GRANBERRY: You are right again!!!

[Goodnight, Irene]

Barbara Walters sees that NortonFan119-111 has entered the discussion. Trouble's afoot...

[Elton John]

Elmer there is room for disagreement. Close fights...not robberies is what many see. Like I say Joe Frazier saw Norton winning the third fight by a single round.

Lets see, Frazier hated the guy who beat himself, Patterson, Liston, and Foreman. And was a friend of Norton. And in his completely unbiased view he thought Norton won by only 1 round. Interesting....

The Ali fans here can't confront the fact that nobody Jimmy Young gave their hero a boxing lesson for FIFTEEN ROUNDS.

LOL

But the Ali fans here have a handling of that unfacable fact:

They very slyly (so they think) CHANGE THE SUBJECT to Norton, Frazier, etc.

I see one Ali fan above even pretends he doesn't know that the Frazier he brings up knocked Ali flat on his back and beat Ali thoroughly.

I am not going to pretend I am not an ALi fan. I am. However, I am also an honest fan and since I have this fight on tape I freely admit I am generous to give Ali five rounds and further, I am not all that sure he could beat Jimmy even during his prime. Jimmy was very slippery, kinfd of like a heavyweight Pernell Whitaker.

[Collins2000]

Granberry, those last 3 posts you wrote are some of the funniest and best I have ever read. You have created an image for me of Collie, Irene, and IFF. I have no idea of their gender, but now I see Collie as Rosie O'Donnell, Irene as Barbara Walters, and IFF as Dr. Phil. The Coffee Clatch - hilarious.

Ah, Stooge #2 makes an appearance at last.

All we need now is Elma to show up with his hysterical and HILARIOUS semi-literate prose.

[DaveV17]

Rosie (Collie),
Granberry does not need help. He has shown that mentally, he is too quick and agile for you to handle. In a battle of wits, you have demonstrated you are an unarmed man/woman.

[Collins2000]

Rosie (Collie),
Granberry does not need help. He has shown that mentally, he is too quick and agile for you to handle. In a battle of wits, you have demonstrated you are an unarmed man/woman.

How long before he starts calling hysterically for a moderator, Davey?

That's always the best part.

Have you seen him getting humilated in "the greatest thread ever"?

That's the 2nd best part.

Where's the 3rd amigo? Has he been sedated again?

[Goodnight, Irene]

Ali don't stand a chance...

[BoxBuzz]

collins and her girl irene work in tandem destroying boxrec,

with the blessing of 'moderator' buzz.

granberry, we are a "volunteer" group of moderators here. And it can be difficult to keep up with the various infractions....and to some degree it is about judgment. So going over the line here and there, is often overlooked when taken in overall context.

So I will ask you, should someone carefully enforce the items in bold below? And if so...how do you think you would fare in such a crackdown?

Be honest.....




1. No Excessive profanity

2. No Racism

3. No trolling
(This includes: POINTLESS OFF TOPIC THREADS and PERSONAL THREADS)

4. DO NOT POST UNDER MULTIPLE USERNAMES

5. No name calling or threatening of other contributors.

6. USE THE SEARCH FEATURE BEFORE MAKING A NEW THREAD
CHECK TO SEE IF THERE IS A PREVIOUS THREAD OR ELSE YOUR POST WILL BE LOCKED OR DELETED.

Thank you, and enjoy this boxrec forum.

If you have any questions, please contact any of the boxrec moderators.

[silkov]

collins and her girl irene work in tandem destroying boxrec,

with the blessing of 'moderator' buzz.

granberry, we are a "volunteer" group of moderators here. And it can be difficult to keep up with the various infractions....and to some degree it is about judgment. So going over the line here and there, is often overlooked when taken in overall context.

So I will ask you, should someone carefully enforce the items in bold below? And if so...how do you think you would fare in such a crackdown?

Be honest.....




