BoxRec

Kalan wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Kalan wrote:
In this Trump voting nation as a whole???? ... You won't see that soon...unless Keithmoonhangover moves to Canada. Then the average IQ of Americans will improve

Well, as I live in England, it's unlikely.

Good... Don't immigrate to American because you'll drag the average IQ down and improve the average Brit's.

Drag the average IQ down in America?

Now I know you're a fornicating joker

You just voted a complete moron to run your country....Again!

Kalan wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Kalan wrote:
In this Trump voting nation as a whole???? ... You won't see that soon...unless Keithmoonhangover moves to Canada. Then the average IQ of Americans will improve

Well, as I live in England, it's unlikely.

Good... Don't immigrate to American because you'll drag the average IQ down and improve the average Brit's.

Really? Is that the best you've got? I think Ali would beat Wilt after all. Surely that must mean I have a learning disability according to intelligence measured on the Kalan scale

Iq tests mean squat, I always score genius level.

1. Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Carlos Monzon
4. Marvin Hagler
5. Mickey Walker
6. Dick Tiger
7. Bernard Hopkins
8. Stanley Ketchel
9. Gene Fullmer
10. Nino Benvenuti

davie wrote:

Kalan wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:
Well, as I live in England, it's unlikely.

Good... Don't immigrate to American because you'll drag the average IQ down and improve the average Brit's.

Drag the average IQ down in America?

Now I know you're a effing joker

You just voted a complete moron to run your country....Again!

I voted for HIllary... She got well over 2 million votes more than Trump... The popular vote doesn't choose our President however.. Unfortunately red-neck states are over-represented in the electoral college and the electoral college chooses the Prez... Also we wouldn't have had that clown (Dubya) for Prez if the popular vote elected the President... Gore beat Dick and Dub by well over a half million popular votes... Isn't that a pile of horse manure that the people don't always get to decide who their president is going to be???

You really don't understand the system.

However, IF they change the rules, it would not be good for your madam secretary....it would simply have meant that Trump would have spent money on garnering votes in Calif, Illlinois and New York in this years case. And likely would have won anyway....he spent $0 in the two most populous states in the country...and the votes reveal that.

In the future it would mean that candidates would campaign in Calif, Texas, Illinois, New York and Fl primarily. It would not change things much, just where the chase takes place.

The college forces them to take their discussions to some smaller states like Iowa and NH.... But the smaller populated states will never see another candidate in their little neck of the woods.

Kalan wrote:

davie wrote:

Kalan wrote:
Good... Don't immigrate to American because you'll drag the average IQ down and improve the average Brit's.

Drag the average IQ down in America?

Now I know you're a effing joker

You just voted a complete moron to run your country....Again!

I voted for HIllary... She got well over 2 million votes more than Trump... The popular vote doesn't choose our President however.. Unfortunately red-neck states are over-represented in the electoral college and the electoral college chooses the Prez... Also we wouldn't have had that clown (Dubya) for Prez if the popular vote elected the President... Gore beat Dick and Dub by well over a half million popular votes... Isn't that a pile of horse manure that the people don't always get to decide who their president is going to be???

You want to moan about democracy?
Try coming to Scotland.
We have our own parliament with virtually no power.
We have Westminster, with it's broken first past the post system, where the English vote in governments we don't want.
In fact thanks to the first past the post system being as backwards as your electoral college, they don't always get the government they vote for.
We have an uneleceted house of lords where they send all the dud we voted out.
We have a monarchy for fvck sake.
And don't get me started on the opposition

I glad somebody else is having problems... Doesn't feel so lonely.

BoxBuzz wrote:You really don't understand the system.

However, IF they change the rules, it would not be good for your madam secretary....it would simply have meant that Trump would have spent money on garnering votes in Calif, Illlinois and New York in this years case. And likely would have won anyway....he spent $0 in the two most populous states in the country...and the votes reveal that.

