Heavyweight Blog

Post Reply
TarkanX
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11
Joined: 17 Sep 2007, 00:09

Heavyweight Blog

Post by TarkanX »

http://www.heavyweightblog.com/

I read a few of the articles today. Although I disagree with some of the things the person writes (claiming the Klits as the best HW boxers ever), he makes some decent points.

Here are a few notable articles:

http://www.heavyweightblog.com/126/heav ... t-division

http://www.heavyweightblog.com/1609/whi ... s-the-best
raylawpc
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4871
Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 17:21

Re: Heavyweight Blog

Post by raylawpc »

TarkanX wrote:http://www.heavyweightblog.com/

I read a few of the articles today. Although I disagree with some of the things the person writes (claiming the Klits as the best HW boxers ever), he makes some decent points.

Here are a few notable articles:

http://www.heavyweightblog.com/126/heav ... t-division

http://www.heavyweightblog.com/1609/whi ... s-the-best
That's ten minutes of my life I won't get back . . . no decent points I could find.
BoxBuzz
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 29847
Joined: 07 Jun 2005, 16:37

Re: Heavyweight Blog

Post by BoxBuzz »

lost time....I hate when that happens.
dempseyfire
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5534
Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56

Re: Heavyweight Blog

Post by dempseyfire »

No, this makes zero decent points. Complete waste of bandwith.
TarkanX
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11
Joined: 17 Sep 2007, 00:09

Re: Heavyweight Blog

Post by TarkanX »

I should have made myself a little more clearer. While I don't think the Klits should be all time greats, I think they are underrated, and would give some of the best boxers problems, due to their size (Patterson, Norton, for example). Some of the data that he put in, I very much disagree with, especially the ones that discard boxers just because they are under 200 pounds.
raylawpc
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4871
Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 17:21

Re: Heavyweight Blog

Post by raylawpc »

Darn, lost about 15 seconds that time!
Post Reply