I'm sorry to hear about that Dec and I hope you recover well.
One thing I must stress to you though is to be very damn careful with the pain medication. With gallstones and surgery I am guessing that you were prescribed either oxycontin 40s, morphine, or demerol with maybe percocets, or vicodin, or maybe a combo of two high-powered pain-killers, but be damn sure that you try to take it as prescribed, which I know will be difficult with the pain you must be in, but you sure as hell don't want to wake up one morning six, or ten weeks from now with an addiction to opiates.
Being that you have dealt with the pain of gallstones for a couple of years you must have a pretty high tolerance for pain because stones is one of the most painful things that a man can endure, I know I have seen it drop my father to his knees, which he passed a stone almost the size of a dime on that occasion, but I know that it has to be extremely painful.
Just be damn careful with the meds. Throughout my life I have been addicted to just about every type of drug that a person can be addicted to and there is nothing that compares to the hell of opiate addiction, plain and simple...talk about something that will really take over your life...opiates sure as hell will if you are not careful. I sincerely hope that you get to feeling better!
Best and worse heavyweight champs ?
re
Some people live and die by NA, or AA...personally, I have never had much use for them, but if it works for someone else, then they should do it. You say that you figure that your kidney was a result of abuse, have you had your liver checked as well? I have the early stages of cirrhosis, but being that the liver can heal I'm hoping that it has been slowed way down since I have gotten my life straightened out and I now have around seven years of living without the constant abuse that drugs and alcohol do to the body. I'm only 34, but I got started getting high when I was around 11 years old and that went on for close to 20 years. When you are young you never think about the later consequences of reckless living, but it sure as hell is pretty sobering when those consequences start taking effect!
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
Well I hope your recovery goes well. It sounds pretty serious, but the fact that you're 33 should help the healing process along.Decagon wrote:"Here, sign this consent form." I didn't figure out that it was surgery until I saw the name of the procedure, and it ended in "-ectomy." I woke up with a tube coming out of my abdomen, and a bag filled with puss next to me. I'll be sporting them for the next six to eight weeks. Then the second surgery. Maybe after that, I won't be as cranky.
Let’s hope you don’t lose too much of that Dec crankiness. We’re a heck of a group of misfits on this forum, and your contributions are often times critical to keeping the interest level high.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
top 10 worst linear heavyweight champs
10. Buster Douglas
9. Rocky Marciano- most overated heavyweight ever. he was very slow. max baer had dazzling speed compared to this
8. Michael Moorer
7. Jess Willard
6. Tommy Burns
5. Marvin Hart
4. hasim rahman
3. Leon Spinx
2. 1990 george foreman
1. Shannon Briggs
* vitali is not linear champ
10. Buster Douglas
9. Rocky Marciano- most overated heavyweight ever. he was very slow. max baer had dazzling speed compared to this
8. Michael Moorer
7. Jess Willard
6. Tommy Burns
5. Marvin Hart
4. hasim rahman
3. Leon Spinx
2. 1990 george foreman
1. Shannon Briggs
* vitali is not linear champ
Wow, Decagon, sorry man, tough break. A month ago I got on the scale and found that despite going to the healthclub 5 days a week I was tipping the scales at 217, too damn heavy at 5-11, so since then I've been living on raw fruits, vegetables, nuts and bran cereal supplimented with raw wheat germ, and flaxseed. I do this 6 days a week then usually Saturday night, I eat absolutely anything I want, pizza, cheeseburgers, Italian beef etc. Now a month later I'm down around 200 and feeling great, and I'm in my mid 40's. Might not sound that relevant to your condition, but I think holistic is the way to go for everyone.
-
pundit
- Heavyweight
-
pundit
- Heavyweight
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
pundit wrote:..... and anyway shouldn't be on the list. He had pretty good handspeed.BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:top 10 worst linear heavyweight champs
* vitali is not linear champ
vitali would be on the list. he is vastly overated. he is totally unproven. i dont see the good handspeed on film.....hes slow.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
Dec, I have to agree with you about Schmeling. I was kind of puzzled when I saw him listed as one of the worst heavyweight champions. He was such a good heavyweight. Solid jab, booming right hand, pretty good chin, nice technique. Not to mention, like already mentioned, he KO'd one of the top three heavyweights of all-time shortly before his prime. Overall, good post.
Sorry to hear about your recent bout with illness. Keep your spirits up and get well soon!
Sorry to hear about your recent bout with illness. Keep your spirits up and get well soon!
I'm dizzy from the Spin
Sorry, but you historical review and spin of Schmelings career didn’t change my mind, or the reality of the issue.
A fighter who was knocked out by a fighter named Diekmen, in which Schmeling was his second opponent, (he went on to a 3-2-3 career record) losing to a barely alive Jack Taylor, and a dime a dozen journeyman named Larry Gains, along with 3 draws, all in his first 18 fights?
Later, after beating a lineup of the walking dead, he gets KOed in 1 by Gipsy Danials?
