Holmes was widely quoted... That quote was in many newspapers that ran the story of Too Tall turning to professional boxing... This was on Too Tall's announcement that he was breaking away from Football. Ask Holmes about it. You can believe what you want... I'm telling you the honest to God's truth. It was in the New York Times. The Minneapolis Tribune and other papers.Flump wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 12:42Sorry to be a pest Kalan old boy, could you provide me with the source of this quote from Larry Holmes?Flump wrote: ↑26 Mar 2018, 04:13This is fanciful at best isn't it Kalan. You're what the legal profession would describe as an unreliable witness.Kalan wrote: ↑25 Mar 2018, 21:30
People who have interests in Heavyweight Contenders and don't want them embarrassed by an upstart Football player... Larry Holmes said... "If Too Tall Jones becomes really good.. If he really gets down and bones up his skills, he's going to have trouble getting any contenders to fight him... It's too damned tough to fight somebody that big and tall with that kind of speed, range, and power... There're too many other guys you can fight."
When Too Tall Jones announced he was becoming a professional boxer that was one of the reservations about his success that a lot of people had... Boxing is a free lance sport to a very large degree... Unless you're a World Champion you get to pick and choose who you'll fight and who you won't fight.. Some World Champions even seem to have this ability... His list of possible opponents was broad for his 1st fight... After the Montes fight it dried up quickly.
Can you provide a source for the Holmes quote? It sounds a little bit like when you invented a quote attributed to Henry Cooper, which was more like an American who'd seen Mary Poppins inventing a quote from a Londoner...
Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
Keep beating your brains out Oogie... That's what you're good at... You're a mindless hater and wind blower who's posts show ZERO knowledge and insight...Kalan wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 13:02Say all the insults you want, Laughing Boy, but you show nothing in your posts but your hot wind. Your typical insults to anyone that disagrees makes me laugh and wonder who your therapist is.oogiebe wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 11:15That's an example moron. The still shot was taken from at a precise moment to make Too Tall look as bad as possible.
A photographer turned in 7 photos of Ali-Chuvalo 1... Six of the photos showed Chuvalo connecting with punches to Ali's head. One photo showed Ali connecting... The newspaper ran all the photos with the headline "WHO'S THE PHOTOGRAPHER? CHUVALO'S UNCLE? .... AHHH... THERE'S THE REAL ALI.![]()
![]()
Being world class at ANY sport demands 2 things.. A good athlete and a great coach... A great coach isn’t somebody who was a half assed competitor, hasn’t mastered the fundamentals himself, and thinks he knows how to coach.
Joe Frazier went to the local Y and their swim coach taught him how to swim. He thought he was ready to compete with other rank amateur swimmers, but his form was so bad that any coach with a brain would have dissuaded him from competing... They showed his performance on the evening news because it was funny. Nobody even cared who the winner was -- because the story was all about how bad Frazier was.
Max Baer had a great chin but the man never learned how to box. He rose to fame on the backs of opponents who couldn’t box any better than he. When Baer faced Joe Louis who had 1 year experience — but a great coach — Baer got hit really hard 15 times a minute and had to quit to preserve his life.
Michael Jordan was a great athlete who couldn’t hit minor league pitching... I guarantee you he didn’t have Ted Williams as his batting coach... Deon Sanders and Bo Jackson played Baseball at a top level because they had better coaching and played the game all their lives. Most guys don’t listen that well to the greatest coaches. They tweak his teachings with their own genius and wonder why they can’t make progress... This is why coaches have to stay with you if you're not getting it and particularly if you have no experience... Baseball didn't want Jordan to succeed at Baseball.
Now even Ted Williams said he wasn’t that great a coach because he lacked the patience to stick with you, correct you a thousand times, and iron out every single flaw in your batting stance and swing. There’s a story about Blackburn trying to correct Louis’s stance in a marathon coaching session that lasted 18 hours. You’re never going to be perfect with any coach but you’ll be 100% better with a great one who demands perfection.
