BoxRec

"In terms of his style of fighting. Ali did everything wrong.But it all turned out right.He is the greatest fighter in the history of boxing because he took risks.He would conscioualy do something that is physically wrong to show the world that boxing was more of a psychological than a physical debate."

-Jose Torres

Frantic Ali shill the One cannot answer my question.

granberry wrote:The One will not answer my questions about the crap he posted from his beloved Ali shill magazine, Sports Illustrated.

My question was

Was there a NAME on the article?

What was that NAME?

WHO wrote the crap containing the supposed quote attributed to Folley?

Is there a NAME on it?


The world of the Ali shill is a gullible one.

ThatOne wrote:

granberry wrote:The One will not answer my questions about the crap he posted from his beloved Ali shill magazine, Sports Illustrated.

My question was

Was there a NAME on the article?

What was that NAME?

WHO wrote the crap containing the supposed quote attributed to Folley?

Is there a NAME on it?


The world of the Ali shill is a gullible one.

It was from the April 10, 1967 issue of SI.


Do your own research.

Frantic Ali shill the One can't answer my question

BECAUSE THERE IS NO NAME ON THE ARTICLE.

Was it written by the copy boy?

Where were the ethics when the UNNAMED Sports Illustrated hack and falsifier made up that raw crap and attributed it to Folley?

ANSWER THE QUESTION. Ali shill.


WHO wrote the article?

LOL

granberry wrote:Frantic Ali shill the One cannot answer my question.

granberry wrote:The One will not answer my questions about the crap he posted from his beloved Ali shill magazine, Sports Illustrated.

My question was

Was there a NAME on the article?

What was that NAME?

WHO wrote the crap containing the supposed quote attributed to Folley?

Is there a NAME on it?


The world of the Ali shill is a gullible one.

ThatOne wrote:

granberry wrote:The One will not answer my questions about the crap he posted from his beloved Ali shill magazine, Sports Illustrated.

My question was

Was there a NAME on the article?

What was that NAME?

WHO wrote the crap containing the supposed quote attributed to Folley?

Is there a NAME on it?


The world of the Ali shill is a gullible one.

It was from the April 10, 1967 issue of SI.


Do your own research.

Frantic Ali shill the One can't answer my question

BECAUSE THERE IS NO NAME ON THE ARTICLE.

Was it written by the copy boy?

Where were the ethics when the UNNAMED Sports Illustrated hack and falsifier made up that raw crap and attributed it to Folley?

ANSWER THE QUESTION. Ali shill.


WHO wrote the article?

LOL

Abr

I provided the citation as I did with every quote I provided.


If that's not sufficient you can call your imaginary boxing friends to discuss it.


If you were ever near a gym except as a paying customer at a training session I'm George Washington.



LOL

Ali shill the One cannot answer my question.

granberry wrote:The One will not answer my questions about the crap he posted from his beloved Ali shill magazine, Sports Illustrated.

My question was

Was there a NAME on the article?

What was that NAME?

WHO wrote the crap containing the supposed quote attributed to Folley?

Is there a NAME on it?


The world of the Ali shill is a gullible one.

ThatOne wrote:

granberry wrote:The One will not answer my questions about the crap he posted from his beloved Ali shill magazine, Sports Illustrated.

My question was

Was there a NAME on the article?

What was that NAME?

WHO wrote the crap containing the supposed quote attributed to Folley?

Is there a NAME on it?


The world of the Ali shill is a gullible one.

It was from the April 10, 1967 issue of SI.


Do your own research.

Frantic Ali shill the One can't answer my question

BECAUSE THERE IS NO NAME ON THE ARTICLE.

Was it written by the copy boy?

Where were the ethics when the UNNAMED Sports Illustrated hack and falsifier made up that raw crap and attributed it to Folley?

ANSWER THE QUESTION. Ali shill.


WHO wrote the article?

LOL

I provided a citation. The citation is 42 years old. Go verify it yourself after you chat with your imaginary friends, George Benton, Jimmy Young, and Bill Cayton.

If you ever stepped into a ring I'm Abraham Lincoln.