In the future it would mean that candidates would campaign in Calif, Texas, Illinois, New York and Fl primarily. It would not change things much, just where the chase takes place.

The college forces them to take their discussions to some smaller states like Iowa and NH.... But the smaller populated states will never see another candidate in their little neck of the woods.

You're full of it BuzzBox... Trump could spend all his campaign money in CA and NY and he wouldn't win either... We hate Trump on the West Coast.. It's the redneck states with low Black, Latino. Jewish, and Muslim populations or are Republican controlled and use minority voter suppression strategies to limit their vote.. For 8 years these bastards have held up Obama's court nominees... now they're going to flood the courts with more right wing freaks.. The situation is intolerable. People are moving out of the country it's getting so damned freaky.. It's like Germany before WWII

Kalan wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:You really don't understand the system.

However, IF they change the rules, it would not be good for your madam secretary....it would simply have meant that Trump would have spent money on garnering votes in Calif, Illlinois and New York in this years case. And likely would have won anyway....he spent $0 in the two most populous states in the country...and the votes reveal that.

In the future it would mean that candidates would campaign in Calif, Texas, Illinois, New York and Fl primarily. It would not change things much, just where the chase takes place.

The college forces them to take their discussions to some smaller states like Iowa and NH.... But the smaller populated states will never see another candidate in their little neck of the woods.

You're full of it BuzzBox... Trump could spend all his campaign money in CA and NY and he wouldn't win either... We hate Trump on the West Coast.. It's the redneck states with low Black, Latino. Jewish, and Muslim populations or are Republican controlled and use minority voter suppression strategies to limit their vote.. For 8 years these bastards have held up Obama's court nominees... now they're going to flood the courts with more right wing freaks.. The situation is intolerable. People are moving out of the country it's getting so damned freaky.. It's like Germany before WWII

Don't be a dim bulb Kohler.......he would not have won those states, but could have garnered the amount needed to win the popular vote. 2 million votes could be easily obtained by advertising in those markets....and/or campaigning there. He would not have to win them...just peel votes back.

She won Calif by over 3 million votes. but is winning the nation by less than 2 million....take New York out and he's on top by about 3.5 million.

Do you focus on how to misunderstand certain things? Cuz if so, congratulations, you're really good at it.

I'm not advocating for Trump....I'm simply attempting to get you to capture a thought. Different rules to the game, different tactics, same outcome. He does not necessarily lose, had the game been played differently.

Any way....has creased published the outcome of THIS MW voting?

I'm sorry, but are Clinton and Trump middleweights?

Ambling Alp II wrote:I'm sorry, but are Clinton and Trump middleweights?

Clinton was a LHW.......has their ever been a boxer with the last name of Trump? I'll have to look it up.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Kalan wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:You really don't understand the system.

However, IF they change the rules, it would not be good for your madam secretary....it would simply have meant that Trump would have spent money on garnering votes in Calif, Illlinois and New York in this years case. And likely would have won anyway....he spent $0 in the two most populous states in the country...and the votes reveal that.

In the future it would mean that candidates would campaign in Calif, Texas, Illinois, New York and Fl primarily. It would not change things much, just where the chase takes place.

The college forces them to take their discussions to some smaller states like Iowa and NH.... But the smaller populated states will never see another candidate in their little neck of the woods.

You're full of it BuzzBox... Trump could spend all his campaign money in CA and NY and he wouldn't win either... We hate Trump on the West Coast.. It's the redneck states with low Black, Latino. Jewish, and Muslim populations or are Republican controlled and use minority voter suppression strategies to limit their vote.. For 8 years these bastards have held up Obama's court nominees... now they're going to flood the courts with more right wing freaks.. The situation is intolerable. People are moving out of the country it's getting so damned freaky.. It's like Germany before WWII

Don't be a dim bulb Kohler.......he would not have won those states, but could have garnered the amount needed to win the popular vote. 2 million votes could be easily obtained by advertising in those markets....and/or campaigning there. He would not have to win them...just peel votes back.