Too Tall Jones had a terrible jab for instance. In the video, Gil Clancy noted he flicked it out there like throwing a Frisbee. He said he needed to throw it straight from the shoulder and step into it to get power, describing a power jab like a young Foreman threw. Jimmy Young lacked power, but he beat Foreman’s power jab with an effortless jab that maximized timing. You can understand the theories, but unless you master the stance and mechanics you’ll never acquire a jab.
That takes a coach - and good coaches were walled off from Jones by his own coaches. To a degree he has to recognize that and get out of that situation, but he didn't have enough to judge that so early in his career. He just knew he wasn't getting fights. He was getting punk opponents pushed at him for his last 2 fights. He couldn't hold them up.
Too Tall's reach was 3" longer than Tyson Fury's and he was twice as strong... Though he had no skills he ended his pro fights quickly because when he landed a solid punch the fight was over... He took a big risk... He made huge money playing Football, but all his life he wanted to be a boxer.. Boxing didn't want a Football player showing them up.
[/quote]
The most long-winded hysterics and hypocrisy. I can hardly type, I'm laughing so hard! You said nothing new; nothing proved; nothing worth my time, except to get you to respond with one of these lunatic fringe posts. HAHAHAHAHA...you are a complete moron...BULLCRAP!! Moron!! That's my quote of you. LMFAO!!! You are SO PREDICTABLE!!! I LOVE IT!
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
You're full of crap... In his 3rd fight he got Fernando Montes who had a winning record in 31 fights... Montes was an appropriate opponent who had fought Heavyweight Contenders... He got knocked out by Too Tall Jones in 41 seconds.....faster than anybody else ever knocked him out.Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 12:19He got nobody because he was that bad that anyone half decent would've beaten him. He quickly realised boxing wasn't as easy as he thought so he sloped back to football.Kalan wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 01:38 Jones got 3 opponents in 3 weeks when they thought they'd get him beaten... Then he got NOBODY as an opponent
Super big guys who are super athletes make super big money in less sleazy sports where fewer criminals exist... They don't have to deal with the underhanded characters, liars, and sleaze balls in Boxing... You see more big guys from the Ukriane and UK than the United States because our athletes have more options.
The law of averages would prove your theory about big athletes wrong. Most of the top basketball / footballers are millionaires already. They have the money to hire the best trainers, use the best facilities etc... At some point someone would've made a successful leap. others have tried and fallen well short, why is that?
After his 3rd fight Too Tall DID NOT get any opponents... He got trash who he couldn't hold up... Why??????
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
Ed Jones:Kalan wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 13:25You're full of crap... In his 3rd fight he got Fernando Montes who had a winning record in 31 fights... Montes was an appropriate opponent who had fought Heavyweight Contenders... He got knocked out by Too Tall Jones in 41 seconds.....faster than anybody else ever knocked him out.Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 12:19He got nobody because he was that bad that anyone half decent would've beaten him. He quickly realised boxing wasn't as easy as he thought so he sloped back to football.Kalan wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 01:38 Jones got 3 opponents in 3 weeks when they thought they'd get him beaten... Then he got NOBODY as an opponent
Super big guys who are super athletes make super big money in less sleazy sports where fewer criminals exist... They don't have to deal with the underhanded characters, liars, and sleaze balls in Boxing... You see more big guys from the Ukriane and UK than the United States because our athletes have more options.
The law of averages would prove your theory about big athletes wrong. Most of the top basketball / footballers are millionaires already. They have the money to hire the best trainers, use the best facilities etc... At some point someone would've made a successful leap. others have tried and fallen well short, why is that?
After his 3rd fight Too Tall DID NOT get any opponents... He got trash who he couldn't hold up... Why??????
Bouts: Record
1 - Meneses 5-6-0
2- Holloman 1-15-2
3- Montes 18-12-1
4- Wallace 2-3-0
5- Thomas 0-3-0
6- Gonzales Debut
WOW Kalan...this IS impressive. What'd you think of Tye Fields? ...You loved him didn't you...you cried when he was exposed didn't you....
