BoxRec

Rex Layne may be a missing link in this discussion. Layne and Marciano were both up and coming heavyweights in 1951 when they met. The 23 year old Layne had never been stopped, but did have one decision loss and a couple of draws on his record.

Layne was favored over Rocky. Rocky pretty much destroyed Rex, knocking out a couple of Layne's teeth and smashing his bridgework, knocking out Rex Layne in the 6th round.

Rex was never the same, as a boxer, after that, losing a bunch of fights after fighting Rocky..

Maybe I should have had prime Layne (before the Marciano fight) or prime LaStarza against prime Ellis, and then took it from there. I think that Ellis probably beats Layne or LaStarza, but LaStarza almost beat Rocky in their first fight (a 10 rounder), but Marciano may have not peaked yet, and 10 rounds against the Rock was not as tough as 15.

Scypion wrote: ↑29 Mar 2018, 16:33 Rex Layne may be a missing link in this discussion. Layne and Marciano were both up and coming heavyweights in 1951 when they met. The 23 year old Layne had never been stopped, but did have one decision loss and a couple of draws on his record.

Layne was favored over Rocky. Rocky pretty much destroyed Rex, knocking out a couple of Layne's teeth and smashing his bridgework, knocking out Rex Layne in the 6th round.

Rex was never the same, as a boxer, after that, losing a bunch of fights after fighting Rocky..

Maybe I should have had prime Layne (before the Marciano fight) or prime LaStarza against prime Ellis, and then took it from there. I think that Ellis probably beats Layne or LaStarza, but LaStarza almost beat Rocky in their first fight (a 10 rounder), but Marciano may have not peaked yet, and 10 rounds against the Rock was not as tough as 15.

Great call! Rex Layne was everything you said and I totally forgot about him! That was a destruction...literally.

Marciano didn't think much of Layne... He thought his coaching was terrible and his balance was atrocious.

Rocky said "'I don't know what they're teaching this kid but it certainly isn't much. How can you fight without balance""
-- 9:59 to 10:13 of this video -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EApd9tFq4Rs

Now see Rocky's balance vs Rex Layne..., :33 to :39 of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1mz4e5bnK8

I also loved the sound effects for the punches in this last one... a mallet hitting a book.

Kalan wrote: ↑30 Mar 2018, 01:40 Marciano didn't think much of Layne... He thought his coaching was terrible and his balance was atrocious.

Rocky said "'I don't know what they're teaching this kid but it certainly isn't much. How can you fight without balance""
-- 9:59 to 10:13 of this video -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EApd9tFq4Rs

Now see Rocky's balance vs Rex Layne..., :33 to :39 of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1mz4e5bnK8

I also loved the sound effects for the punches in this last one... a mallet hitting a book.

Layne did not look very impressive in those tapes, even though he knocked out Satterfield. Off those tapes, Ellis looks to be an easy winner over Rex.

For some of you who simply can't accept reality....please note......


If Ali would have hit Liston, and Liston went down just as Layne did, I'm afraid you'd call it bogus.

I mean he was hit......and then can't quite decide if "this is the time" or not. But utlimately does....and seems to take the time to cushion his fall....

and goes into a "nap time" position......obviously fake.

Just like the Foley KO and Liston KO's from Ali. I mean who goes to sleep in that position?


OK folks my point is that a man being KO'd or even "truly having his bell rung" can take on a million different looks.
This is one of them, Liston's second fight is one....Foley's is one.....and Trevor Berbick multiple falls is one.....as is Zab Judah's at the hands of Kostya. Which by the way is a close cousin of the Liston fall except for the fact that Liston checked the moment and took a few seconds before rising to insure he wouldn't fall back down as Zab did......Zab just wasn't very smart. How about that? Liston was a smarter fighter than Zab.

IF only Walcott had taken control and allowed the Ali Liston fight to continue.....life would be so much more boring.

BoxBuzz wrote: ↑30 Mar 2018, 19:47 For some of you who simply can't accept reality....please note...... If Ali would have hit Liston, and Liston went down just as Layne did, I'm afraid you'd call it bogus. I mean he was hit......and then can't quite decide if "this is the time" or not. But utlimately does....and seems to take the time to cushion his fall.... and goes into a "nap time" position......obviously fake ..... like the Foley KO and Liston KO's from Ali. ..... who goes to sleep in that position?