Definition of Ad hominem attack

Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false



THE FOLLOWING IS LIKELY AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK ON GRANBERRY

I AM MAKING THE CLAIM
THERE IS SURELY SOMETHING OBJECTIONABLE ABOUT ME ....(I'm sure there MUST be SOMETHING)
THEREFORE THE FOLLOWING MUST BE FALSE


Just in case anyone wonders why gran is so passionate in his need to "deconstruct" a particular fighter
the answer is as follows:

Disclaimer: I am not trying to be mean spirited, but simply feel compelled to speak "TRUTH TO SOUR".

granberry has a fully cognizant grasp of the fundamentals of boxing
in fact he is a true "radical fundamentalist" in the truest sense of the word
his personal world construct appears to be based on what he sees as boxings fundamentals
he lives in very "constructed" world (including med times)....I had to add that.
IMHO 99% of the time the closer to the fundamentals you stay the more successful you will be as a professional pugilist
the purer the fundamentals of the boxer the more gran likes them (review his posts and you'll find this to be true)
he carries a torch for the "fundamentals"

SO....on occasion someone comes along with "god given"? talent that can actually trump fundamentals

E.G. Ali or Leonard. Look up his history...he hates these fellas.

So, just as a religious zealot will when faced with conflict defy all sensibility and divorce his senses via rage, anger angst and reactionary venom
so granberry manifests "near hatred" at symbols of the sport that might be the least bit "transcendent"

I don't mean this in a spiritual way, but anything that might hint that this sport can not be purely "dissected and forensically analyzed"
Which it can not, because the human spirit on occasion will simply render "fundamentalism" null and void.
Indeed Sometimes "will" can out perform "rules"

Something a genuine fundamentalist can not abide

This editorial opinion is brought to you by the Ad Hominem Association of New England

ThatOne wrote:I provided a citation. The citation is 42 years old. Go verify it yourself after you chat with your imaginary friends, George Benton, Jimmy Young, and Bill Cayton.

If you ever stepped into a ring I'm Abraham Lincoln.

The One will not answer my questions about the crap he posted from his beloved Ali shill magazine, Sports Illustrated.

My question was

Was there a NAME on the article?

What was that NAME?

WHO wrote the crap containing the supposed quote attributed to Folley?

Is there a NAME on it?



Frantic Ali shill the One can't answer my question

BECAUSE THERE IS NO NAME ON THE ARTICLE.

Was it written by the copy boy?

Where were the ethics when the UNNAMED Sports Illustrated hack and falsifier made up that raw crap and attributed it to Folley?

ANSWER THE QUESTION. Ali shill.


WHO wrote the article?

LOL

The One is determined to give buz a run for his money.

ANNUAL THOMAS HAUSER Award GOES TO OUR VERY OWN BUZ

Boxrec’s Buz (“I don’t have a clue what boxing is and I am a ‘moderator’ on a ‘boxing’ website, Yuk, Yuk”)

is this year’s winner of the coveted annual THOMAS HAUSER Foundation award

for the most sickening shilling for the media-created product known as “Ali.”

Buz’ credentials as a panderer for Ali include:

his classic remark that to post a photograph of Ali knocked flat on his back by Joe Frazier on a ‘boxing’ website is “DEFAMATION .”

Buz has also distinguished himself by his constant remark that Ali “got up” after he was knocked flat on his back by Joe Frazier

as if that somehow is more important than the fact that Ali was not competent enough defensively to protect himself against Frazier’s left hook and landed flat on his back with his legs flying in the air after getting clobbered with it.

CONGRATULATIONS BUZ !

MOTTO of the THOMAS HAUSER Foundation:

“The less you know about boxing, the more you qualify to be a member of the walking army of sycophants groveling for the “Religion of Ali”

WARNING: “The Religion of Ali” is a fully protected Trademark of the THOMAS HAUSER Foundation

and may only be used by fully authorized THOMAS HAUSER Foundation agents.

granberry wrote:The One is determined to give buz a run for his money.

ANNUAL THOMAS HAUSER Award GOES TO OUR VERY OWN BUZ

Boxrec’s Buz (“I don’t have a clue what boxing is and I am a ‘moderator’ on a ‘boxing’ website, Yuk, Yuk”)

is this year’s winner of the coveted annual THOMAS HAUSER Foundation award

for the most sickening shilling for the media-created product known as “Ali.”

Buz’ credentials as a panderer for Ali include:

his classic remark that to post a photograph of Ali knocked flat on his back by Joe Frazier on a ‘boxing’ website is “DEFAMATION .”

Buz has also distinguished himself by his constant remark that Ali “got up” after he was knocked flat on his back by Joe Frazier

as if that somehow is more important than the fact that Ali was not competent enough defensively to protect himself against Frazier’s left hook and landed flat on his back with his legs flying in the air after getting clobbered with it.

CONGRATULATIONS BUZ !

MOTTO of the THOMAS HAUSER Foundation:

“The less you know about boxing, the more you qualify to be a member of the walking army of sycophants groveling for the “Religion of Ali”

WARNING: “The Religion of Ali” is a fully protected Trademark of the THOMAS HAUSER Foundation

and may only be used by fully authorized THOMAS HAUSER Foundation agents.