She won Calif by over 3 million votes. but is winning the nation by less than 2 million....take New York out and he's on top by about 3.5 million.

Do you focus on how to misunderstand certain things? Cuz if so, congratulations, you're really good at it.

I'm not advocating for Trump....I'm simply attempting to get you to capture a thought. Different rules to the game, different tactics, same outcome. He does not necessarily lose, had the game been played differently.

You're pretty stogy in your thinking BuzzBox... I'm referring to the popular vote, which Hillary won by millions of votes... Trump could advertise all he wants, hIs BS is not going to turn heads in states with strong racial mixes and diversity in political leanings -- in populations where people communicate each other.. Blacks don't buy Trump.. Latinos don't buy him.. Women as a whole don't buy him..

Basically it's racist, bigoted, and sexist, belligerent white males with inferiority complexes who buy his bullcrap.. His message is attractive to uneducated, disgruntled white have nots in backward states.. It's not going to take hold with most of the Americans at anytime wherever he goes.. He went a number of times to Minnesota which has a largely white population and his hate didn't take hold -- even though it's right next to Wisconsin where he found a little bit of traction with these cheese heads -- and somehow won, which even astounded people in his own party... However a recount is coming...

I think electronic voting machines were manipulated and also hacked in 2000, 2004, and this year, because the polls and voting results differed substantially.. But I don't see anyway they'll uncover that substantially enough to change the electoral results, because the Supreme Court will shoot them down again.

Ambling Alp II wrote:I'm sorry, but are Clinton and Trump middleweights?

Clinton is moving down to 154.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:I'm sorry, but are Clinton and Trump middleweights?

Clinton is moving down to 154.

Maybe Sanders can pack on 10 pounds for a catch-weight?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:I'm sorry, but are Clinton and Trump middleweights?

Clinton is moving down to 154.

Maybe Sanders can pack on 10 pounds for a catch-weight?

Canelo won't fight Trump at 160 until next year, as he's not a real middleweight.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:I'm sorry, but are Clinton and Trump middleweights?

Clinton is moving down to 154.

Maybe Sanders can pack on 10 pounds for a catch-weight?

Just realised you were still on politics and talking about Bernie.

I thought you'd dropped Billie Joes name in to an ATG list, you were about to lose all credibility

davie wrote:You want to moan about democracy?
Try coming to Scotland.
We have our own parliament with virtually no power.
We have Westminster, with it's broken first past the post system, where the English vote in governments we don't want.
In fact thanks to the first past the post system being as backwards as your electoral college, they don't always get the government they vote for.
We have an uneleceted house of lords where they send all the dud we voted out.
We have a monarchy for fvck sake.
And don't get me started on the opposition

Northern Ireland is in an even worse state. We have all the problems that you mentioned plus, we are considered an insignificant wee nuisance off the West coast.

The sooner that the North solidifies with the South, the better we will all be.

I will update the FINAL STANDINGS tomorrow.
Then we move on...
Anyone who hasn't voted has under 24 hours to get it done.

- For the usual unstudied squash petals here, the electoral college was essential in the establishment of the Union to insure bigger states would have less opportunity to dominate smaller states, ya musta forgot yer government studies! Yeah, how about another civil war and break up the union this time is it now? Blame your status quo Dem/Rep for high jacking the public vote for continuous servicing of Big INC money. If those idiots want to increase the vote, not in their agenda, but adding NONE OF THE ABOVE /\ in national, state, and local elections to force incumbents to serve the next term until new elections could be organized with legit candidates.

The two party system is a busted flush with the crooks scrambling to rake in the last of the pot before the whole thing collapses from lack of national unity. Last I checked this two party system that controls all is the very definition of a state sanctioned religion when the majority of the people chose to be non politically religious, but if they actually want to have a say in the results, they're almost always restricted to the two parties. And, yeah, Wilt whoops both Billary and Dump and Ali on the same night with nary a sweat before storming the local Playboy Bunny Convention to shut out that venue for the rest of the week.