OK folks my point is that a man being KO'd or even "truly having his bell rung" can take on a million different looks.
This is one of them, Liston's second fight is one....Foley's is one.....and Trevor Berbick multiple falls is one.....as is Zab Judah's at the hands of Kostya. Which by the way is a close cousin of the Liston fall except for the fact that Liston checked the moment and took a few seconds before rising to insure he wouldn't fall back down as Zab did......Zab just wasn't very smart. How about that? Liston was a smarter fighter than Zab. IF only Walcott had taken control and allowed the Ali Liston fight to continue.....life would be so much more boring.

BuzzBox there's a lot of bogus KO's if you don't know it.... If you're WAY over-matched do you want to take a beating? Hell no... Go down. Take the count ...... You get paid the same money if you do a Brian London dive -- or if you get knocked out in the 12th after getting smashed and battered half to death like Meldrick Taylor did by Chavez... Don't mistreat your brain.. You're going to need it for another 60 years after your boxing career is over...

Layne seemed fake the KO loss to Rocky... Maybe somebody had a big bet on Rocky to win in the 6th... Tervor Berbick tried to get up when Mike hit him... Zab Judah tried his best to get up... Folley didn't try... Layne didn't try... They fell nice nice and soft and stayed down on the canvas like good little boys... Folley had been knocked out a few times and didn't like it.

I don't think Joshua needed to go down when Wladimir hit him... But if he DIDN'T he might have gotten ripped with follow up bombs and they may have finished him off... It's one of those split second decisions a boxer makes for respite.

You're the only human being on Earth who thinks Ali hit Liston with a KO punch with that "Phantom Shot." ...It was a pretty standard flash knockdown... Ali needed to go to a neutral corner for the count to start... He never did so it didn't... If you had a neutral referee in there -- there's a good chance Ali would have been disqualified for his conduct... You just leave 10,000 important facts out of your equations so you can agree with non-official, Nat Fleischer....

Roland LaStarza was a good boxer, but I believe that Jimmy Ellis takes him. Ellis is not a good match up for LaStarza. Jimmy is a little bigger than Roland, hits harder, and I believe is faster.

LaStarza had a good record, but he built up his record with a lot of easy fights with boxers with many losses. Many of his opponents had more losses than wins.

Roland had 27 KO's or stoppages out of his 57 wins, despite a lot of weak opposition. So, compared to Jimmy Ellis, he was a light hitter.

So, I am pretty sure that Ellis beats prime LaStarza, but Rocky is something else. Rocky could really hit, but beating Jimmy Ellis would be much more difficult than beating LaStarza, IMO.

Scypion wrote: ↑31 Mar 2018, 18:45 Roland LaStarza was a good boxer, but I believe that Jimmy Ellis takes him. Ellis is not a good match up for LaStarza. Jimmy is a little bigger than Roland, hits harder, and I believe is faster.

LaStarza had a good record, but he built up his record with a lot of easy fights with boxers with many losses. Many of his opponents had more losses than wins.

Roland had 27 KO's or stoppages out of his 57 wins, despite a lot of weak opposition. So, compared to Jimmy Ellis, he was a light hitter.

So, I am pretty sure that Ellis beats prime LaStarza, but Rocky is something else. Rocky could really hit, but beating Jimmy Ellis would be much more difficult than beating LaStarza, IMO.

For those that don't know, Roland LaStarza was a boxer who fought Rocky Marciano twice, the second time in 1953 for the Heavyweight Championship. Some people thought that LaStarza shoud have won their first match, including Roland, but Rocky won a close decision. So, when they fought for the title, Rocky stopped LaStarza in round 11. Roland said that Marciano was a great fighter who was much better than in the first time they met in the ring in 1950.

I thought that Roland LaStarza's name was mentioned earlier in this thread, but maybe not.

I believe that Rex Layne and Roland LaStarza were the best two fighters that were still in their prime when they faced Marciano for the title. Charles, Walcott, and Moore were greater fighters, but were past their best against Rocky.

Again I say; I believe that Jimmy Ellis would beat either Rex Layne or Roland LaStarza. A fight with Marciano is not something I could predict, but it is a fight that I would have loved to have seen.