Wait.....

Yo gran ...it's not defamation to show a pic of a man who is about to get up from the low point of his career and begin one of the greatest comebacks in history.....how can that be defaming? It simply catalogs the moment of the great, grand and universally celebrated "return to greatness" that was inevitable due to Ali's rugged and indomitable persona. It's been named the moment of "new beginnings" and is celebrated in 17 countries world wide.

What most people like about Ali is that he didn't let the fundamentals define him. He pugilated "outside the box" and showed us all that you can learn the rules, then bend them to create success unknown to those who simply bow down to the rules and allow themselves to be subjugated like lemmings.

I know you can appreciate that, and I will of course accept your apology for your unseemly lashing out at me.

Buzz, you are sounding unusually cocky and pugnacious today.

Of course, when granberry knocks that stupid grin off your weird visage, you can always run and cry to AntonS.

bengulnaci1 wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Definition of Ad hominem attack

Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false



THE FOLLOWING IS LIKELY AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK ON GRANBERRY

I AM MAKING THE CLAIM
THERE IS SURELY SOMETHING OBJECTIONABLE ABOUT ME ....(I'm sure there MUST be SOMETHING)
THEREFORE THE FOLLOWING MUST BE FALSE


Just in case anyone wonders why gran is so passionate in his need to "deconstruct" a particular fighter
the answer is as follows:

Disclaimer: I am not trying to be mean spirited, but simply feel compelled to speak "TRUTH TO SOUR".

granberry has a fully cognizant grasp of the fundamentals of boxing
in fact he is a true "radical fundamentalist" in the truest sense of the word
his personal world construct appears to be based on what he sees as boxings fundamentals
he lives in very "constructed" world (including med times)....I had to add that.
IMHO 99% of the time the closer to the fundamentals you stay the more successful you will be as a professional pugilist
the purer the fundamentals of the boxer the more gran likes them (review his posts and you'll find this to be true)
he carries a torch for the "fundamentals"

SO....on occasion someone comes along with "god given"? talent that can actually trump fundamentals

E.G. Ali or Leonard. Look up his history...he hates these fellas.

So, just as a religious zealot will when faced with conflict defy all sensibility and divorce his senses via rage, anger angst and reactionary venom
so granberry manifests "near hatred" at symbols of the sport that might be the least bit "transcendent"

I don't mean this in a spiritual way, but anything that might hint that this sport can not be purely "dissected and forensically analyzed"
Which it can not, because the human spirit on occasion will simply render "fundamentalism" null and void.
Indeed Sometimes "will" can out perform "rules"

Something a genuine fundamentalist can not abide

This editorial opinion is brought to you by the Ad Hominem Association of New England

An accurate summation.

BoxBuzz wrote:Definition of Ad hominem attack

Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false



THE FOLLOWING IS LIKELY AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK ON GRANBERRY

I AM MAKING THE CLAIM
THERE IS SURELY SOMETHING OBJECTIONABLE ABOUT ME ....(I'm sure there MUST be SOMETHING)
THEREFORE THE FOLLOWING MUST BE FALSE


Just in case anyone wonders why gran is so passionate in his need to "deconstruct" a particular fighter
the answer is as follows:

Disclaimer: I am not trying to be mean spirited, but simply feel compelled to speak "TRUTH TO SOUR".

granberry has a fully cognizant grasp of the fundamentals of boxing
in fact he is a true "radical fundamentalist" in the truest sense of the word
his personal world construct appears to be based on what he sees as boxings fundamentals
he lives in very "constructed" world (including med times)....I had to add that.
IMHO 99% of the time the closer to the fundamentals you stay the more successful you will be as a professional pugilist
the purer the fundamentals of the boxer the more gran likes them (review his posts and you'll find this to be true)
he carries a torch for the "fundamentals"

SO....on occasion someone comes along with "god given"? talent that can actually trump fundamentals

E.G. Ali or Leonard. Look up his history...he hates these fellas.

So, just as a religious zealot will when faced with conflict defy all sensibility and divorce his senses via rage, anger angst and reactionary venom
so granberry manifests "near hatred" at symbols of the sport that might be the least bit "transcendent"

I don't mean this in a spiritual way, but anything that might hint that this sport can not be purely "dissected and forensically analyzed"
Which it can not, because the human spirit on occasion will simply render "fundamentalism" null and void.
Indeed Sometimes "will" can out perform "rules"

Something a genuine fundamentalist can not abide

This editorial opinion is brought to you by the Ad Hominem Association of New England

nicely put, sir