1. No Excessive profanity

2. No Racism

3. No trolling
(This includes: POINTLESS OFF TOPIC THREADS and PERSONAL THREADS)

4. DO NOT POST UNDER MULTIPLE USERNAMES

5. No name calling or threatening of other contributors.

6. USE THE SEARCH FEATURE BEFORE MAKING A NEW THREAD
CHECK TO SEE IF THERE IS A PREVIOUS THREAD OR ELSE YOUR POST WILL BE LOCKED OR DELETED.

Thank you, and enjoy this boxrec forum.

If you have any questions, please contact any of the boxrec moderators.

Personally I think he'd be better off contacting his shrink!.... come on Buzz put the poor guy out of his misery and delete him from this forum!... he's just a troll...

[silkov]

[quote="elmersalsa"]Last night on youtube.com I saw the Jimmy Young vs Muhammad Ali fight. It was the first time I ever seen this fight.

My question is: How in the world Ali won this fight? How could it be?

I am an Ali fan, but this is getting ridiculous. I have seen so far 8 fights that Ali LOST CLEARLY and the judges gave him the decision in 4 of those losses.

Joe Frazier beat him outright in the greatest fight of his life on March 8, 1971

Ken Norton won all his 3 fights against him

Jimmy young gave Ali a BOXING LESSON. This guy Young was very good. I could not believe my eyes of what I have just seen. Young reminds me of a heavyweight Wilfred Benitez, the great triple crown champion from Puerto Rico.

Leon Spinks beat him

Larry Holmes beat him

Trevor Berbick beat him

Well, let's say that Ali was not in his prime, nor even competitive with Holmes and Berbick. He was old.

I believe that in the 60s, Ali would have beat Young outright. Ali in his 20s was far better than the 1976 version that fought Young and Norton in fight #3.

What I am saying also is: Instead of 5 losses that he had, REALLY, IN REALITY, IF THERE IS JUSTICE, ALI HAD 8 DEFEATS IN HIS CAREER AND 53 WINS, NOT 56.

Granberry, you was right. This one is one of the GREATEST ROBBERIES that I have seen in boxing. Young made Ali looked like an IDIOT. [/quote


Hey man, what you been smoking lately???.....

[Rick Farris]

Irrefutable fact:

granberry is the only poster to be labelled a crank on "the greatest thread ever".

Comments from the west coast thread which boxrec's resident snake collins 'missed':

Granberry-

Good stuff amigo!

-Rick Farris

______________________________________________________

Granberry,

Your information on Yaqui Lopez in Philly, Saad Mahammad, etc. was great!

As an L.A. gym rat, I saw a lot of great wars between legendary Mexican champs, etc. However, Philly has always had this rep for great gym wars, and I was a fan of most of those great Philadelphia middle & welterweights.

This past Oct. we, Dan Hanley & I, interviewed Georgie Benton, who was inducted as a trainer. Unfortunatly, we didn't have the time that need be devoted to such a great source of history. I loved watching Benton fight, not to mention Bennie Briscoe, Harold Johnson, "Kitten" Hayward, Gypsy Joe Harris, etc.

Hopefully, Benton will attend our '08 WBHOF banquet. If so, we'll be prepared to do it as it should be done.

-Rick

__________________________________________________

This is very interesting. Right after the WBHOF banquet ended last year, most of the boxers & guests, including myself, had rooms at the Hotel. I was with an old friend who helped us conduct the interviews and we went into the bar to have a drink. George Benton, and one of his son's who'd accompanied him, were sitting at the bar.

I took the stool next to Benton and bought he and his son a drink. Earlier in the evening we'd interviewed Benton, and Dan Hanley did a good job despite having no time to prepare. It was one of those on-the-spot things. I jumped in and we pulled a bit more out of George, however, it was what we discussed "off camera" in the bar that validates, in my mind, what you share in the above post.

I won't continue at this moment, as my wife of less than a week has plans for us. I fight with just about anybody, but I don't cross this Brazilian lady.