Kalan wrote: ↑31 Mar 2018, 01:25

Layne seemed fake the KO loss to Rocky
[/quote]

Layne had all of his front teeth sheared off at the gum line by Rocky's one punch KO right hand.

Quite a fake.

Scypion wrote: ↑21 Mar 2018, 23:40 The heavyweights are generally bigger today.

The heavyweights are generally fatter today.

Scypion wrote: ↑31 Mar 2018, 23:36 [Some people thought that LaStarza shoud have won their first match, including Roland, but Rocky won a close decision. So, when they fought for the title, Rocky stopped LaStarza in round 11.

3 fights before his Title Shot, LaStarza fought a weak hitting Light Heavyweight named Rocky Jones. who was 14-9-2.. LaStarza lost that fight ... In the rematch, LaStarza was decked by Jones, but managed to win.

Sidney Carton wrote: ↑01 Apr 2018, 03:12

Scypion wrote: ↑21 Mar 2018, 23:40 The heavyweights are generally bigger today.

The heavyweights are generally fatter today.

So very true. I've always said the past decades HW's would be 10 - 15 pounds heavier if fighting today. LOL!!!!

Scypion wrote: ↑31 Mar 2018, 23:36

Scypion wrote: ↑31 Mar 2018, 18:45 Roland LaStarza was a good boxer, but I believe that Jimmy Ellis takes him. Ellis is not a good match up for LaStarza. Jimmy is a little bigger than Roland, hits harder, and I believe is faster.

LaStarza had a good record, but he built up his record with a lot of easy fights with boxers with many losses. Many of his opponents had more losses than wins.

Roland had 27 KO's or stoppages out of his 57 wins, despite a lot of weak opposition. So, compared to Jimmy Ellis, he was a light hitter.

So, I am pretty sure that Ellis beats prime LaStarza, but Rocky is something else. Rocky could really hit, but beating Jimmy Ellis would be much more difficult than beating LaStarza, IMO.

For those that don't know, Roland LaStarza was a boxer who fought Rocky Marciano twice, the second time in 1953 for the Heavyweight Championship. Some people thought that LaStarza shoud have won their first match, including Roland, but Rocky won a close decision. So, when they fought for the title, Rocky stopped LaStarza in round 11. Roland said that Marciano was a great fighter who was much better than in the first time they met in the ring in 1950.

I thought that Roland LaStarza's name was mentioned earlier in this thread, but maybe not.

I believe that Rex Layne and Roland LaStarza were the best two fighters that were still in their prime when they faced Marciano for the title. Charles, Walcott, and Moore were greater fighters, but were past their best against Rocky.

Again I say; I believe that Jimmy Ellis would beat either Rex Layne or Roland LaStarza. A fight with Marciano is not something I could predict, but it is a fight that I would have loved to have seen.

One mistake here; Rex Layne did not fight Marciano for the title. Their fight did help get Rocky a title shot, and if Layne won, he probably would have gotten a shot at Walcott's title.

Everything else is correct, as far as I know.

oogiebe wrote: ↑01 Apr 2018, 09:18

Sidney Carton wrote: ↑01 Apr 2018, 03:12

Scypion wrote: ↑21 Mar 2018, 23:40 The heavyweights are generally bigger today.

The heavyweights are generally fatter today.

So very true. I've always said the past decades HW's would be 10 - 15 pounds heavier if fighting today. LOL!!!!

Right.... Especially Buster Mathis... George Foreman... Joe Frazier... Riddick Bowe... Buster Douglas... John Tate... Greg Page... Tim Witherspoon.... Larry Holmes... Don Cockell... Archie Moore... Muhammad Ali... Jess Willard...

And so many OTHER Heavyweights of the past who ALWAYS showed up perfectly conditioned.... Why you could easily put another 15 pounds of fat on them at their FATTEST.... They were already so disgraceful nobody would notice.

Kalan wrote: ↑01 Apr 2018, 12:19

oogiebe wrote: ↑01 Apr 2018, 09:18

Sidney Carton wrote: ↑01 Apr 2018, 03:12

The heavyweights are generally fatter today.

So very true. I've always said the past decades HW's would be 10 - 15 pounds heavier if fighting today. LOL!!!!