You should be on stage. My lord you are hilarious.
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
I apologize to all posters here. I am as guilty as Kalan for hijacking this thread. I just couldn't help myself.
-
Controversial
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 9186
- Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
So he was getting better then, in that case he should've knocked out the next three just as quick, not struggle and get bashed up by fighters even worse than Montes.Kalan wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 13:25You're full of crap... In his 3rd fight he got Fernando Montes who had a winning record in 31 fights... Montes was an appropriate opponent who had fought Heavyweight Contenders... He got knocked out by Too Tall Jones in 41 seconds.....faster than anybody else ever knocked him out.Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 12:19He got nobody because he was that bad that anyone half decent would've beaten him. He quickly realised boxing wasn't as easy as he thought so he sloped back to football.Kalan wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 01:38 Jones got 3 opponents in 3 weeks when they thought they'd get him beaten... Then he got NOBODY as an opponent
Super big guys who are super athletes make super big money in less sleazy sports where fewer criminals exist... They don't have to deal with the underhanded characters, liars, and sleaze balls in Boxing... You see more big guys from the Ukriane and UK than the United States because our athletes have more options.
The law of averages would prove your theory about big athletes wrong. Most of the top basketball / footballers are millionaires already. They have the money to hire the best trainers, use the best facilities etc... At some point someone would've made a successful leap. others have tried and fallen well short, why is that?
After his 3rd fight Too Tall DID NOT get any opponents... He got trash who he couldn't hold up... Why??????
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
...and that! lol!Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 13:41So he was getting better then, in that case he should've knocked out the next three just as quick, not struggle and get bashed up by fighters even worse than Montes.Kalan wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 13:25You're full of crap... In his 3rd fight he got Fernando Montes who had a winning record in 31 fights... Montes was an appropriate opponent who had fought Heavyweight Contenders... He got knocked out by Too Tall Jones in 41 seconds.....faster than anybody else ever knocked him out.Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 12:19
He got nobody because he was that bad that anyone half decent would've beaten him. He quickly realised boxing wasn't as easy as he thought so he sloped back to football.
The law of averages would prove your theory about big athletes wrong. Most of the top basketball / footballers are millionaires already. They have the money to hire the best trainers, use the best facilities etc... At some point someone would've made a successful leap. others have tried and fallen well short, why is that?
After his 3rd fight Too Tall DID NOT get any opponents... He got trash who he couldn't hold up... Why??????
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
I predicted Fields would get knocked out by the first good fighter he fought... Fields was a shitt athlete.oogiebe wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 13:30 1 - Meneses 5-6-0
2- Holloman 1-15-2
3- Montes 18-12-1
4- Wallace 2-3-0
5- Thomas 0-3-0
6- Gonzales Debut
WOW Kalan...this IS impressive. What'd you think of Tye Fields? ...You loved him didn't you...you cried when he was exposed didn't you.... You should be on stage. My lord you are hilarious.
Let's go over these opponents because this is interesting....
1 - Meneses 5-6-0.... If you have LITTLE or NO amateur experience, your first few opponents are generally throw away opponents making their debut or having 1 or 2 wins at the most... As you can see Meneses had 5 wins in 11 fights... Not an appropriate boxer for a pro debut vs somebody with almost ZERO experience... I suspect he was a ringer put in to beat Jones... He was allowed by the referee to get away with a massive foul -- hitting a sitting down Jones with a devastating head shot leaves me to believe he was a plant... However Jones upset the apple cart and beat him easy...
2- Holloman 1-15- Is an opponent Too Tall should have fought in his 1st fight... Made no sense after Meneses
3- Montes 18-12-1 Too Tall's 3rd opponent was another ringer... You don't put a guy with 2 professional fights in with a guy who has a winning record in 31 fights and fought contenders... That's stupid... Too Tall swung hard because he had too... He had to get Montes out of there in a hurry -- and he got him good and flattened him... NEXT!!!!