-Rick

______________________________________________________

Granberry,

That was one hell of a story, and it makes much more sense now to me as to why he looked so dramatically different in his fight versus Scott who he outclassed and then his poor showing vs Gregory. I never could figure out why he fought the way he did in that fight as that wasn`t his usual style and he threw almost no body punches either which he normaly did. A shame what happened to him as he had a lot of potential and was a very strong guy with a good head on his shoulders, would you happen to know what Jerry is up to these days and how he is doing by any chance?

What have they been saying lately, amigo?

Good question, Irene! I can understand Mr. Granberrys need to use me as an endorsement to his nonsense, which if I have (?) it was purely by mistake. Occasionally, but rarely,Gran occasionally shocks the world with something compelling, that he'd read in a magazine, that kinda supports something he thought of, after hearing a story, from a guy who said he once met a mobster, who was in on the fix of lots of fights, that were told to a guy, who is a wanna-be writer/producer, who . . . . well, you know.

Yeah Gran, keep posting. You can post the following, my final analogy of your posts, the one's I have tried to compliment you on . . . .

Even a BLIND Squirrel occasionally finds an Acorn.


-Rick Farris

[granberry]

Comments from the west coast thread which boxrec's resident snake collins 'missed':
______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

What have they been saying lately, amigo?

Good question, Irene! I can understand Mr. Granberrys need to use me as an endorsement to his nonsense, which if I have (?) it was purely by mistake. Occasionally, but rarely,Gran occasionally shocks the world with something compelling, that he'd read in a magazine, that kinda supports something he thought of, after hearing a story, from a guy who said he once met a mobster, who was in on the fix of lots of fights, that were told to a guy, who is a wanna-be writer/producer, who . . . . well, you know.

Yeah Gran, keep posting. You can post the following, my final analogy of your posts, the one's I have tried to compliment you on . . . .

Even a BLIND Squirrel occasionally finds an Acorn.


-Rick Farris

Rick,

Are you UNHAPPY because the guy refused to let you use his screenplay?

LOL

[Collins2000]

Borrowed from the greatest thread ever.

This was taken at Main St. Gym in 1967.

Amos "Big Train" Lincoln, Johnny Flores, Ricky Farris, unknown, Jerry Quarry, Joe Shelton

granberry would give his right bollock to have been really involved in boxing like Rick Farris and Frank Baltazar.

[Goodnight, Irene]

"...Even a BLIND Squirrel occasionally finds an Acorn." - Rick Farris



One of the better quotes doing the rounds at the moment.

[elmersalsa]

Elmer there is room for disagreement. Close fights...not robberies is what many see. Like I say Joe Frazier saw Norton winning the third fight by a single round.

Norton won all the fights with Ali....The judges saw the $$$$$$$$

Irrefutable facts:

3/31/1973 Ken Norton d. Muhammad Ali split dec. 12
Referee Frank Rustich 7-4; Judge Hal Rickard 5-4; Judge Fred Hayes 5-6.

9/10/1973 Muhammad Ali d. Ken Norton split dec. 12
Referee Dick Young 7-5; Judge John Thomas 6-5; Judge George Latka 5-6.

9/28/1976 Muhammad Ali d. Ken Norton unan dec. 15
Referee Arthur Mercante 8-6; Judge Harold Lederman 8-7; Judge Barney Smith 8-7.

Those are not irrefutable facts...If someone sees the 3 fights, Ali LOST all the 3 fights. To see the fights is one thing. To see the records, is another.

I am an Ali fan, but I could not see he beat Ken Norton. Norton was his achilles hill.

[I Feel Fine]

Ali won the second fight elmer. You said Norton had won the fight before you had even seen it, yet we're to assume you judged the fight objectively? Please.

And a prime Ali would have beaten Norton more clearly. Same with Young. Just as Holmes in his 30's would have lost a trilogy to a prime Norton... if he had the balls to fight Norton three times, that is.

(I guess I didn't pull myself out of this thread after all... I'll try one more time... and thanks dave, at least you have the courtesy to keep me as a man in your world, even if I have to be Dr. Phil.)

[observer1]

Ali won the second fight elmer. You said Norton had won the fight before you had even seen it, yet we're to assume you judged the fight objectively? Please.