Right.... Especially Buster Mathis... George Foreman... Joe Frazier... Riddick Bowe... Luis Firpo... Buster Douglas... John Tate... Greg Page... Tim Witherspoon.... Larry Holmes... Don Cockell... Archie Moore... Muhammad Ali... Jess Willard...

And so many OTHER Heavyweights of the past who ALWAYS showed up perfectly conditioned.... Why you could easily put another 15 pounds of fat on them at their FATTEST.... They were already so disgraceful nobody would notice.

No Kalan, this is not how babies are made.

oogiebe wrote: ↑01 Apr 2018, 12:24

Kalan wrote: ↑01 Apr 2018, 12:19

oogiebe wrote: ↑01 Apr 2018, 09:18

So very true. I've always said the past decades HW's would be 10 - 15 pounds heavier if fighting today. LOL!!!!

Right.... Especially Buster Mathis... George Foreman... Joe Frazier... Riddick Bowe... Luis Firpo... Buster Douglas... John Tate... Greg Page... Tim Witherspoon.... Larry Holmes... Don Cockell... Archie Moore... Muhammad Ali... Jess Willard...

And so many OTHER Heavyweights of the past who ALWAYS showed up perfectly conditioned.... Why you could easily put another 15 pounds of fat on them at their FATTEST.... They were already so disgraceful nobody would notice.

No Kalan, this is not how babies are made.

You finally got something right.... Cramming food into your face like those guys did does not attract the opposite sex.

Kalan wrote: ↑01 Apr 2018, 12:40

oogiebe wrote: ↑01 Apr 2018, 12:24

Kalan wrote: ↑01 Apr 2018, 12:19

Right.... Especially Buster Mathis... George Foreman... Joe Frazier... Riddick Bowe... Luis Firpo... Buster Douglas... John Tate... Greg Page... Tim Witherspoon.... Larry Holmes... Don Cockell... Archie Moore... Muhammad Ali... Jess Willard...

And so many OTHER Heavyweights of the past who ALWAYS showed up perfectly conditioned.... Why you could easily put another 15 pounds of fat on them at their FATTEST.... They were already so disgraceful nobody would notice.

No Kalan, this is not how babies are made.

You finally got something right.... Cramming food into your face like those guys did does not attract the opposite sex.

You really are a child! I'm convinced. No adult can be this pathetic...you are hilarious though!

You're an idiot... You must have a miserable life to keep stalking and insulting me as a pass time jackass.

golden oldie wrote: ↑31 Mar 2018, 19:35The problem with smart asses is they really make themselves look fukking stupid when they don't know the difference between the ENGLISH words,,,

insure

and

ensure.

Trying to be smug is only clever if, and when it works.

Warning: Bored and deliberately being obtuse.

How can you be certain he is not using it metaphorically?

From The Oxford Living Dictionary (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage ... -or-insure)

There is considerable overlap between the meaning and use of insure and ensure. In both British and American English the primary meaning of insure is the commercial sense of providing financial compensation in the event of damage to something (e.g. property); ensure is not used at all in this sense.

For the more general senses, ensure is the more usual word, but insure is also sometimes used, particularly in American English,

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we follow the Oxford English Dictionary guide lines which of the following compound sentences sounds correct?

He sought to insure himself against both financial loss and emotional turmoil.

He sought to ensure himself against both financial loss and emotional turmoil.

Obviously it is not the second sentence because “ensure” should not be applied to financial loss. So what then is happening in the first sentence? "Insure” is being used both literally and metaphorically, literally as protection against economic loss and metaphorically as protection against emotional upheaval. The first sentence works, there is more flexibility in the word "insure."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You Brits just won't catch up to the reality that when we took the colonies we took the language as well. It is ours to do as we please; you should have fought better.

P.S. If, in the above post, you find a typo please don't point it out to me, that's so puerile.

P.S.S. Actually thanks for the education, it was a good learning experience. You made me read something new.

APerno wrote: ↑01 Apr 2018, 15:55

golden oldie wrote: ↑31 Mar 2018, 19:35The problem with smart asses is they really make themselves look fukking stupid when they don't know the difference between the ENGLISH words,,,

insure

and

ensure.

Trying to be smug is only clever if, and when it works.

Warning: Bored and deliberately being obtuse.

How can you be certain he is not using it metaphorically?

