SenorPipino wrote: ↑12 May 2018, 11:57
I know it's not "prewar" but I wonder if Miles could shine light on the controversies regarding Shaver's power (not that big a puncher) and Chuvalo's chin (not that great).
ATG's told us that Shavers was the hardest hitter.
1 - Ali
2 - Holmes
3 - Lyle
etc.
4 - Foreman said he's thankful he didn't fight Shavers!
It's all on vid to check ourselves. I know Kalan says Holmes indicated Cooney, but Holmes said Shavers hit harder.
The first time that Shavers actually connected on Holmes chin in about 20 rounds, he sent the Easton Assassin down hard on his ass.
Cooney never accomplished that, and he landed with much greater frequency than Shavers.
SenorPipino wrote: ↑12 May 2018, 11:57
I know it's not "prewar" but I wonder if Miles could shine light on the controversies regarding Shaver's power (not that big a puncher) and Chuvalo's chin (not that great).
ATG's told us that Shavers was the hardest hitter.
1 - Ali
2 - Holmes
3 - Lyle
etc.
4 - Foreman said he's thankful he didn't fight Shavers!
It's all on vid to check ourselves. I know Kalan says Holmes indicated Cooney, but Holmes said Shavers hit harder.
The first time that Shavers actually connected on Holmes chin in about 20 rounds, he sent the Easton Assassin down hard on his ass.
Cooney never accomplished that, and he landed with much greater frequency than Shavers.
Even in his absence, Kalan has some strange beliefs. I can still remember being embarrassed for Cooney during the "Apology."
oogiebe wrote: ↑12 May 2018, 12:38
To be fair, Kalan's issue with me is his delivery style more than what he posts. He gives no quarter if you disagree but with little to back it up (but tons of vids and articles you have to at least respect). If he wasn't so rude, I wouldn't really have too much issue with his "facts." Can't take away the homework he does, really.
But isn't that the point? It is one thing to have knowledge but it is how you deliver it that actually matters. How you interact with your fellow man, how you share that knowledge, how you convince others with the strength of your argument having weighed up the pros and cons. When you debate with someone it should be a two-way process with each person listening to the other and respecting their views. With the K-man it is all just rammed down your neck. There is no excuse for accusing Jimmy Wilde of being a fraudster and a charlatan. That's is why I got involved in this in the first place. To say something like that is disgusting. There are no facts to back it up.
oogiebe wrote: ↑12 May 2018, 12:38
To be fair, Kalan's issue with me is his delivery style more than what he posts. He gives no quarter if you disagree but with little to back it up (but tons of vids and articles you have to at least respect). If he wasn't so rude, I wouldn't really have too much issue with his "facts." Can't take away the homework he does, really.
But isn't that the point? It is one thing to have knowledge but it is how you deliver it that actually matters. How you interact with your fellow man, how you share that knowledge, how you convince others with the strength of your argument having weighed up the pros and cons. When you debate with someone it should be a two-way process with each person listening to the other and respecting their views. With the K-man it is all just rammed down your neck. There is no excuse for accusing Jimmy Wilde of being a fraudster and a charlatan. That's is why I got involved in this in the first place. To say something like that is disgusting. There are no facts to back it up.
Clearly. Like the old adage, "it's not what you say, it's how you say it." and my favorite quote, "Eschew Obfuscation."
So we all agree he has bad manners. Is emotional in his opining and interestingly selective in how he prioritizes his facts and how he integrates his thinking toward his assumptions.
He perplexes quite a few, pisses many off, leaves others dumbfounded at his reasoning, seems callous, self centered and to some of just flat goofy.
He is not a researcher and it beats me why he wants to act curmudgeonly when a researcher is willing to share his thoughts in a way that might help shape an opinion. Info like that just needs consideration so that opinions are more well informed.
But I heard it takes all kinds . Although as I understand it in England one must take care and be clear that their words are their opinions and not a statement of fact, lest things get litigious. Not sure if that holds up for the deceased, but I'm in agreement that it's hard to read some of the venomous words used against some very celebrated pugilists. Some may be considering recourse.
But I've never considered walking out based on an outlier personality. One should always consider the source and keep things in perspective. Their is often an inverse correlation between the volume of ones opinion and its wisdom. Louder is seldom wiser. Being exposed to jabberwocky builds the intellectual immune system.
BoxBuzz wrote: ↑12 May 2018, 13:40
So we all agree he has bad manners. Is emotional in his opining and interestingly selective in how he prioritizes his facts and how he integrates his thinking toward his assumptions.
He perplexes quite a few, pisses many off, leaves others dumbfounded at his reasoning, seems callous, self centered and to some of just flat goofy.
He is not a researcher and it beats me why he wants to act curmudgeonly when a researcher is willing to share his thoughts in a way that might help shape an opinion. Info like that just needs consideration so that opinions are more well informed.
But I heard it takes all kinds . Although as I understand it in England one must take care and be clear that their words are their opinions and not a statement of fact, lest things get litigious. Not sure if that holds up for the deceased, but I'm in agreement that it's hard to read some of the venomous words used against some very celebrated pugilists. Some may be considering recourse.
But I've never considered walking out based on an outlier personality. One should always consider the source and keep things in perspective. Their is often an inverse correlation between the volume of ones opinion and its wisdom. Louder is seldom wiser.
BoxBuzz wrote: ↑12 May 2018, 13:40
So we all agree he has bad manners. Is emotional in his opining and interestingly selective in how he prioritizes his facts and how he integrates his thinking toward his assumptions.
