Bobbyptsd wrote:Wasn't Tua-Ruiz like 19 goddamn seconds? Unless Perez had a crystal ball, and stopped the bout beforehand, not sure what he could have done.
il duce is basically blaming Perez because a fast knockout happened in a boxing match.
In the case of the Jones-Griffin DQ, he's basically blaming Perez for not having the speed to stop a second punch by frigging Roy Jones jr., a weakness shared by every other person on the planet at the time.
Yes it was very short. Ruiz came out threw about 3 jabs, and then got wobbled really bad by a left hook and knocked into the ropes, Ruiz then flailed with a few weak punches back at Tua while Tua landed about 3 or 4 full force shots putting Ruiz down and out. This all happened very fast, as you say only 19 seconds in.
I despised John Ruiz as I'm sure most Boxing fans did due to his boring ass style, so I've watched back this 19 second fight quite a few times as I enjoy seeing Ruiz get laid out like that.
Probably Tua's best victory considering that Ruiz would go on to be a successful albeit boring as hell Titleholder.
Hey Tony, how many illegal cuffs does it take to get penalized ?
'Just don't touch the hair, and you'll be fine Muhammad.'
"Forget about the other bouts?"
What? You brought up the other bouts! Hell, you spent a whole bunch of time making a damn image resuming your strange view on them, and now, because people see through what you're doing... "just forget them"? You went out of your way to bring them up!
You are full of shite about them, as you are full of shite about this one, and most everything else.
Hey Tony, how many illegal cuffs does it take to get penalized ?
'Just don't touch the hair, and you'll be fine Muhammad.'
"Forget about the other bouts?"
What? You brought up the other bouts! Hell, you spent a whole bunch of time making a damn image resuming your strange view on them, and now, because people see through what you're doing... "just forget them"? You went out of your way to bring them up!
You are full of shite about them, as you are full of shite about this one, and most everything else.
Il Duce is to the truth what Madonna is to chastity.
Eddie Futch, "I want to know what you are going to do about him hitting Joe with too many clean shots in a row, Il Duce says he's a little guy, and he's having trouble seeing and had a bad go with a guy named George not to long ago."
Tony Perez, "I will take care of that."
Angelo Dundee, "I want you to keep an eye on Joe, and if he starts to falter don't let my man take him out early, we want to go the distance here today.
Eddie Futch, "I want to know what you are going to do about him hitting Joe with too many clean shots in a row, Il Duce says he's a little guy, and he's having trouble seeing and had a bad go with a guy named George not to long ago."
Tony Perez, "I will take care of that."
Angelo Dundee, "I want you to keep an eye on Joe, and if he starts to falter don't let my man take him out early, we want to go the distance here today.
Il Duce wrote:
Why Dr. Box Buzz..................Doctoring someone else's post.
A typical move.......... from a 'Scum Bag' Second-Rate Doctor from a Sleepy New England Town.
Do you F*** all your patients as well,,,,,,,,,,, by changing another 'qualified' Doctor's diagnosis.
More comedic gold Duchess.
So, it's OK for you to make up 'quote' after 'quote' to fuel your fantasy, but you squeal like a stuck pig when you are administered a dose of Dr Buzz's patented bullshite cleanser?
By the way, when was the last time you started a thread, 'Troll Face'.
I've counted, your last 307 posts have been on my threads.
If wasn't for me,,,,,,,,,,,,,you wouldn't exist.
Ask your Wife.........
Buzz just sent me an e-mail...He submitted your ramblings to a group of a psychiatrists and a ambulance will be arriving at your trailer soon to take you to the sanitarium.
Respectfully: the post you referred to was MY post......it has MY name associated with it....and though it quotes your ill advised entry....it also contains the word "FIXED" at the end. This is done so that you do not attempt to take credit for my clever and borderline humorous editing of your contributed fabrication.
Please know that I would seldom take one of your quotes and attempt to insinuate that what you offered up was worthy of anyone's attention or respect. Unless of course I found it to be fair, honest, and truthful.
The reason I say it this way, is because it has become your chronic routine to mix truth with something other than truth in order to further your alternate take on history.
You are not a liberator of the truth....though it appears you believe you are just that. I believe that YOU believe your very venomous take on this one fighter. So in order to be well informed, I have learned to utilize a healthy skepticism on every entry you offer up. And I have gone back and researched much of your work. I have discovered that just about half of what you dish out IS indeed true and/or factual. And it's a damn lot of work to keep up with which half that is...but it has had me do more honest research on this sport than I have done in years. And that's not totally a bad thing.
It occurs to me, that you're not at all good for the children. You'll have them all confused, and if they should go about repeating your thoughts, they may end up getting a good bullying from the wiser children who have done their homework. And I know of no responsible adult who openly supports bullying of children. It's just not right. And yet, it appears you are perhaps it's soul supporter. Will you please comment on your stand regarding being "pro child bullying"? Most of us have come to understand that it's just wrong.
Your complicit advocacy of child bullying is worthy of concern from anyone who knows it to be true.
