The young George DEF was weaker than his old ver. You can see he had no real DEF in his young days. Dwight fought like a better def version of Dwight used head movement and angles, so if Joe used that same style, he could have put down George. Followers got multiple points, which was shown to be flawed. George height is an advantage pushes means he dominates His power was too much. Uppercuts and iabs keep taking a person out fast. Swammers lose fast dwight showed If Joe used the same defence, he would have beat George, because I told you young George couldn't take damage even close to the old ver and Dwight was a better swammer, then Joe didn't use his block well. You have to use angles to make George wide punches miss, and he made him miss often, and dwight blocked often. Joe didn't show these same defensive skills. They never bring up Dwight and act like the match never happened. He showed that dumb, flawed quote of all swammers losing is crap, and folks still say it. I don't know why. Dwight only lost because he was tired; he did better than Joes in both matches. Dwight only lost because he was tired; he was winning rounds. George said for Dwight He said he had trouble hitting him. Even though George was taller than him and used the jabs, another advantage you all say works for George. Dwight showed height, and coming in like Joe did didn't matter. Tom showed punches wide like Tyson, and hitting quick punches would show an effect on George. Mike fought Smith, who was slow and strong like George. You weird people will say, but he wasn't as strong as George. Why does that matter? As if he had been as strong, he would land, no, because he was still slow. Why is it every time we make the point of who Mike fought that was comparable to George like Smith and trever who did pushes?, You all say it's wrong when it's on video showing trever did pushes and Smith was slow and strong like George. But when you guys's saythe blind quote of Mike was like Joe even though they fought nothing alike, that's right, it's hypocritical. Why would Mike, who had the best defence of all time at the time, lose to George? Mike fought Smith, who was strong but faster than Frank, and Frank was almost as slow as George and almost as strong, and neither one could hit Mike much, so why would George? Another proof is Berbick, which I exposed. George wouldn't be able to keep doing that to keep space; Berbick abused it and kept getting countered. George was slower than Bernard. dwight style like Joe but better defence, Ali and Jim fast punchers and defence Frank, real slow and almost as George Smith, slow and strong Look it up all these matches since you like to keep repeating quotes that make no sense. Joe fought in a straight line. moved head too much and up and down threw jabs and straight hooks did 2 punch combos Tyson fought in a straight line but once close, punched from angles. moved head around, not just simple like Joe didn't throw much jabs threw wide hooks jumped into punches when he was a distance from the person Mike did this. Tyler would dodge while doing combos. Joe didn't do that ether. Did 4 or 5 punch combos? Mike did this. Joe fought from close range. Mike was midrange. Mike was a counterpuncher. Joe wasn't a counterpuncher; he was a ducking, and then punch, take 1, and give one. Not similar at all. See how you shouldn't repeat quotes other followers who don't watch say.

@@ascendediam so where would you put Foreman and Frazier on the heavyweight division???

​@@waynemarchel9667i don't know what that means

@@ascendediam rank them i put Foreman first, then Ali,then Frazier,Holmes,Lewis Are my first top five all time greats. Hoilfield,Tyson,Louis,Liston, Norton make my top ten

@@waynemarchel9667 ​​⁠ Im able to see multiple angles/timing/defense/IQ/tech improvements missing from each era of guys that existed in the average pro in the 70s-now. It’s not an opinion; it’s very critical movements that existed in every era. I see that the average fighter shows that in each era, you will each boxing show an improvement in each area I named, and depending on the era, they all show the same no matter the style of boxer; they all show a certain amount because it’s what they know at the time. It's a fact you only see certain advances in the areas I named; like I said, each boxer will show no matter if their bum is showing something in those areas that didn't exist 20-10 years before. So if I had to tell you by era of fighter since I was able to notice outdated stuff when comparing guys in eras I can tell you for a certain style of fighter in said era, a certain guy is my best P4P, but I can't just tell you this 1 guy is the best I ever seen skillwise. I hope everything I said makes sense.

@@undertakerfanz628 I mean I’ll watch it but Wilder shouldn’t be within a mile of a boxing ring anytime soon.