From The Oxford Living Dictionary (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage ... -or-insure)

There is considerable overlap between the meaning and use of insure and ensure. In both British and American English the primary meaning of insure is the commercial sense of providing financial compensation in the event of damage to something (e.g. property); ensure is not used at all in this sense.

For the more general senses, ensure is the more usual word, but insure is also sometimes used, particularly in American English,

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we follow the Oxford English Dictionary guide lines which of the following compound sentences sounds correct?

He sought to insure himself against both financial loss and emotional turmoil.

He sought to ensure himself against both financial loss and emotional turmoil.

Obviously it is not the second sentence because “ensure” should not be applied to financial loss. So what then is happening in the first sentence? "Insure” is being used both literally and metaphorically, literally as protection against economic loss and metaphorically as protection against emotional upheaval. The first sentence works, there is more flexibility in the word "insure."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You Brits just won't catch up to the reality that when we took the colonies we took the language as well. It is ours to do as we please; you should have fought better.

P.S. If, in the above post, you find a typo please don't point it out to me, that's so puerile.

P.S.S. Actually thanks for the education, it was a good learning experience. You made me read something new.

People who use language to attack you are the world's biggest snobs... It's different if you're a husband or wife and quietly correct somebody after a party... "Dear... Don't say nucular it's nuclear" other words: Library... gist... picture... orgy... February... forte... athlete... often... there's a million of them...

Then there's grammar police who go after people... People should talk correctly, but it's not necessary. If your gardener speaks enough English to understand him? .... Good enough... English is not everybody's first language. What if you were forced to live in Germany and flubbed the language for a long time? ... That was the experience of both Klitschko's for a couple years.. English as well.

Kalan wrote: ↑01 Apr 2018, 17:15

APerno wrote: ↑01 Apr 2018, 15:55

golden oldie wrote: ↑31 Mar 2018, 19:35The problem with smart asses is they really make themselves look fukking stupid when they don't know the difference between the ENGLISH words,,,

insure

and

ensure.

Trying to be smug is only clever if, and when it works.

Warning: Bored and deliberately being obtuse.

How can you be certain he is not using it metaphorically?

From The Oxford Living Dictionary (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage ... -or-insure)

There is considerable overlap between the meaning and use of insure and ensure. In both British and American English the primary meaning of insure is the commercial sense of providing financial compensation in the event of damage to something (e.g. property); ensure is not used at all in this sense.

For the more general senses, ensure is the more usual word, but insure is also sometimes used, particularly in American English,

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we follow the Oxford English Dictionary guide lines which of the following compound sentences sounds correct?

He sought to insure himself against both financial loss and emotional turmoil.

He sought to ensure himself against both financial loss and emotional turmoil.

Obviously it is not the second sentence because “ensure” should not be applied to financial loss. So what then is happening in the first sentence? "Insure” is being used both literally and metaphorically, literally as protection against economic loss and metaphorically as protection against emotional upheaval. The first sentence works, there is more flexibility in the word "insure."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You Brits just won't catch up to the reality that when we took the colonies we took the language as well. It is ours to do as we please; you should have fought better.

P.S. If, in the above post, you find a typo please don't point it out to me, that's so puerile.

P.S.S. Actually thanks for the education, it was a good learning experience. You made me read something new.

People who use language to attack you are the world's biggest snobs... It's different if you're a husband or wife and quietly correct somebody after a party... "Dear... Don't say nucular it's nuclear" other words: Library... gist... picture... orgy... February... forte... athlete... often... there's a million of them...

Then there's grammar police who go after people... People should talk correctly, but it's not necessary. If your gardener speaks enough English to understand him? .... Good enough... English is not everybody's first language. What if you were forced to live in Germany and flubbed the language for a long time? ... That was the experience of both Klitschko's for a couple years.. English as well.

They say Roberto Duran is close to being fluent in English but refuses to speak English during interviews (because of the attitude you are referring to).

Now now Golden Undies........tell us how you really feel, and stop being so ambiguous about your bigotries.

Murica (as you refer to them) is the single largest melting pot of humanity in the world, with much more diversity than your little cottage industry of a rather exclusive brotherhood. (As jolly as you may imagine you and yours to be. ) At any rate it's good to know that these bias and hateful feelings you harbor are spread to all who inhabit the world, though you fancily attempt to disguise it as a singularly nationalistic slant.

