Ray Mancini versus Sean O'Grady

[oogiebe]

Let's just analyse this thread a little.

We have yet another tedious debate about which boxer from one era would have beaten another boxer from a different era.

Not only are these debates polluting a sub-forum that is supposed to be about ACTUAL boxing history but this particular one shows why these endless diatribes are so monotonous and uninteresting.

We have just had counterpuncher calling a fellow contributor an idiot for trying to assess an ACTUAL contest from a scorecard when he didn't even see the "fricken fight". He is doing this to support his theory about a contest for which there was no scorecard because there never was a "fricken fight" in the first place.

We then have APerno responding to what he sees as an insult. In other words, they are squabbling about something that never actually happened in the first place. The thread has degenerated into a petty argument.


For heaven's sake, will you take this repetitive claptrap, for which there are endless similar examples, to the newly-created Mystical Fights sub-forum and leave the rest of us, who actually want to talk about REAL boxing history, in peace

Miles Templeton

Well said. I know I've been guilty at times of contributing to the insanity as well.

[prewarboxing]

Let's just analyse this thread a little.

We have yet another tedious debate about which boxer from one era would have beaten another boxer from a different era.

Not only are these debates polluting a sub-forum that is supposed to be about ACTUAL boxing history but this particular one shows why these endless diatribes are so monotonous and uninteresting.

We have just had counterpuncher calling a fellow contributor an idiot for trying to assess an ACTUAL contest from a scorecard when he didn't even see the "fricken fight". He is doing this to support his theory about a contest for which there was no scorecard because there never was a "fricken fight" in the first place.

We then have APerno responding to what he sees as an insult. In other words, they are squabbling about something that never actually happened in the first place. The thread has degenerated into a petty argument.


For heaven's sake, will you take this repetitive claptrap, for which there are endless similar examples, to the newly-created Mystical Fights sub-forum and leave the rest of us, who actually want to talk about REAL boxing history, in peace

Miles Templeton

Well said. I know I've been guilty at times of contributing to the insanity as well.

Cheers oogiebe. It is doing my head in.

I would be prepared to contribute so much about boxing history to this forum if I felt it was of interest to people who care about the REAL history of the game, but I am constantly put off from doing so when all I ever see are these gormless debates endlessly promulgated by the likes of scorpio83, Woldemar and a few others.

Picking my way through this boxing history forum is like wading through a potentially beautiful river which, in actuality, is full of plastic bottles and shopping trolleys. Pollution! Take it elsewhere!

Miles Templeton.

[oogiebe]

Well said. I know I've been guilty at times of contributing to the insanity as well.

Cheers oogiebe. It is doing my head in.

I would be prepared to contribute so much about boxing history to this forum if I felt it was of interest to people who care about the REAL history of the game, but I am constantly put off from doing so when all I ever see are these gormless debates endlessly promulgated by the likes of scorpio83, Woldemar and a few others.

Picking my way through this boxing history forum is like wading through a potentially beautiful river which, in actuality, is full of plastic bottles and shopping trolleys. Pollution! Take it elsewhere!

Miles Templeton.

I have to admit, I used to spend more time here in history. I learned and shared more in the history thread about yesteryear's fighters and events more so when I first joined the forum. It has been reduced to a mess of "my dad can beat up your dad" more recently. I'm happy they made a separate place for the fantasy fights, now we just need posters to comply. Hopefully it will get under control and posters such as yourself can then share all that lovely history with the rest of us!

[APerno]

Let's just analyse this thread a little.

We have yet another tedious debate about which boxer from one era would have beaten another boxer from a different era.

Not only are these debates polluting a sub-forum that is supposed to be about ACTUAL boxing history but this particular one shows why these endless diatribes are so monotonous and uninteresting.

We have just had counterpuncher calling a fellow contributor an idiot for trying to assess an ACTUAL contest from a scorecard when he didn't even see the "fricken fight". He is doing this to support his theory about a contest for which there was no scorecard because there never was a "fricken fight" in the first place.

We then have APerno responding to what he sees as an insult. In other words, they are squabbling about something that never actually happened in the first place. The thread has degenerated into a petty argument.


For heaven's sake, will you take this repetitive claptrap, for which there are endless similar examples, to the newly-created Mythical Fights sub-forum and leave the rest of us, who actually want to talk about REAL boxing history, in peace

Miles Templeton

The fight I was analyzing. It did happen in this universe.

1980-11-01 135 Sean O'Grady 133 73 1 0 Kelvin Hall, Glasgow W TKO 12/15

time: 2:37 | referee: Raymond Baldeyrou 109-105 | Harry Gibbs 108-104 | Arthur Mercante 104-103
World Boxing Council World Lightweight Title
O'Grady stopped with ugly gash to forehead requiring 11 stitches

I was replying to the comment that O'Grady was beating Watt before the stoppage. I thought the scores were a good way to parse that argument.

Since when is reviewing an official score from a sporting contest not a good way to analysis the result of a sporting event?

I was in no way making any comment about Mancini-O'Grady. Didn't care about that fight.

I did care about the other poster getting jumped for saying he thought "Watt was kicking O'Grady's butt." And if I want to counter that phrase by pointing to the actual scores of the fight that's good history; that makes prefect sense.

I really do not understand why you are trying to silence me.

[Onetimeonly]

You should silence yourself, or just take 40 minutes and actually watch the fight you're offering an opinion on

[prewarboxing]

"We then have APerno responding to what he sees as an insult. In other words, they are squabbling about something that never actually happened in the first place.

I really do not understand why you are trying to silence me"

I am not trying to silence you at all. If anything I was actually defending you by pointing out that you were being called an idiot by someone because they did not feel that you could analyse a contest from a scorecard. I merely stated that you were insulted, which you had every right to be.

My overall point was that we had a squabble about an actual fight within a thread about a mythical fight, which to me is part of what is spoiling the history section. By all means discuss Watt v O'Grady, which happened, but I, and quite a few others are sick and tired of all these mythicals clogging up the history forum when there is a brand-new sub-forum especially there for the mythicals.

I am happy to post the Boxing News report of Watt v O'Grady if the debate ever appears under a thread about this contest rather than in one dedicated to yet another of these blasted mythicals.

No offence intended

Miles Templeton

[chrisjs1985]

Let's just analyse this thread a little.

We have yet another tedious debate about which boxer from one era would have beaten another boxer from a different era.

Not only are these debates polluting a sub-forum that is supposed to be about ACTUAL boxing history but this particular one shows why these endless diatribes are so monotonous and uninteresting.

We have just had counterpuncher calling a fellow contributor an idiot for trying to assess an ACTUAL contest from a scorecard when he didn't even see the "fricken fight". He is doing this to support his theory about a contest for which there was no scorecard because there never was a "fricken fight" in the first place.

We then have APerno responding to what he sees as an insult. In other words, they are squabbling about something that never actually happened in the first place. The thread has degenerated into a petty argument.


For heaven's sake, will you take this repetitive claptrap, for which there are endless similar examples, to the newly-created Mythical Fights sub-forum and leave the rest of us, who actually want to talk about REAL boxing history, in peace

Miles Templeton