Go & wobble your head & shake a bit of sense into it!
One of the greatest Light Heavyweights in history, he is one of the greatest fighters in history. But he is overrated at heavyweight.
You're on Boxrec, go study his record and learn something that way. Shaking your head wont do it kid.
Your talking about an era when Walterweight & middleweight challenged for Heavyweight titles - the wasn't a 6 stone like say between Carl Froch & V. Klitschko & there wasn't even a cruiserweight division at the time so light heavy was very similar in weight to the heavys - but of course after studying the sport you of course will already know this!
Walcott is only known bcoz he was the oldest heavyweight champ b4 Foreman - the fact is he lost 18 bouts & challenged for the title 5 times b4 winning it - making our own Frank Bruno look like a real go-getter...
and your trying to argue that Walcott is better than Tunney??? Please.......
Don't embarass yourself any further............ kid!
Go & wobble your head & shake a bit of sense into it!
One of the greatest Light Heavyweights in history, he is one of the greatest fighters in history. But he is overrated at heavyweight.
You're on Boxrec, go study his record and learn something that way. Shaking your head wont do it kid.
Your talking about an era when Walterweight & middleweight challenged for Heavyweight titles - the wasn't a 6 stone like say between Carl Froch & V. Klitschko & there wasn't even a cruiserweight division at the time so light heavy was very similar in weight to the heavys - but of course after studying the sport you of course will already know this!
Walcott is only known bcoz he was the oldest heavyweight champ b4 Foreman - the fact is he lost 18 bouts & challenged for the title 5 times b4 winning it - making our own Frank Bruno look like a real go-getter...
and your trying to argue that Walcott is better than Tunney??? Please.......
Don't embarass yourself any further............ kid!
I said Walcott was more accomplished as a heavyweight, not a better overall fighter. Losing to Joe Louis, Rocky marciano & Ezzard Charles is far from Frank Bruno's ledger. He beat Joe Louis except for on the judges cards. He was beating him again until the Brown Bomber iced him.
And if you want to be a condescending prick. Learn how to spell embarrass. It comes off better, kid.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
One of the greatest Light Heavyweights in history, he is one of the greatest fighters in history. But he is overrated at heavyweight.
You're on Boxrec, go study his record and learn something that way. Shaking your head wont do it kid.
Your talking about an era when Walterweight & middleweight challenged for Heavyweight titles - the wasn't a 6 stone like say between Carl Froch & V. Klitschko & there wasn't even a cruiserweight division at the time so light heavy was very similar in weight to the heavys - but of course after studying the sport you of course will already know this!
Walcott is only known bcoz he was the oldest heavyweight champ b4 Foreman - the fact is he lost 18 bouts & challenged for the title 5 times b4 winning it - making our own Frank Bruno look like a real go-getter...
and your trying to argue that Walcott is better than Tunney??? Please.......
Don't embarass yourself any further............ kid!
I said Walcott was more accomplished as a heavyweight, not a better overall fighter. Losing to Joe Louis, Rocky marciano & Ezzard Charles is far from Frank Bruno's ledger. He beat Joe Louis except for on the judges cards. He was beating him again until the Brown Bomber iced him.
And if you want to be a condescending prick. Learn how to spell embarrass. It comes off better, kid.
I hate to break it to you but he never made it to the judges scorecards against Marciano - he was ahead then got KO'd in the 13th... then got KO'd in 1 in the rematch
So if you think one win against Charles is a better resume than 2 wins against Dempsey???
I can't waste my time dealing with morons any longer... sigh
Kilsby wrote:
Your talking about an era when Walterweight & middleweight challenged for Heavyweight titles - the wasn't a 6 stone like say between Carl Froch & V. Klitschko & there wasn't even a cruiserweight division at the time so light heavy was very similar in weight to the heavys - but of course after studying the sport you of course will already know this!
Walcott is only known bcoz he was the oldest heavyweight champ b4 Foreman - the fact is he lost 18 bouts & challenged for the title 5 times b4 winning it - making our own Frank Bruno look like a real go-getter...
and your trying to argue that Walcott is better than Tunney??? Please.......
Don't embarass yourself any further............ kid!