And a prime Ali would have beaten Norton more clearly. Same with Young. Just as Holmes in his 30's would have lost a trilogy to a prime Norton... if he had the balls to fight Norton three times, that is.

(I guess I didn't pull myself out of this thread after all... I'll try one more time... and thanks dave, at least you have the courtesy to keep me as a man in your world, even if I have to be Dr. Phil.)

Lies, you are a drone, part of the Ali Network to Destroy Boxing etc. etc. etc.

[BoxBuzz]

Norton won all the fights with Ali....The judges saw the $$$$$$$$

Irrefutable facts:

3/31/1973 Ken Norton d. Muhammad Ali split dec. 12
Referee Frank Rustich 7-4; Judge Hal Rickard 5-4; Judge Fred Hayes 5-6.

9/10/1973 Muhammad Ali d. Ken Norton split dec. 12
Referee Dick Young 7-5; Judge John Thomas 6-5; Judge George Latka 5-6.

9/28/1976 Muhammad Ali d. Ken Norton unan dec. 15
Referee Arthur Mercante 8-6; Judge Harold Lederman 8-7; Judge Barney Smith 8-7.

Those are not irrefutable facts...If someone sees the 3 fights, Ali LOST all the 3 fights. To see the fights is one thing. To see the records, is another.

I am an Ali fan, but I could not see he beat Ken Norton. Norton was his achilles hill.

Can reasonable people disagree about some of these close fights? Or do some of us believe that those who disagree with our opinion (whatever that might be) are idiots, shills, deluded, hopelessly bias etc.? (granberry need not answer this one)

I see room for honest disagreement without having to assign an insult or expletive to said contributor.

[Ambling Alp]

Reasonable people can disagree on who should have got the decision in a close fight.

Reasonable people don't give Norton the 2nd fight 119-111. (Norton himself doesn't have a problem with this verdict.)

Reasonable people don't score the 2nd fight for Norton before actually seeing it. (Or saying that De La Hoya didn't deserve the decision against Molina even though he hasn't seen it.)

Reasonable people don't say that they think their favorite fighter won by only 3 points against a fighter they don't like that it wasn't a close fight.

Reasonable people don't pretend they are a fan of someone that they dislike so that it looks like they are being impartial when they talk about him.

Reasonable people can actually talk about what a fighter did when he was in his prime instead of focusing almost entirely on fights when he wasn't.

Reasonable people don't constantly twist so many threads into an diatribe against one fighter.

Reasonable people are capable of giving credit to fighters they don't like personally, and criticize those that they can.

Reasonable people don't criticize a fighter that they don't like if they wouldn't criticze a fighter that do like for the same thing.

[BoxBuzz]

Reasonable people can disagree on who should have got the decision in a close fight.

Reasonable people don't give Norton the 2nd fight 119-111. (Norton himself doesn't have a problem with this verdict.)

Reasonable people don't score the 2nd fight for Norton before actually seeing it. (Or saying that De La Hoya didn't deserve the decision against Molina even though he hasn't seen it.)

Reasonable people don't say that they think their favorite fighter won by only 3 points against a fighter they don't like that it wasn't a close fight.

Reasonable people don't pretend they are a fan of someone that they dislike so that it looks like they are being impartial when they talk about him.

Reasonable people can actually talk about what a fighter did when he was in his prime instead of focusing almost entirely on fights when he wasn't.

Reasonable people don't constantly twist so many threads into an diatribe against one fighter.

Reasonable people are capable of giving credit to fighters they don't like personally, and criticize those that they can.

Reasonable people don't criticize a fighter that they don't like if they wouldn't criticze a fighter that do like for the same thing.

Alp would you agree that it's ok to even be radically different in our opinions AS LONG as we are civil in our style? I actually think your making my point for me pretty well.

If someone comes along and say Duane Bobick is the best fighter of all time and wants to do everything he can (reasonable or unreasonable I suppose) to make his case that's fine with me if he believes it.