You should seriously consider my suggestion of voluntarily offering up a disclaimer on your works of fiction or it could give one the impression that you have a warped sense of humor regarding "confusing the kids". I appeal to you to check your facts, eat oats for their fibre content, and research your topics more seriously. I also suggest you use your very prodigious typing nature to unhitch yourself from your disingenuous statements. Statements that may well have a ripple affect that you had never imagined, though you may well have intended. (It does seem to me that your intent transcends even your imagination.)
What I have chiefly noticed about your work, is that a good percentage of it appears to be manufactured and created with specific purpose, in order to deceive the reader.
Would you agree with me that to subscribe to such methods is unscrupulous?
Let's assume we agree, then we can also reasonably assume that when one is acting in such a manner...they are also acting unprincipled, unethical, immoral, conscienceless, shameless, reprobate, exploitative, corrupt, dishonest, dishonorable, deceitful, devious, underhanded, unsavory, disreputable, evil, wicked, villainous, Machiavellian and perhaps....yes....less than wholesome?
However with that clearly stated, I do very much appreciate the majority of your spelling, and your punctuation is seldom in error....with the exception of your somewhat liberal position on the use of quotation marks as "qualifiers".
I trust this will find you in good stead, in the midst of further deliberate deception, and both hale, and hardy.
Respectfully: the post you referred to was MY post......it has MY name associated with it....and though it quotes your ill advised entry....it also contains the word "FIXED" at the end. This is done so that you do not attempt to take credit for my clever and borderline humorous editing of your contributed fabrication.
Please know that I would seldom take one of your quotes and attempt to insinuate that what you offered up was worthy of anyone's attention or respect. Unless of course I found it to be fair, honest, and truthful.
The reason I say it this way, is because it has become your chronic routine to mix truth with something other than truth in order to further your alternate take on history.
You are not a liberator of the truth....though it appears you believe you are just that. I believe that YOU believe your very venomous take on this one fighter. So in order to be well informed, I have learned to utilize a healthy skepticism on every entry you offer up. And I have gone back and researched much of your work. I have discovered that just about half of what you dish out IS indeed true and/or factual. And it's a damn lot of work to keep up with which half that is...but it has had me do more honest research on this sport than I have done in years. And that's not totally a bad thing.
It occurs to me, that you're not at all good for the children. You'll have them all confused, and if they should go about repeating your thoughts, they may end up getting a good bullying from the wiser children who have done their homework. And I know of no responsible adult who openly supports bullying of children. It's just not right. And yet, it appears you are perhaps it's soul supporter. Will you please comment on your stand regarding being "pro child bullying"? Most of us have come to understand that it's just wrong.
Your complicit advocacy of child bullying is worthy of concern from anyone who knows it to be true.
You should seriously consider my suggestion of voluntarily offering up a disclaimer on your works of fiction or it could give one the impression that you have a warped sense of humor regarding "confusing the kids". I appeal to you to check your facts, eat oats for their fibre content, and research your topics more seriously. I also suggest you use your very prodigious typing nature to unhitch yourself from your disingenuous statements. Statements that may well have a ripple affect that you had never imagined, though you may well have intended. (It does seem to me that your intent transcends even your imagination.)
What I have chiefly noticed about your work, is that a good percentage of it appears to be manufactured and created with specific purpose, in order to deceive the reader.
Would you agree with me that to subscribe to such methods is unscrupulous?
Let's assume we agree, then we can also reasonably assume that when one is acting in such a manner...they are also acting unprincipled, unethical, immoral, conscienceless, shameless, reprobate, exploitative, corrupt, dishonest, dishonorable, deceitful, devious, underhanded, unsavory, disreputable, evil, wicked, villainous, Machiavellian and perhaps....yes....less than wholesome?
However with that clearly stated, I do very much appreciate the majority of your spelling, and your punctuation is seldom in error....with the exception of your somewhat liberal position on the use of quotation marks as "qualifiers".
I trust this will find you in good stead, in the midst of further deliberate deception, and both hale, and hardy.
ThatOne wrote:I know he wrecked your favorite fighters when he was in his prime or remotely close to it but there's really no reason to wildly exaggerate to libel the guy.
I was wondering whether some of Il Duce's posts are actually libelous.
Has Ali been financially damaged by them? If not, then no. Plus, Ali is a public figure, so New York Times v. Sullivan would make it a very hard climb to trump Il Duce's 1st Amendment rights.
No, that was Carlos Padilla in the third fight. Perez simply broke up the clinches and forced them to reset, which obviously didn't do Frazier many favours as far as being able to work inside - not that ll Douche has any interest in highlighting these very legitimate complaints for Frazier's benefit, of course.
"A random poll of writers at ringside had it 18-4 for Ali, with one even."
We know who Red Smith and Dick Young scored the fight for, but what of the other two? Did Art Daley and Jimmy Cannon fill in their scorecards before they passed on?
"A random poll of writers at ringside had it 18-4 for Ali, with one even."
We know who Red Smith and Dick Young scored the fight for, but what of the other two? Did Art Daley and Jimmy Cannon fill in their scorecards before they passed on?
Hairy, don't you think you could have given yourself a classier moniker?
