the Holmes fight and the Spinks fight, despite the fact that he was just 25 when he fought Holmes.
Robert Phillips 17 March 2005 05:13:18 [ permanent link ]
The Arranger wrote:> The number one school on that list has an "expository writing" course> that is mandatory for all freshmen -- unless it has changed its policy> recently.
Of course. 5016 is just being snarky - he knows his implication isn't valid. And, as I said in another post, folks who are far better qualified than him have found, using a variety of methodologies, that American colleges and universities are the best in the world. And most of them require some form of writing class regardless of degree. It is a point that doesn't need much defense...but it sure is amusing watching him dance!
So now we're back to "I just think he was washed up at age 28, even> > though there isn't any proof". That is exactly the same statement
made about Bowe, so this doesn't help the case at all. Try picking
heavyweight whose *record* indicates that they were washed up at
28,> > rather than one for whom I'm supposed to just accept your opinion on.>
Gerry Cooney. (See previous posts.)> Otherwise, I'm supposed to just accept your opinion that he was
washed> up. Essentially, that's what you're doing - accepting your opinion.> I'm accepting mine.>
Pie
I'm not asking you to accept my opinion. I'm stating that, after Holmes, he never lost to anyone worse than people who he had beaten prior to fighting Holmes. *If* this is true, then there is no evidence on the record for a decline.
So, in order to dispute this, I believe that the options are: (1) claim that someone he had beaten prior to Holmes was in fact better than Spinks or Foreman; or (2) claim that the null hypothesis is that he *did* decline rather than that he didn't
Given that you have every heavyweight ever to pick from, I am surprised that you cannot find one whose *record* shows a decline early on.
Robert Phillips wrote:> The Arranger wrote:> > The number one school on that list has an "expository writing" course> > that is mandatory for all freshmen -- unless it has changed its policy> > recently.>
Of course.> 5016 is just being snarky - he knows his implication isn't valid.
And,> as I said in another post, folks who are far better qualified than him
Than him?!?!?! Pie!!!
have found, using a variety of methodologies, that American colleges
universities are the best in the world. And most of them require
some> form of writing class regardless of degree. It is a point that doesn't> need much defense...but it sure is amusing watching him dance! >
Pie
Well, I don't know how my alma mater rates vs. Oxford and Cambridge. But in terms of endowment, I went to the Jayne Mansfield of Higher Education!
"Robert Phillips" <rpie@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:86tZd.181236$JF2.27790@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...> 5016 wrote:>
I didn't know that they taught writing at college level in the US. Is> > it aimed primarily at sports scholarship students? Does it come before> > or after the counting classes?>
I recognize that you're joking, but it comes from a bizarre premise - at> most US colleges and universities, writing is one of the few, VERY few> courses that every student must take in order to graduate. Yes, it's> that widespread. Look at it this way - I teach at a culinary school,> and even *we* have the mandatory writing course.> Or were you joking about my casual use of the word "writing" instead of> the more descriptive and formal "composition?" Either way, you're> capable of better snarkiness than this. ;) This one was far too petty,> considering that my use of "writing" there is entirely supported by> contemporary definitions and usages. The word isn't limited to being a> synonym for "penmanship" or whatever you might be suggesting.>
Pie
Sorry Pie man, I thought it was really funny - Im sure no offence was meant by it.
Robert Phillips 28 March 2005 04:46:16 [ permanent link ]
Mr.Will wrote:
Sorry Pie man, I thought it was really funny - Im sure no offence was meant> by it.
I think his subsequent posts in that discussion demonstrated pretty conclusively that offense was completely meant. It wasn't taken, but I'm quite certain it was meant.