Still later, the referee steps in and saves him from certain death at the hands of Max Bear, this after a loss to another bottom of the heap champ, Jack Sharkey?
Yup….bottom 10 heavyweight champ for SURE..
A fighter who was knocked out by a fighter named Diekmen, in which Schmeling was his second opponent, (he went on to a 3-2-3 career record) losing to a barely alive Jack Taylor, and a dime a dozen journeyman named Larry Gains, along with 3 draws, all in his first 18 fights?
Later, after beating a lineup of the walking dead, he gets KOed in 1 by Gipsy Danials?
Still later, the referee steps in and saves him from certain death at the hands of Max Bear, this after a loss to another bottom of the heap champ, Jack Sharkey?
Yup….bottom 10 heavyweight champ for SURE..
Well, the fact that you felt a need to call me an idiot shows I already won the argument. Only the lame and inept resort to Jr high-level name-calling.
Now I normally don’t kick a man when he is down, but you show by your juvinle comments, don’t meet the man criteria, so I will proceed.
When looking at “greatness” or the lack there of, you need to look at the big picture, and the fighters entire career. Schmeling beating European (lol)light heavyweights does not change the fact that he was one notch above a mediocre heavyweight.
As a self proclaimed “expert” on 30s boxing, you should know the state of boxing in Europe at that time, doesn’t lend itself to showing greatness to someone who showed a 15-3-3 record.
You are clearly a disciple of the revisionist rose colored glasses wearing mainstream boxing media.
Just a tip, when discussing the sport with someone who has been around the sport for 30 years, that won’t cut it. It will only make you look silly, which in this case, it has. Also, posting in caps doesn't make a flawed message less flawed, it only makes it all the more laughable.
No charge for this lesson, but here after, I may have to send you a bill.
Now I normally don’t kick a man when he is down, but you show by your juvinle comments, don’t meet the man criteria, so I will proceed.
When looking at “greatness” or the lack there of, you need to look at the big picture, and the fighters entire career. Schmeling beating European (lol)light heavyweights does not change the fact that he was one notch above a mediocre heavyweight.
As a self proclaimed “expert” on 30s boxing, you should know the state of boxing in Europe at that time, doesn’t lend itself to showing greatness to someone who showed a 15-3-3 record.
You are clearly a disciple of the revisionist rose colored glasses wearing mainstream boxing media.
Just a tip, when discussing the sport with someone who has been around the sport for 30 years, that won’t cut it. It will only make you look silly, which in this case, it has. Also, posting in caps doesn't make a flawed message less flawed, it only makes it all the more laughable.
No charge for this lesson, but here after, I may have to send you a bill.
Oh, also brainiac, making any reference to jack Johnson’s early career, again shows you are not up to the scope of this discussion. Anyone who knows jack (no pun intended) about the subject knows that in those days, Johnson was fighting for a loaf of bread and a ride home in a mule cart.
Your lists also showed that your “knowledge” of boxing is a tangled mix of regurgitated commentary from the Larry Merchants and the Bert Sugars of the world.
Hack reporters who create commentary and revise history to pain an over simplified story that Jon Q Idiot public can easily digest.
Again, wont cut it when discussing the sport with someone who actually knows
Your lists also showed that your “knowledge” of boxing is a tangled mix of regurgitated commentary from the Larry Merchants and the Bert Sugars of the world.
Hack reporters who create commentary and revise history to pain an over simplified story that Jon Q Idiot public can easily digest.
Again, wont cut it when discussing the sport with someone who actually knows
You hold against Max Schmeling a cuts loss, which took place early in his career.
If a fighter is a 'bleeder', that takes away from his "greatness"
Remember Jerry Quarry ?
He had all the tools, except the nateral disadvantage of bleeding like a butcherd pig any time he took a shot above the eye.
Nothing inconsistent what so ever
If a fighter is a 'bleeder', that takes away from his "greatness"
Remember Jerry Quarry ?
He had all the tools, except the nateral disadvantage of bleeding like a butcherd pig any time he took a shot above the eye.
Nothing inconsistent what so ever
re
Well, he could have tore your post apart without the name calling...any one who considers Larry Gains a "dime a dozern journeyman," well the person has got a lot to learn and if they have been around the sport for 30 years and don't know more about it than that, then I would suggest a new hobby!
Also, I'd like to know what do you really know about Jack Taylor, or any of his other opponents, other than the many incomplete record here in the database?
As far as Schmeling being knocked out in one, well a lot of great fighters were knocked out in one round by a lot lesser opponents than Gypsy Daniels.
Also, Schmeling lost to Diekmann when he was 19 years old, but for some reason you fail to mention that Schmeling came back after maturing and gaining experience and knocked out Diekmann in one round...I guess it didn't fit your arguement to mention that eh?
Schmeling beat a slew of top heavyweights, which someone that has been around boxing for 30 years should know!
Now I pretty much disagree with Dec view of the older fighters, but I think he is pretty spot on about Schmeling!
