how about a section for hypothetical matchups?

Giancarlo
Cruiserweight
Posts: 2316
Joined: 23 Feb 2011, 15:32

Re: how about a section for hypothetical matchups?

Post by Giancarlo »

Il Duce wrote:Hypothetical Match Ups,,,,

Should be 'reserved' for that 'skank site' down the road........ESB.
Don't be so bitter, Dunce.

You posted there for years until they finally heeded the call to boot your racist ass.
ThatOne
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2530
Joined: 14 Oct 2009, 17:15

Re: how about a section for hypothetical matchups?

Post by ThatOne »

Ambling Alp II wrote:
man wrote:since months BOTP is swamped with all kinds
of matchups ... and while i'm at it, why not make
a section for cassius clay threads as well ...

in the past this section here had more diversity
of topcis and posters, but it seems that it was
hitchhiked as of recent.
Sounds like a good idea; therefore it won't happen.

It is too bad that when someone comes up with a good idea for a thread that often it gets so little attention. Quickly it is on page 2 and onto oblivion after being squeezed out by the non interesting fantasy matchups and IL Duce BS threads.

Surely this Forum can be better than just randomly picking names of fighters and guessing who will win these matchups that hardly anyone really cares about.




Boxing is the one sport where its fans are most interested how the practitioners of today would have fared against the practitioners of yesterday and how the practitioners from one era would have fared from the practitioners of another era.
ThatOne
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2530
Joined: 14 Oct 2009, 17:15

Re: how about a section for hypothetical matchups?

Post by ThatOne »

Giancarlo wrote:
Il Duce wrote:Hypothetical Match Ups,,,,

Should be 'reserved' for that 'skank site' down the road........ESB.
Don't be so bitter, Dunce.

You posted there for years until they finally heeded the call to boot your racist ass.

I "love" Duce as a poster. What would really make this board a gas if if granberry returned.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46518
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: how about a section for hypothetical matchups?

Post by gilgamesh »

Every individual Hypothetical match that's been posted is better than all of your Ali hate threads combined.
ThatOne
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2530
Joined: 14 Oct 2009, 17:15

Re: how about a section for hypothetical matchups?

Post by ThatOne »

Il Duce wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:Every individual Hypothetical match that's been posted is better than all of your Ali hate threads combined.
No they aren't.

Isn't that why you follow everyone of my posts.

"Touchdown"

Can you somehow petition granberrry to return to posting here?

That would really liven things up.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46518
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: how about a section for hypothetical matchups?

Post by gilgamesh »

Il Duce wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:Every individual Hypothetical match that's been posted is better than all of your Ali hate threads combined.
No they aren't.

Isn't that why you follow everyone of my posts.

"Touchdown"
I see your posts as a competition you're having with yourself to see if you can be stupider with your next post than you were with your last. You usually deliver.
BoxBuzz
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 29847
Joined: 07 Jun 2005, 16:37

Re: how about a section for hypothetical matchups?

Post by BoxBuzz »

Il Duce...did you live in Louisville? I called it my home for about a decade.

I lived in the Hurstbourne area. I often played at Porters, and the Sealbach Hotel with a singer named
Gary Edwards.
man
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3197
Joined: 09 Jul 2007, 10:38

Re: how about a section for hypothetical matchups?

Post by man »

ThatOne wrote:Boxing is the one sport where its fans are most interested how the practitioners of today would have fared against the practitioners of yesterday and how the practitioners from one era would have fared from the practitioners of another era.
not day-in day-out. fantasy matchup after
fantasy matchup. these and the "clay sucks"-
routine will turn this section into a backwards
version of CS. actually no, it already has.
including the racism.

sad.
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: how about a section for hypothetical matchups?

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

loaded_gloves wrote:At what price the activity?

And what is the quality of the activity?

Duce floods the forum with senile gibberish repeating the same made-up point over and over and the spam of mythical matchups all seem to be served up to provide confirmation bias for the poster who wants to double check his modern Aryan demi-gods are the best of all time therfore he doesn't need to invest hours of study on boxing history or watch dusty old negroid black & white boxing.

It's boxers of the past, it should be a quiet, slow moving, more cerebral atmos like the library. It should take weeks for an interesting new conversation on Jimmy Wilde, Battling Siki, or Max Schmeling to evolve. If you want to hear braindead morons jabbering rapidly about nothing on the street corner you have current scene. I don't like these mindless fools hanging around my neighbourhood, up to no good.