I said Walcott was more accomplished as a heavyweight, not a better overall fighter. Losing to Joe Louis, Rocky marciano & Ezzard Charles is far from Frank Bruno's ledger. He beat Joe Louis except for on the judges cards. He was beating him again until the Brown Bomber iced him.
And if you want to be a condescending prick. Learn how to spell embarrass. It comes off better, kid.
I hate to break it to you but he never made it to the judges scorecards against Marciano - he was ahead then got KO'd in the 13th... then got KO'd in 1 in the rematch
So if you think one win against Charles is a better resume than 2 wins against Dempsey???
I can't waste my time dealing with morons any longer... sigh
Your wrong so stop trying to dig yourself out of a hole..... kid - goodbye
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
One of the greatest Light Heavyweights in history, he is one of the greatest fighters in history. But he is overrated at heavyweight.
You're on Boxrec, go study his record and learn something that way. Shaking your head wont do it kid.
Your talking about an era when Walterweight & middleweight challenged for Heavyweight titles - the wasn't a 6 stone like say between Carl Froch & V. Klitschko & there wasn't even a cruiserweight division at the time so light heavy was very similar in weight to the heavys - but of course after studying the sport you of course will already know this!
Walcott is only known bcoz he was the oldest heavyweight champ b4 Foreman - the fact is he lost 18 bouts & challenged for the title 5 times b4 winning it - making our own Frank Bruno look like a real go-getter...
and your trying to argue that Walcott is better than Tunney??? Please.......
Don't embarass yourself any further............ kid!
I said Walcott was more accomplished as a heavyweight, not a better overall fighter. Losing to Joe Louis, Rocky marciano & Ezzard Charles is far from Frank Bruno's ledger. He beat Joe Louis except for on the judges cards. He was beating him again until the Brown Bomber iced him.
And if you want to be a condescending prick. Learn how to spell embarrass. It comes off better, kid.
Bert Sugar rates Tunney higher. Or do you know better than him Saad?
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
I said Walcott was more accomplished as a heavyweight, not a better overall fighter. Losing to Joe Louis, Rocky marciano & Ezzard Charles is far from Frank Bruno's ledger. He beat Joe Louis except for on the judges cards. He was beating him again until the Brown Bomber iced him.
And if you want to be a condescending prick. Learn how to spell embarrass. It comes off better, kid.
I hate to break it to you but he never made it to the judges scorecards against Marciano - he was ahead then got KO'd in the 13th... then got KO'd in 1 in the rematch
So if you think one win against Charles is a better resume than 2 wins against Dempsey???
I can't waste my time dealing with morons any longer... sigh
Your wrong so stop trying to dig yourself out of a hole..... kid - goodbye
You're means you are. You should try a little harder, kid. But leaving is probably best for you and the board. It's difficult to imagine you writing anything worth reading.
Kilsby wrote:
I hate to break it to you but he never made it to the judges scorecards against Marciano - he was ahead then got KO'd in the 13th... then got KO'd in 1 in the rematch
So if you think one win against Charles is a better resume than 2 wins against Dempsey???
I can't waste my time dealing with morons any longer... sigh
Your wrong so stop trying to dig yourself out of a hole..... kid - goodbye
You're means you are. You should try a little harder, kid. But leaving is probably best for you and the board. It's difficult to imagine you writing anything worth reading.
Speak for yourself Saad. I like Kilsby's posts and couldn't give a toss about his spelling.
Kilsby wrote:
Your talking about an era when Walterweight & middleweight challenged for Heavyweight titles - the wasn't a 6 stone like say between Carl Froch & V. Klitschko & there wasn't even a cruiserweight division at the time so light heavy was very similar in weight to the heavys - but of course after studying the sport you of course will already know this!
Walcott is only known bcoz he was the oldest heavyweight champ b4 Foreman - the fact is he lost 18 bouts & challenged for the title 5 times b4 winning it - making our own Frank Bruno look like a real go-getter...
and your trying to argue that Walcott is better than Tunney??? Please.......
Don't embarass yourself any further............ kid!
I said Walcott was more accomplished as a heavyweight, not a better overall fighter. Losing to Joe Louis, Rocky marciano & Ezzard Charles is far from Frank Bruno's ledger. He beat Joe Louis except for on the judges cards. He was beating him again until the Brown Bomber iced him.