Moving on, the LHs were a stronger division and more clear cut in my view. The Mids seem a little scattered, but again, we still have some top guys transcending the division to seek bigger fights.

1.Sam Langford

2.Bobby Fitz

3.Carlos Monzon

4.Gennady Golovkin

5.Marvin Hagler

6.Harry Greb

7.Stanley Ketchel

8.Sugar Ray Robinson

9.Dick Tiger

10.Mike McCallum

Sam was 156 lbs when he lost to Johnson. Had Johnson not ducked the rematch, especially after took the belt from Burns with help of agreement with his financier, The National Sporting Club in England to make his first defense there against Sam, I'm certain Sam would've knocked him out which would have altered the whole heavyweight scene at the time similiar to Fitz KOing Corbett. Instead, all beating up heavies meant for Sam was more money and being able to eat as he pleased, but had the money been there for him at 160, he'd have a long run at Mid. Not a fan of McCallum always whining about the Fab Four, but he filled the traditional 148-160lb gap as they aged out of the divisions. Jones had two title fights and moved up, not much of a factor except for his classic one handed masterclass against the raging one dimensional Pumpkin. I believe Jones was talented enough then to beat most on this list, but his natural career better fits the traditional 161-174lb LH range where I rated him.

Yeah, Cerdan denied what if opportunities because of tragic circumstances. Mickey Walker, Nonpareil Jack Dempsey and many great fighters off my list, including that modern division record setter who was half fraud, half dog, and all foul mostly. I'd vote him in the Sh.. Hall of Shame along with these two though, a natural genetic competition of foul, fouler, and foulest.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:- For the usual unstudied squash petals here, the electoral college was essential in the establishment of the Union to insure bigger states would have less opportunity to dominate smaller states,

The more populous states generally pay more into the Federal Government than they get back in aid.. Smaller, backwater states pay less into the Federal Government than they get back in aid - and they are over-represented in the electoral college.. If anything the smaller states dominate the more populous states... For example, 90% of voters want common sense gun laws requiring background checks to help prevent crooks, violent felons, emotionally disturbed individuals, and mentally ill people from obtaining huge arsenals of guns and ammunition and shooting up classrooms full of children -- and shooting up theaters, night clubs, malls, and restaurants full of patrons and diners they don't know from Adam.

It's backwater states and districts where senators and representatives vote down legislation to curb the sale guns to anyone. It's also difficult to address problems of student loan debt, prison overcrowding, risky investing and lending practices and worthless derivative investment bundling and selling by too-big-to-fail banks, environmental protection, neglected infrastructure maintenance, and addressing the lack of American born engineers, mathematicians, scientists, and IT professionals to fill US job needs. Nothing ever gets done. Rather than produce any legislation they block legislation, unless they control the White House – then the insane prescription drug law gets passed and they okay the invasion of Iraq.

Good Middleweight list BTW

Atypical list.
Greb 6,Robinspn 8,Ketchel out..Golovkin

Crease wrote:I will update the FINAL STANDINGS tomorrow.
Then we move on...
Anyone who hasn't voted has under 24 hours to get it done.

Where are you???

Welter?

Keko wrote:Atypical list.
Greb 6,Robinspn 8,Ketchel out..Golovkin

If I rated on simple H2H Sam Langford would be tops from welter to light heavyweight. Fitzs was also a freak of nature with his shocking punching power. How skilled he was is unclear from footage. The stuff I've seen of Langford indicated he was as crafty and intelligent as he was hard hitting. I rate Greb so high because of his vast volume of wins over great fighters while weighing around 160lbs. Another guy who could beat almost any other fighter on his best day. I'm almost convinced he could have beaten Dempsey. However due to nobody having seen footage of him, people rate him low ish. At least Roy Jones isn't in