BoxRec

BoxBuzz wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:This DQ vs TKO aspect regarding fighters who quit on their stool or during a fight does not seem to have a pat answer. Several of the "experts" here seem to disagree.....as do some of the reporting bodies.


Due to the extreme importance of the subject I will wait to see what the more powerful minds of the sport have to say and wait for concensus before I show loyalty to one side or the other.

I have no dog in this race officially. Other than to say if I were King I would call it a TKO. If the man is not continuing for whatever reason I consider he has been technically KO'd. Though that does not seem to be the only ruling that has been used in various cases.

Speaking of dogs, If I was unclear as to my opinion earlier it may have been due to various distractions.....lately granberry and Collins have been biting at my ankles due to the fact that I have been cutting back on their treats due to their bad behavior. Lap dogs are nice but they can be prone to loud yapping and nonsensical outbursts from time to time. The only way I know how to reign them in is to cut back on their yum yums.

Other folks take more drastic action but I prefer the Dog Whisperer type of approach.

Boxbuzz, you have less spine than a jellyfish.

You were quite happy with granberry's style until your spiteful chum fell out with him.

What a fine weather fellow you turned out to be.

BTW, what 'treats' do you refer to? The only yum yums I get from you are when your posts betray your total lack of knowledge on boxing. That DOES make me laugh. Oh, I guess that is almost every one you post. Novice historian? Now that WAS a funny post.

That I can add to your happiness is good to know! Spent quite a bit of my life as an entertainer so I appreciate the feedback! I like diverse and coloful opinions. Including takes on my knowledge. I enjoy the sport and have no need to be "right" in every case. If you say I am wrong in almost every catagory then I will let that be judged by all and live with the outcome. I suppose I will have to stick around longer than most in order to continue to learn from those that are knowledgeable such as yourself granberry and barry. And for me the ride is interesting, entertaining and satisfying.

The issue is not "spine" the issue is a non-reactive self assured pondering of all the possiblitiies. When I'm wrong I'm wrong...no prob. However I may hold on to my wrong opinion until I am prepared to be educated by you or perhaps granberry. Then I'm sure that both of you will step forward and acknowledge my efforts and successes just as you have pointed out what I do not know about the physics, strategies, techniques, history and social impact of this sport that I do care about.

It's so much easier to be the student than the teacher. I'd hate to be the teacher with so many unruly students such as myself littering up the hallways.

In addition I am charged with the responsiblity of enforcing some rules of conversation and decorum, something I do know a bit about and although I do not do it like all the other mods I do believe I understand the spirit of that which I am charged with and intend to operate as such. Attempting to get under my skin will not get you booted, deleted or locked but breaking the rules will.

Now that approach is simply not the case for every mod and I will respect their different and unique styles. My suggestion is that you do not bait that type of mod as they may (and if fact did) choose a different path.

I had a friend once that for no darn good reason decided to chop off the back 55% of a rattlesnake and he laughed and thought that would be the end of the exchange. In fact his words to me without even looking back were " Well I guess that's that". Only to find that the front 45% decided to have a go at him and managed a good solid bite to his attackers leg. His leg hasn't been the same since. If he would have cut off just the front 5% he would have guaranteed himself no "bite backs" and could have safely turned his back on his opponent. Another question I've always pondered about him was why even pick that fight? No money, no glory, high risk, no potentional return and utlimately a very bad outcome. The snake did not have him in his sights and was busy going after a field mouse at the time. It certainly came under the heading of a "fight that didn't look right" to me.

What's my point? I forget. But I enjoyed writing about that memory since some of the folks here sometimes remind me of that friend.

Ambling Alp wrote:You didn't answer my question so I'm not answering your responding to your comments. Most of them I have answered many times before anyway.

elmersalsa wrote:Another example of a fight that does not seem right to me were the Robinson vs Gavilan fights...Something was wrong in my opinion

You guys know how I feel about those 2 fights.

I Feel Fine wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Another example of a fight that does not seem right to me were the Robinson vs Gavilan fights...Something was wrong in my opinion

You guys know how I feel about those 2 fights.

I think its required that you actually see the fight, which you haven't.

Collins2000 wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Another example of a fight that does not seem right to me were the Robinson vs Gavilan fights...Something was wrong in my opinion

You guys know how I feel about those 2 fights.

I think its required that you actually see the fight, which you haven't.

He's never seen Ali - Norton (2) but he believes strongly it should be a clear win for Norton.

I Feel Fine wrote:Jeez. What if an Ali fan came on here and said "I've never seen Ali-Frazier I, but that was probably a robbery." That guy would get quite a bombardment.

I saw the second fight again a few weeks ago; I had Ali the clear winner. And I, as I have said in the past, had Norton winning the third fight.