He perplexes quite a few, pisses many off, leaves others dumbfounded at his reasoning, seems callous, self centered and to some of just flat goofy.
He is not a researcher and it beats me why he wants to act curmudgeonly when a researcher is willing to share his thoughts in a way that might help shape an opinion. Info like that just needs consideration so that opinions are more well informed.
But I heard it takes all kinds . Although as I understand it in England one must take care and be clear that their words are their opinions and not a statement of fact, lest things get litigious. Not sure if that holds up for the deceased, but I'm in agreement that it's hard to read some of the venomous words used against some very celebrated pugilists. Some may be considering recourse.
But I've never considered walking out based on an outlier personality. One should always consider the source and keep things in perspective. Their is often an inverse correlation between the volume of ones opinion and its wisdom. Louder is seldom wiser.
Well put. I cannot add.
Being exposed to jabberwocky builds the intellectual immune system
BoxBuzz wrote: ↑12 May 2018, 13:40
So we all agree he has bad manners. Is emotional in his opining and interestingly selective in how he prioritizes his facts and how he integrates his thinking toward his assumptions.
He perplexes quite a few, pisses many off, leaves others dumbfounded at his reasoning, seems callous, self centered and to some of just flat goofy.
He is not a researcher and it beats me why he wants to act curmudgeonly when a researcher is willing to share his thoughts in a way that might help shape an opinion. Info like that just needs consideration so that opinions are more well informed.
But I heard it takes all kinds . Although as I understand it in England one must take care and be clear that their words are their opinions and not a statement of fact, lest things get litigious. Not sure if that holds up for the deceased, but I'm in agreement that it's hard to read some of the venomous words used against some very celebrated pugilists. Some may be considering recourse.
But I've never considered walking out based on an outlier personality. One should always consider the source and keep things in perspective. Their is often an inverse correlation between the volume of ones opinion and its wisdom. Louder is seldom wiser.
Well put. I cannot add.
Being exposed to jabberwocky builds the intellectual immune system
Kalan is quite obviously a troll account of a regular poster on here. I do often wonder how many accounts on here are genuine, and how many are just troll alts of regulars. I suspect alts make up a rather large percentage.
Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑12 May 2018, 17:04
Kalan is quite obviously a troll account of a regular poster on here. I do often wonder how many accounts on here are genuine, and how many are just troll alts of regulars. I suspect alts make up a rather large percentage.
If true, it's a sad state of affairsfor those who are doing that.
Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑12 May 2018, 17:04
Kalan is quite obviously a troll account of a regular poster on here. I do often wonder how many accounts on here are genuine, and how many are just troll alts of regulars. I suspect alts make up a rather large percentage.
You've floated this theory before....I think you've tossed your suspicions my way on occasion. All I can say is who the hell has that kind of time on their hands? On the other hand....you have the letters "box" and the second thought starts with a "b".
And as Lennon put it......."I am he as you are me as you are me and we are all together"
I'm not a conspiracy person......though I'm sure it happens....but I can't imagine it's significant.
Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑12 May 2018, 17:04
Kalan is quite obviously a troll account of a regular poster on here. I do often wonder how many accounts on here are genuine, and how many are just troll alts of regulars. I suspect alts make up a rather large percentage.
You've floated this theory before....I think you've tossed your suspicions my way on occasion. All I can say is who the hell has that kind of time on their hands? On the other hand....you have the letters "box" and the second thought starts with a "b".
And as Lennon put it......."I am he as you are me as you are me and we are all together"
I'm not a conspiracy person......though I'm sure it happens....but I can't imagine it's significant.
I genuinely have no idea who has troll accounts and who doesn’t, and I don’t much care. I believe I did mention your name once, but only in response to a claim Saad had made, I’ve never pointed the finger at anyone.
As for who has the time on their hands...well lots of people do. I once knew a guy who spent hours every week creating fake Facebook profiles to troll his friends with, and he’d also write fake complaints on company websites. Very odd behaviour, but he seemed to enjoy it
I think Miles is focused specifically on a set of facts that Kalan has opined on, and that K stated in a way that seemed to indicate he could be depended upon to be somehow authoritative. And he's simply directly challenging the assertions with a litany of well researched information. Not sure he's interested in the more general escapades of the worlds foremast pugilistic authority.
BoxBuzz wrote: ↑12 May 2018, 20:54
I think Miles is focused specifically on a set of facts that Kalan has opined on, and that K stated in a way that seemed to indicate he could be depended upon to be somehow authoritative. And he's simply directly challenging the assertions with a litany of well researched information. Not sure he's interested in the more general escapades of the worlds foremast pugilistic authority.
Not sure who you are replying to. That said, nice post! Sounds like something I heard in My C ousin Vinnie! lol!
Seriously, Kalan did his diligence to support his opinions, in his own way. If he had an issue it was his approach in communicating very confrontationally and without enough merit (no equity). I'd rather see him change the approach and continue on the forum. His viewpoints, when taken without emotion, were interesting to say the least, but he also made me go "hmmmm" more than several times and even to the point of changing my thinking. (not counting Too Tall Jones or Wilt Chamberlain).
This has been beautifully done by Mr Templeton. It's not so much the ridiculous assertions that Kalan makes, more so his misplaced arrogance, and most bizarrely his fantasy alter ego.
For a guy who is supposedly a long time boxing insider he is woefully short on actual experiences. Unless you count him coming out of the crowd to beat up the world's 9th ranked heavyweight in a public sparring session.