I sound like an old man.
Anything > nothing, even if it merely inspires complaints. BTW, Jimmy Wilde is overrated as hell.
Last edited by SaadOffTheDeck on 07 Oct 2013, 14:41, edited 1 time in total.
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: how about a section for hypothetical matchups?

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

BoxBuzz wrote:That's where we utilize the magic of the ol' bump....or comment....to RISE.....to the top.
Yeah, God forbid someone has to click page 2 to get back to these wondrous debates.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46518
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: how about a section for hypothetical matchups?

Post by gilgamesh »

Il Duce wrote:I thought this thread was supposed be about 'hypothetical matchups'.

I have one,,,,,,,,Cassius Clay vs. Thad Spencer {April 1967}

I lean the way that Gilgamesh went, Cassius playing cautious early and falling
behind {3-0-0 in Rounds}, before opening up in Round 4, only to suffer a
'Flash Knockdown' in Round 5 from eating a right-hand to the chin {see Ernie Terrell}.

Cassius badly behind on Points thru 5-Rounds {49-45}, puts together a solid
Round 6, and scores with sharp one-two's in Rounds 7, 8 and 9 to bring the
bout 'Even' after 9-Rounds.

But, Thad's body punches take there toll on Cassius in Rounds 10 and 11 {see Ernie Terrell},
and Thad wears out Cassius' ribs with short power-ram punches.

Thad edges Cassius in Rounds 12 and 13, and just does enough over the last 2-Rounds
to win a close '1-Point' 15-Round Decision.

Scorecard........143-142 {Thad Spencer}
How do you lean the way I went? I never said anything about Ali vs Thad Spencer. I don't know much of anything about Thad Spencer to comment.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46518
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: how about a section for hypothetical matchups?

Post by gilgamesh »

Il Duce wrote:Yes you did,

You were the one who said Cassius Clay never fought any 'young fighters'.

Thad Spencer would be the 'first' opponent for Cassius Clay that was younger
than him........

In May 1967.

Thad Spencer at {Age 24 years, 1 month}

Cassius Clay at {Age; 25 years 4 months}

I agree, go with the younger man.
I never commented on a Ali vs Thad Spencer fight in any thread aside from this one.

Nor did I say Ali never fought younger fighters. You must be confusing me with someone else.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46518
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: how about a section for hypothetical matchups?

Post by gilgamesh »

Il Duce wrote:Didn't you say,

That Cassius Clay looked fast, especially when he was fighting all those old men.

* Archie Moore
* Charlie Powell
* Sonny Liston
* Floyd Patterson
* George Chuvalo
* Brian London
* Henry Cooper
* Cleveland Williams
* Zora Folley

The 'only' young guys that Cassius tangled with,
* Billy Daniels
* Doug Jones
* Karl Mildenberger
* Ernie Terrell
* Sonny Banks

All gave him trouble.
No
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46518
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: how about a section for hypothetical matchups?

Post by gilgamesh »

Il Duce wrote:Mi no comprende',

Are you saying that Cassius Clay didn't fight a bunch of old guys pre-March 1967.

Hard to argue that he didn't..........

I believe it's easier to beat a slow old guy, then a young fast guy.
I'm saying I never said a single word about Thad Spencer vs Ali. Because I didn't.

Why do you insist on referring to Ali as Clay in 1967? It was well established then that he was Muhammad Ali by then ,and wouldn't have appreciated none too much to be referred to as anything else.

I have no problem with Ali's competition in the 1960's.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46518
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: how about a section for hypothetical matchups?

Post by gilgamesh »

Il Duce wrote:Let's just say, that in 1963 he was, as I knew him, to be Cassius Clay.

I was then out the 'Real World' and in a 'Third World Nation' for 4-years,
and returned the United States in late-1967.

When I returned, I asked, what ever happened to Cassius Clay.

I was told he refused to be inducted into the U.S. Armed Services, and
became a Black Muslim Minister, and gave up Professional Boxing.

Good For Him I Said,,,,,,,He should be allowed to do whatever he pleases.
Your attitude toward him here certainly doesn't fit the type of person that would've made this comment.
loaded_gloves
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1907
Joined: 09 Mar 2011, 12:18

Re: how about a section for hypothetical matchups?

Post by loaded_gloves »

Duce is Granberry, isn't he?

Embittered old man, lifelong obsession, changed his writing approach so as not to get banned. He's the same Ali freak he always was.

Die soon please, you need peace.
Post Reply