There WAS NO NEXT!!! .... Wallace wasn't an appropriate opponent after Too Tall disposed of Montes... You have to step him up... Thomas and Gonzales weren't opponents at all... They were a 1000 times worse than Wallace.
And they pushed Too Tall's first 3 opponents at him in 3 weeks.... Then it took forever to get him horseshitt opponents... That also tells you there was NO interest in getting Too Tall to the next level... They wanted him out of Boxing.
Last edited by Kalan on 27 Mar 2018, 14:09, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
Um...you went over the opponents, and frankly, it's not interesting. Jones was a bum. If was good as you dream, he would've been picked up by a promoter and been pushed. If he was good, he would have been a huge money-maker. I've read your arguments ad nauseam and it falls flat, just like Liston v. Ali II. You have a proclivity of defending poor positions. That is the really interesting thing.Kalan wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 14:00I predicted Fields would get knocked out by the first good fighter he fought... Fields was a shitt athlete.oogiebe wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 13:30 1 - Meneses 5-6-0
2- Holloman 1-15-2
3- Montes 18-12-1
4- Wallace 2-3-0
5- Thomas 0-3-0
6- Gonzales Debut
WOW Kalan...this IS impressive. What'd you think of Tye Fields? ...You loved him didn't you...you cried when he was exposed didn't you.... You should be on stage. My lord you are hilarious.
Let's go over these opponents because this is interesting....
1 - Meneses 5-6-0.... If you have LITTLE or NO amateur experience, your first few opponents are generally throw away opponents making their debut or having 1 or 2 wins at the most... As you can see Meneses had 5 wins in 11 fights... Not an appropriate boxer for a pro debut vs somebody with almost ZERO experience... I suspect he was a ringer put in to beat Jones... He was allowed by the referee to get away with a massive foul -- hitting a sitting down Jones with a devastating head shot leaves me to believe he was a plant... However Jones upset the apple cart and beat him easy...
2- Holloman 1-15- Is an opponent Too Tall should have fought in his 1st fight... Made no sense after Meneses
3- Montes 18-12-1 Too Tall's 3rd opponent was another ringer... You don't put a guy with 2 professional fights in with a guy who has a winning record in 31 fights and fought contenders... That's stupid... Too Tall swung hard because he had too... He had to get Montes out of there in a hurry -- and he got him good and flattened him... NEXT!!!!
There WAS NO NEXT!!! .... Wallace wasn't an appropriate opponent after Too Tall disposed of Montes... You have to step him up... Thomas and Gonzales weren't opponents at all... They were a 1000 times worse than Wallace.
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
Don't use hate language like "bum" when talking about a guy who beat someone with a winning record in 31 fights in his 3rd fight and went undefeated in 6 fights... It doesn't make any sense and you come off as a hater - which in fact you are.oogiebe wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 14:09Um...you went over the opponents, and frankly, it's not interesting. Jones was a bum. If was good as you dream, he would've been picked up by a promoter and been pushed. If he was good, he would have been a huge money-maker. I've read your arguments ad nauseam and it falls flat, just like Liston v. Ali II. You have a proclivity of defending poor positions. That is the really interesting thing.Kalan wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 14:00I predicted Fields would get knocked out by the first good fighter he fought... Fields was a shitt athlete.oogiebe wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 13:30 1 - Meneses 5-6-0
2- Holloman 1-15-2
3- Montes 18-12-1
4- Wallace 2-3-0
5- Thomas 0-3-0
6- Gonzales Debut
WOW Kalan...this IS impressive. What'd you think of Tye Fields? ...You loved him didn't you...you cried when he was exposed didn't you.... You should be on stage. My lord you are hilarious.
Let's go over these opponents because this is interesting....
1 - Meneses 5-6-0.... If you have LITTLE or NO amateur experience, your first few opponents are generally throw away opponents making their debut or having 1 or 2 wins at the most... As you can see Meneses had 5 wins in 11 fights... Not an appropriate boxer for a pro debut vs somebody with almost ZERO experience... I suspect he was a ringer put in to beat Jones... He was allowed by the referee to get away with a massive foul -- hitting a sitting down Jones with a devastating head shot leaves me to believe he was a plant... However Jones upset the apple cart and beat him easy...