Also, I'd like to know what do you really know about Jack Taylor, or any of his other opponents, other than the many incomplete record here in the database?
As far as Schmeling being knocked out in one, well a lot of great fighters were knocked out in one round by a lot lesser opponents than Gypsy Daniels.
Also, Schmeling lost to Diekmann when he was 19 years old, but for some reason you fail to mention that Schmeling came back after maturing and gaining experience and knocked out Diekmann in one round...I guess it didn't fit your arguement to mention that eh?
Schmeling beat a slew of top heavyweights, which someone that has been around boxing for 30 years should know!
Now I pretty much disagree with Dec view of the older fighters, but I think he is pretty spot on about Schmeling!
I do know all thatt, trust me.
All I am saying, is that if you look at the total list of heavyweight champs, and you look at the BIG picture, Schmeling was at or near the bottom of the list in TOTAL accomplishments vs setbacks
One last thing, and not to hog this thread, but like I said, I have been around this sport for 30 years, and actually counting when I was a kid, longer then that. I actually corrected BoxRec on their info on a fighter named Chet Vinci. I knew the actual record, because he was worked out in the same Gym as my dad, (who will remain nameless for the sake of this forum) I was there as a kid when Billy Backus beat Jose Napoles for the welterweight title (One of the biggest upsets in boxing history) I know first hane, the REAL deal about Basillio’s relationship with Gabe Genovese and Frankie Carbo, not that load of crap from the HBO special.
Funny thing about Boxing. More so then any other sport, a story gets told and retold, and it becomes legend. But whan you do an objective review of some of these stories, you find that they have made heros out of "ok" fighters, and overlooked greatness over and over again.
The Boxing community sems to hav reached an agreement for example, that Joe Louis was the greates heavyweight of all time. That is not off the wall, but neither in my opinion is it accurate. But that as they say, is another discussion
All I am saying, is that if you look at the total list of heavyweight champs, and you look at the BIG picture, Schmeling was at or near the bottom of the list in TOTAL accomplishments vs setbacks
One last thing, and not to hog this thread, but like I said, I have been around this sport for 30 years, and actually counting when I was a kid, longer then that. I actually corrected BoxRec on their info on a fighter named Chet Vinci. I knew the actual record, because he was worked out in the same Gym as my dad, (who will remain nameless for the sake of this forum) I was there as a kid when Billy Backus beat Jose Napoles for the welterweight title (One of the biggest upsets in boxing history) I know first hane, the REAL deal about Basillio’s relationship with Gabe Genovese and Frankie Carbo, not that load of crap from the HBO special.
Funny thing about Boxing. More so then any other sport, a story gets told and retold, and it becomes legend. But whan you do an objective review of some of these stories, you find that they have made heros out of "ok" fighters, and overlooked greatness over and over again.
The Boxing community sems to hav reached an agreement for example, that Joe Louis was the greates heavyweight of all time. That is not off the wall, but neither in my opinion is it accurate. But that as they say, is another discussion
re
Fr the record...someone who has been around boxing for 30 years would not list all the alphabet soup paper title holders that you listed in your first post as being champions!
Tommy Morrison...Michael Bentt...Herbie Hide...these fighters were not champions...though I guess some people consider all the bogus ABC belts to make a fighter legit...hell in that case Brain Neilsen needs to be listed as he held the IBA belt!
The big picture does not mean calling ABC trinket holders champion!
Tommy Morrison...Michael Bentt...Herbie Hide...these fighters were not champions...though I guess some people consider all the bogus ABC belts to make a fighter legit...hell in that case Brain Neilsen needs to be listed as he held the IBA belt!
The big picture does not mean calling ABC trinket holders champion!
re
>>>The Boxing community sems to hav reached an agreement for example, that Joe Louis was the greates heavyweight of all time. That is not off the wall, but neither in my opinion is it accurate. But that as they say, is another discussion<<<
Well, I actually know about ten to twenty of the worlds very best boxing historians who feel that Louis is the best...personally I think it is Ali, but Louis is no doubt second! But I don't know anyone, otrher than you that would have Gene Tunney in they're top ten, and I'm not talking about the casual fan, I'm talking about people that have researched boxing almost daily for upward of 50 years. And being that you seem to speak so much about the "big Picture" what did Tunney accomplish at heavyweight to make him rank 7 all-time, beating an old and faded Jack Dempsey...not much of a big picture there!
Well, I actually know about ten to twenty of the worlds very best boxing historians who feel that Louis is the best...personally I think it is Ali, but Louis is no doubt second! But I don't know anyone, otrher than you that would have Gene Tunney in they're top ten, and I'm not talking about the casual fan, I'm talking about people that have researched boxing almost daily for upward of 50 years. And being that you seem to speak so much about the "big Picture" what did Tunney accomplish at heavyweight to make him rank 7 all-time, beating an old and faded Jack Dempsey...not much of a big picture there!