Explain to us, o wise one, why no one filmed Robinson's other WW title fights like Robinson-Bell or Robinson-Docusen, or even non-title fights of his like Robinson-LaMotta I-V or Robinson-Armstrong or almost any of Robinson's pre-1950 fights, yet how there was somehow a conspiracy to hide these two fights... two fights that he won and that a majority of people thought he won legitimately, by the way. And then explain to us why no one made any effort to hide Robinson-Turpin I, for example.

elmersalsa wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:Jeez. What if an Ali fan came on here and said "I've never seen Ali-Frazier I, but that was probably a robbery." That guy would get quite a bombardment.

I saw the second fight again a few weeks ago; I had Ali the clear winner. And I, as I have said in the past, had Norton winning the third fight.

Explain to us, o wise one, why no one filmed Robinson's other WW title fights like Robinson-Bell or Robinson-Docusen, or even non-title fights of his like Robinson-LaMotta I-V or Robinson-Armstrong or almost any of Robinson's pre-1950 fights, yet how there was somehow a conspiracy to hide these two fights... two fights that he won and that a majority of people thought he won legitimately, by the way. And then explain to us why no one made any effort to hide Robinson-Turpin I, for example.

Of the LaMotta fights, maybe was not the big name fighter like Joe Louis, I guess. I do not see fights of Billy Conn, Tony Zale and others like Rocky Graziano and Bob Montgomery. Heck, I have no one claim that they have seen Willie Pep's or Sandy Saddler's early fights of the early 1940s.

I do not know what are you saying that the MAJORITY of the people saw Robinson winning those two fights when the crowd was booing the decision in the first fight and in the second fight, Robinson had a HUGE CUT, and the fight was not stopped. I guess an AMERICAN cannot lose to a black guy from Cuba in any form

I Feel Fine wrote:I'm a diehard fan of Cuban boxers. I think its perhaps the greatest crime in boxing history that Cubans haven't been able to fight professionaly for the last 50 years without having to flee their country. Its the equivalent of banning pro boxing in Mexico; no Sanchez, no Chavez, no Morales, no Barrera. I wonder how many great champions from Cuba we could have had in those years.

So, on that note, go f--- yourself. And where the hell does his being black come into this? I know you don't know anything about Robinson, but I would hope you would at least be aware that he was a black man...

I don't know how bad the cut was, but you're an idiot to not know that its simply the opinion of the doctor and the ref on whether it can go or not and that there are plenty of examples of fighters being allowed to go the distance with a cut, there's no rule that says you automatically lose when you suffer a cut. Even more obvious to anyone who has seen more than twenty boxing matches is that boxing crowds don't know shit and that they often go for the underdog, which is why assholes like granberry can cite crowd support for Doug Jones as some sort of evidence that he deserved the decision. If you went by the crowd, De La Hoya would be undefeated. Crowd support does not mean a god damned thing when it comes to who won a fight.

Answer a direct question or get lost elmer. They didn't film almost any of Robinson's Welterweight fights, and yet you're claiming there was a conspiracy in place preventing these two fights from being filmed? Only a retard would believe that. You people make shit up as you go along. You have no idea about context. Every example shows that a fighter who quits in the midst of a round is a TKO loser, almost every fight of Robinson's before 1950 does not exist on film... and yet you f---ers are crying foul and claiming there's some sort of cover up?

I think the only person here who is a bigger idiot than granberry and elmer is me; for bothering.

I Feel Fine wrote:I'm a diehard fan of Cuban boxers. I think its perhaps the greatest crime in boxing history that Cubans haven't been able to fight professionaly for the last 50 years without having to flee their country. Its the equivalent of banning pro boxing in Mexico; no Sanchez, no Chavez, no Morales, no Barrera. I wonder how many great champions from Cuba we could have had in those years.

So, on that note, go f--- yourself. And where the hell does his being black come into this? I know you don't know anything about Robinson, but I would hope you would at least be aware that he was a black man...

I don't know how bad the cut was, but you're an idiot to not know that its simply the opinion of the doctor and the ref on whether it can go or not and that there are plenty of examples of fighters being allowed to go the distance with a cut, there's no rule that says you automatically lose when you suffer a cut. Even more obvious to anyone who has seen more than twenty boxing matches is that boxing crowds don't know shit and that they often go for the underdog, which is why assholes like granberry can cite crowd support for Doug Jones as some sort of evidence that he deserved the decision. If you went by the crowd, De La Hoya would be undefeated. Crowd support does not mean a god damned thing when it comes to who won a fight.

Answer a direct question or get lost elmer. They didn't film almost any of Robinson's Welterweight fights, and yet you're claiming there was a conspiracy in place preventing these two fights from being filmed? Only a retard would believe that. You people make shit up as you go along. You have no idea about context. Every example shows that a fighter who quits in the midst of a round is a TKO loser, almost every fight of Robinson's before 1950 does not exist on film... and yet you f---ers are crying foul and claiming there's some sort of cover up?

I think the only person here who is a bigger idiot than granberry and elmer is me; for bothering.

elmersalsa wrote:Saying all that shit won't get you nowhere nor change my opinion of Robinson vs Gavilan fights.

I Feel Fine wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Saying all that shit won't get you nowhere nor change my opinion of Robinson vs Gavilan fights.

No amount of education can cure an idiot, so I guess you're right.