2- Holloman 1-15- Is an opponent Too Tall should have fought in his 1st fight... Made no sense after Meneses
3- Montes 18-12-1 Too Tall's 3rd opponent was another ringer... You don't put a guy with 2 professional fights in with a guy who has a winning record in 31 fights and fought contenders... That's stupid... Too Tall swung hard because he had too... He had to get Montes out of there in a hurry -- and he got him good and flattened him... NEXT!!!!
There WAS NO NEXT!!! .... Wallace wasn't an appropriate opponent after Too Tall disposed of Montes... You have to step him up... Thomas and Gonzales weren't opponents at all... They were a 1000 times worse than Wallace.
It's not interesting because you don't want it to be... Or you'd admit that's not a proper progression of opponents... You got absolutely NO argument to come back with.... When a guy flattened an opponent with a winning record in 31 fights you don't push shitt opponents with no wins at him after that... Not if you want him to get better.
Promoters didn't pick him up because they had contractual ties to top contenders and wanted Jones out of here.
Last edited by Kalan on 27 Mar 2018, 14:22, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
I posted articles (including Sports Illustrated and others)...you just have to be right all the time. You are obviously the one who doesn't want to listen and understand. Go on...keep thumping your chest It's funny!Kalan wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 14:14It's not interesting because you don't want it to be... Or you'd admit that's not a proper progression of opponents... You got absolutely NO argument to come back with.... When a guy flattened an opponent with a winning record in 31 fights you don't push shitt opponents with no wins at him after that... Not if you want him to get better.oogiebe wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 14:09Um...you went over the opponents, and frankly, it's not interesting. Jones was a bum. If was good as you dream, he would've been picked up by a promoter and been pushed. If he was good, he would have been a huge money-maker. I've read your arguments ad nauseam and it falls flat, just like Liston v. Ali II. You have a proclivity of defending poor positions. That is the really interesting thing.Kalan wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 14:00
I predicted Fields would get knocked out by the first good fighter he fought... Fields was a shitt athlete.
Let's go over these opponents because this is interesting....
1 - Meneses 5-6-0.... If you have LITTLE or NO amateur experience, your first few opponents are generally throw away opponents making their debut or having 1 or 2 wins at the most... As you can see Meneses had 5 wins in 11 fights... Not an appropriate boxer for a pro debut vs somebody with almost ZERO experience... I suspect he was a ringer put in to beat Jones... He was allowed by the referee to get away with a massive foul -- hitting a sitting down Jones with a devastating head shot leaves me to believe he was a plant... However Jones upset the apple cart and beat him easy...
2- Holloman 1-15- Is an opponent Too Tall should have fought in his 1st fight... Made no sense after Meneses
3- Montes 18-12-1 Too Tall's 3rd opponent was another ringer... You don't put a guy with 2 professional fights in with a guy who has a winning record in 31 fights and fought contenders... That's stupid... Too Tall swung hard because he had too... He had to get Montes out of there in a hurry -- and he got him good and flattened him... NEXT!!!!
There WAS NO NEXT!!! .... Wallace wasn't an appropriate opponent after Too Tall disposed of Montes... You have to step him up... Thomas and Gonzales weren't opponents at all... They were a 1000 times worse than Wallace.
Promoters didn't pick him up because they had contractual ties to top top contenders and wanted Jones out of here.
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
You don't want to hear the truth... You're mind is set in concrete that Jones is a bum and you're like a Trump supporter. You posted biased articles from haters... It's like quoting a Fox News story on Hillary Clinton.
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
You have a lot of dead air space.... between your ears
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
That would occur to anyone who had a conversation with you...
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
The CW of celebrity athletes becoming fighters suggests that Ed 'too tall' Jones first three fights showed that he couldn't fight. His people then paid a journeyman to lay down in 41 seconds (Montes), but when they couldn't find anymore suitable ('buyable') opponents they tried a couple of tomato cans (safe fights,) and when Too Tall still didn't show much, they all (smartly) walked away from it.