Where I think I and many of us here have a problem is if I am told that I am a fool not to buy in. I think that's the synthesis of the problem here.

It's that darn name calling that really needs to come to a halt as well as the other points you have made.......and soon.

Unreasonability with civility could probably be tolerated.

[Ambling Alp]

Well, I would say that not be civil is worse. That shouldn't be tolerated.
As for having radically different opinions, I guess it depends.

Occasionally, someone does say something that may seem out of left field, but does actually has some merit once they explain their reasoning. If someone can jusitify their claim that is fine. They are really contributing something.

However, if other people point out why they don't think that person is right, the first person should either address that point or stop talking about it. In other words, in the Duane Bobick scenario, if people pointed out his bad losses and his not so impressive wins, his flaws as a fighter etc. the first person should either admit that they were wrong (of course most of us humans don't like to do that) or atleast just drop it.

What really bothers me is when someone makes a claim, someone else counters it, and the first person just keeps making that claim as if no one ever countered it.

For example, lets say someone says that Jack Dempsey never beat anyone good. I then counter with something like: Well he beat Miske,Fulton,Brennan etc.

To me person the first person has 3 legitimate choices:
A. Concede that yes, Dempsey did beat some good fighters.
B. Just drop the subject.
C. Say why you don't think Miske,Fulton, and Brennan etc. weren't good fighters.

However, what frequently happens is that the first person simply ignores that their point has been contested and just keeps saying the same thing over and over as if it wasn't contested.

One person saying "Demspey didn't beat anyone one good"
The second person saying "Dempsey did beat Fulton,Miske, and Brennan"
First person says again "Dempsey never beat anyone good".

That isn't a real discussion.

I personally have a lot of respect for people that don't do this. What really hurts this Forum is people saying the same old tired lines that have been countered and they just ignore it. That isn't a real discussion.
I wouldn't say it's uncivil, but I would say it's not being courteous. In my opinion, this hurts the forum as much as being being uncivil.

I will say that occasionally I don't always follow this rule. There are a few people (the usual suspects) who I know can't engage in a real discussion, so I ignore them if they challenge something I said. However, if someone says the exact same thing I will address their point.

Of course we won't all agree on everything and it would boring if we did.
I remember when I was fairly new to this Forum I once had a long debate with boxscribe about Charley Burley. I really didn't think he was that great. (I really hadn't thought enough about Burley. This is a mistake I try to avoud. I try not to talk about something that I haven't tought enough about.)
Anyway, we went back and forth for quite awhile. I'm sure he wasn't happy with someone criticizing Burley; he himself wrote a book on Burley!
However he was very couteous. He never called me a name or say I didn't know anything about boxing or anything like that. He would address my points, and occasionally concede one of them. Enough of his points were logical, that by the end, I was almost a convert.
I still don't rate him as high as he does, but I rate him higher than I once did.

It's too bad, that he doesn't post here any longer. Maybe he got tired of the way some members conduct themselves.

[BoxBuzz]

It's always a pleasure to have conversation/discussion or even an occasional debate with people who acknowledge possibilities beyond their own set of beliefs.

For example the fella you mentioned about Burley who had processed mountains of info on the guy but was willing to let another "discover" some truths rather than feel the need to force feed and throw insults at you if you weren't "ramping up" quick enough.

I think most of us operate in a generaly positive way unless you just manhandle and molest one of our "core values"...lol. For me I'm still pretty certain that the only way Archie Moore ever lost a fight was when someone snuck kryptonite under the ring. I will attempt to listen to reason that perhaps he was merely a mortal, but I continue to have my doubts.

Then there are "the others"......and you know who you are!

[silkov]

It's always a pleasure to have conversation/discussion or even an occasional debate with people who acknowledge possibilities beyond their own set of beliefs.

For example the fella you mentioned about Burley who had processed mountains of info on the guy but was willing to let another "discover" some truths rather than feel the need to force feed and throw insults at you if you weren't "ramping up" quick enough.