I'm afraid you have revealed yourself to be nothing more than a grouchy, petty, small minded curmudgeon, who fancies conflict, and not just inside the squared circle.

Never the less, I will continue to listen to you, and learn from your short shortsightedness, as you are quite a gifted teacher. Though you may not be aware of either the value or nature of your own curriculum.

golden oldie wrote: ↑01 Apr 2018, 20:12

APerno wrote: ↑01 Apr 2018, 15:55

golden oldie wrote: ↑31 Mar 2018, 19:35The problem with smart asses is they really make themselves look fukking stupid when they don't know the difference between the ENGLISH words,,,

insure

and

ensure.

Trying to be smug is only clever if, and when it works.

Warning: Bored and deliberately being obtuse.

How can you be certain he is not using it metaphorically?

From The Oxford Living Dictionary (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage ... -or-insure)

There is considerable overlap between the meaning and use of insure and ensure. In both British and American English the primary meaning of insure is the commercial sense of providing financial compensation in the event of damage to something (e.g. property); ensure is not used at all in this sense.

For the more general senses, ensure is the more usual word, but insure is also sometimes used, particularly in American English,

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we follow the Oxford English Dictionary guide lines which of the following compound sentences sounds correct?

He sought to insure himself against both financial loss and emotional turmoil.

He sought to ensure himself against both financial loss and emotional turmoil.

Obviously it is not the second sentence because “ensure” should not be applied to financial loss. So what then is happening in the first sentence? "Insure” is being used both literally and metaphorically, literally as protection against economic loss and metaphorically as protection against emotional upheaval. The first sentence works, there is more flexibility in the word "insure."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You Brits just won't catch up to the reality that when we took the colonies we took the language as well. It is ours to do as we please; you should have fought better.

P.S. If, in the above post, you find a typo please don't point it out to me, that's so puerile.

P.S.S. Actually thanks for the education, it was a good learning experience. You made me read something new.

So basically what you are trying to sell me is some irrelevant Murican GARBAGE, that you have surpassed our right to our own language.

You will ultimately find out that your worthless country, and your even more worthless bastardisation of our language, is worth about as much as you. FUKK ALL.

I have less than NO interest in filthy Murican definitions of our words.

Insure is entirely about money.

Ensure is NOT.

Lowlife, MURICAN interpretations are of NO consequence at all.

As for your lessons in history.

Suffice to say if you hadn't been so obsessed with exterminating every Native Murican on the face of your poxy country, you might have indeed had your own language.

However the fact that you were exactly the same as the verminous kunts you professed to be in desperate need to escape from, you did indeed become the same subhuman murderous filth, who tried your best to eradicate the TRUE Muricans.

So save your revisionist garbage for other slimebag Muricans who are as fukking stupid as you.

You verminous scum are the reason HUMAN BEINGS can not go about their business all over the world today, without the risk of extremist religious freaks ( just like your fukking child molesting Christian fukkpigs ) blowing them to pieces.

Cretinous SCUM.

- Thank you for the passion! - The last time I was abused like that, the woman was wearing a para-military uniform, and I had to pay for it.

They say we came to within just a few votes of making german our national language. I wonder how true that is; if we had, it certainly would have made you all happy. But then I wouldn't be able to read Shakespeare. (It is OK for me to read the Bard, or would you rather my cretinous self stay away completely?)

P.S. Do you think America should make English its official language? Does GB have English as an official language? I am of the mind that Spanish has a snowball's chance in hell of replacing English; we don't need the legislation.

Well there HAVE been a few Americans of redeeming social value....

Warren Buffett.... Mark Cuban.... Bob Woodward.... Carl Benstein.... Thomas Edison.... Jonas Salk.... Susan B Anthony.... Rosa Parks.... John F Kennedy.... Billy Jean King.... Mark Zuckerburg..... Elon Musk.... Nikola Tesla...though born in Croatia Tesla was largely educated in the United States.... Charles Hamilton Houston, Litigator and Civil Rights leader…. Will Rogers, who was a Native American and a brilliant writer and George Washington...

Military men are generally not my heroes -- however Washington beat back the Brits in the Revolutionary War and made them turn tail and skedaddle the Hell out of here -- the suffering bastards.

Anyone talking boxing here?