I am not saying that's what happened, I am saying that's what usually happens when a celebrity athlete enters this game.
I am not saying that's what happened, I am saying that's what usually happens when a celebrity athlete enters this game.
Last edited by APerno on 27 Mar 2018, 15:51, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
IDK...he did look ok on occasion (weak opposition of course), but that's about it. Landry said he was finally showing fire in the NFL after he came back. Maybe he got some motivation on his NFL career considering alternatives.APerno wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 15:48 The CW of celebrity athletes becoming fighters suggests that Ed 'too tall' Jones first three fights showed that he couldn't fight. His people then then paid a journeyman to lay down in 41 seconds (Montes), but when they couldn't find anymore suitable ('buyable') opponents they tried a couple of tomato cans (safe fights,) and when Too Tall still didn't show much, they all (smartly) walked away from it.
I am not saying that's what happened, I am saying that's what usually happens when a celebrity athlete enters this game.
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
You use derogatory terms about fighters all the time, you filthy hypocriteKalan wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 14:14Don't use hate language like "bum"oogiebe wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 14:09Um...you went over the opponents, and frankly, it's not interesting. Jones was a bum. If was good as you dream, he would've been picked up by a promoter and been pushed. If he was good, he would have been a huge money-maker. I've read your arguments ad nauseam and it falls flat, just like Liston v. Ali II. You have a proclivity of defending poor positions. That is the really interesting thing.Kalan wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 14:00
I predicted Fields would get knocked out by the first good fighter he fought... Fields was a shitt athlete.
Let's go over these opponents because this is interesting....
1 - Meneses 5-6-0.... If you have LITTLE or NO amateur experience, your first few opponents are generally throw away opponents making their debut or having 1 or 2 wins at the most... As you can see Meneses had 5 wins in 11 fights... Not an appropriate boxer for a pro debut vs somebody with almost ZERO experience... I suspect he was a ringer put in to beat Jones... He was allowed by the referee to get away with a massive foul -- hitting a sitting down Jones with a devastating head shot leaves me to believe he was a plant... However Jones upset the apple cart and beat him easy...
2- Holloman 1-15- Is an opponent Too Tall should have fought in his 1st fight... Made no sense after Meneses
3- Montes 18-12-1 Too Tall's 3rd opponent was another ringer... You don't put a guy with 2 professional fights in with a guy who has a winning record in 31 fights and fought contenders... That's stupid... Too Tall swung hard because he had too... He had to get Montes out of there in a hurry -- and he got him good and flattened him... NEXT!!!!
There WAS NO NEXT!!! .... Wallace wasn't an appropriate opponent after Too Tall disposed of Montes... You have to step him up... Thomas and Gonzales weren't opponents at all... They were a 1000 times worse than Wallace.
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
Thank you Counter-Puncher...but I think Kalan was joking about that considering the word was BUM.Counter-puncher wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 16:21You use derogatory terms about fighters all the time, you filthy hypocriteKalan wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 14:14Don't use hate language like "bum"oogiebe wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 14:09
Um...you went over the opponents, and frankly, it's not interesting. Jones was a bum. If was good as you dream, he would've been picked up by a promoter and been pushed. If he was good, he would have been a huge money-maker. I've read your arguments ad nauseam and it falls flat, just like Liston v. Ali II. You have a proclivity of defending poor positions. That is the really interesting thing.
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
He isn't self-aware or subtle enough for that kind of 'joke'
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
LOL! "Subtle?" Absolutely not.Counter-puncher wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 16:24 He isn't self-aware or subtle enough for that kind of 'joke'
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
Gotta give some props to Willie Pepp. To punch that softly (couldn't break a soap bubble) he must've had some ring smarts! Ask Sandy Saddler.
Re: Who has the best Ring intelligence in boxing history?
Obviously it's Kalan. Just ask him.