I think most of us operate in a generaly positive way unless you just manhandle and molest one of our "core values"...lol. For me I'm still pretty certain that the only way Archie Moore ever lost a fight was when someone snuck kryptonite under the ring. I will attempt to listen to reason that perhaps he was merely a mortal, but I continue to have my doubts.

Then there are "the others"......and you know who you are!

Aha! but will you be man enough to admit that Arron Pryor was one of the best 140 fighters ever!!?..... 8)
just teasing!....
but
i'm a
believer!...

[BoxBuzz]

It's always a pleasure to have conversation/discussion or even an occasional debate with people who acknowledge possibilities beyond their own set of beliefs.

For example the fella you mentioned about Burley who had processed mountains of info on the guy but was willing to let another "discover" some truths rather than feel the need to force feed and throw insults at you if you weren't "ramping up" quick enough.

I think most of us operate in a generaly positive way unless you just manhandle and molest one of our "core values"...lol. For me I'm still pretty certain that the only way Archie Moore ever lost a fight was when someone snuck kryptonite under the ring. I will attempt to listen to reason that perhaps he was merely a mortal, but I continue to have my doubts.

Then there are "the others"......and you know who you are!

Aha! but will you be man enough to admit that Arron Pryor was one of the best 140 fighters ever!!?..... 8)
just teasing!....
but
i'm a
believer!...

LOL good one....In this case you know I'm happy to let you eventually "discover" what you need to know on that subject. No insults, no name calling, no sarcasm. As we know each of us has the opposing "belief". And I know that just because I had a front row seat to the drama....I COULD be wrong.....though jaclem claims my instincts and judgment are sound in this area. And remember he was another neighborhood "local" as well.

Sometimes the locals know the "inside story" and of course sometimes we are just being petty. Each person must decide for themselves. I'm good with that.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

boxbuzz- Actually, the referee is not always the best judge of a fight because his mind is on ensuring the rules are followed and the safety of the combatants is ensured, as much as it can be ensured in a fight...

Up until Ali's loss to Spinks the heavyweight championship had only changed hands via decision three times in the history of the division...That suggest to beat the champ you must beat him decisively...

Now, to the matches, all three Ali-Norton fights were competitive...The results are what they are... In the fight at Yankee stadium you had a legendary referre with many fights under his belt -Arthur Mercante , and a legendary judge-Harold Lederman scoring the fight and they stand by their verdict up until this day...

In the Young fight , Jimmy Young stuck his body outside the ring to stop Ali's assault...
Under Maryland rules this is tandamaount to a knockdown..He did it six times Another poster on another board put it better than me, ergo:


"Sticking your head through the ropes to avoid an opponent's punches is in my view an act of surrender and no different to me than a fighter wilfully taking a knee and a mandatory 8 count, which would have been the approximate amount of breathing room Young was afforded each time the referee had to intervene between the fighters so Young could free himself from the ropes. It was an illegal tactic that was used for the sole purpose of avoiding engaging. Unfortunately it was a tactic not seen before in a heavyweight title fight and the referee didn't know how to deal with it. While the referee didn't penalize Young for his passive tactics, obviously the judges did."


Elmer-How many points did you award Jimmy Young on the six occasions that he stuck his head outside the ring to avoid Ali's assault which are considered knockdowns under Maryland rules?

And since we established that sticking one's head outside the ring to foil your opponent's assault is tantamount to a knockdown , can you please tell me the last time a champion was relieved of his belt after knocking his opponent down six times?

Thank you in advance.

[granberry]

Jimmy Young exposed the fact that Ali didn't know how to box-

that Ali didn't have a clue how to fight a counterpuncher

that Ali had no defense for body shots

that Ali ATE left jabs from a good pro

that Ali was very hittable with right hands by a fighter with fast hands

that Ali was a flawed, limited fighter who could not adjust when he found his few tired tricks didn't work.

Young exposed Ali's limitations unmercifully--for the whole world to see.

That is why Jimmy Young is so HATED by members of Thomas Hauser's Religion of Ali.