And if you want to be a condescending prick. Learn how to spell embarrass. It comes off better, kid.
Bert Sugar rates Tunney higher. Or do you know better than him Saad?
I think it's arguable between Tunney & Walcott. Joe gets the edge from me. I didn't state anything definitively. But I will definitively say that I know better than Bert Sugar. Absolutely.
Kilsby wrote:
Your wrong so stop trying to dig yourself out of a hole..... kid - goodbye
You're means you are. You should try a little harder, kid. But leaving is probably best for you and the board. It's difficult to imagine you writing anything worth reading.
Speak for yourself Saad. I like Kilsby's posts and couldn't give a toss about his spelling.
I was speaking for myself. But nice of you to get involved.
What is the difference between rating Qawi over Saad because he has 2 wins over a HOF fighter and rating Wlad over Bowe when it's the exact opposite?
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
I said Walcott was more accomplished as a heavyweight, not a better overall fighter. Losing to Joe Louis, Rocky marciano & Ezzard Charles is far from Frank Bruno's ledger. He beat Joe Louis except for on the judges cards. He was beating him again until the Brown Bomber iced him.
And if you want to be a condescending prick. Learn how to spell embarrass. It comes off better, kid.
Bert Sugar rates Tunney higher. Or do you know better than him Saad?
I think it's arguable between Tunney & Walcott. Joe gets the edge from me. I didn't state anything definitively. But I will definitively say that I know better than Bert Sugar. Absolutely.
So you class yourself as a very knowledgable fight fan?
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
You're means you are. You should try a little harder, kid. But leaving is probably best for you and the board. It's difficult to imagine you writing anything worth reading.
Speak for yourself Saad. I like Kilsby's posts and couldn't give a toss about his spelling.
I was speaking for myself. But nice of you to get involved.
What is the difference between rating Qawi over Saad because he has 2 wins over a HOF fighter and rating Wlad over Bowe when it's the exact opposite?
keithmoonhangover wrote:
Bert Sugar rates Tunney higher. Or do you know better than him Saad?
I think it's arguable between Tunney & Walcott. Joe gets the edge from me. I didn't state anything definitively. But I will definitively say that I know better than Bert Sugar. Absolutely.
So you class yourself as a very knowledgable fight fan?
Obviously, any knowledgeable fight fan would recognize that. I've actually shared drinks and talked with Sugar before. He knew he was in the presence of greatness.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
I think it's arguable between Tunney & Walcott. Joe gets the edge from me. I didn't state anything definitively. But I will definitively say that I know better than Bert Sugar. Absolutely.
So you class yourself as a very knowledgable fight fan?
Obviously, any knowledgeable fight fan would recognize that. I've actually shared drinks and talked with Sugar before. He knew he was in the presence of greatness.
Which magazine do you write for? Or are you a researcher of some kind? Or a recognized boxing historian?
I've written on blogs, but I'm definitely not a writer. I'll have a top 100 fights list coming out on a blog shortly. None of that is necessary to make you a knowledgeable fan. There aren't many scribes these days, just fans with an outlet.
Sugar is a blast to hang out with. Just not quite as balanced as I am. He thinks the sport, for the most part, stopped after the 50's.
Edit: As for research, I have a subscription to newspaper archives. I can pull up recounts of just about any old time fight. But I only do it for fun. Someday i may have a go at writing a book. But Boxing isn't the biggest demand on print and I obviously am a nobody. And like I said, I don't classify myself as a writer.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I've written on blogs, but I'm definitely not a writer. I'll have a top 100 fights list coming out on a blog shortly. None of that is necessary to make you a knowledgeable fan. There aren't many scribes these days, just fans with an outlet.
Sugar is a blast to hang out with. Just not quite as balanced as I am. He thinks the sport, for the most part, stopped after the 50's.
Edit: As for research, I have a subscription to newspaper archives. I can pull up recounts of just about any old time fight. But I only do it for fun. Someday i may have a go at writing a book. But Boxing isn't the biggest demand on print and I obviously am a nobody. And like I said, I don't classify myself as a writer.
Arguements and Qawi aside.
Give your self some credit mate. If you write, then you are a writer - blog or otherwise. You should write a book, even if it's only to say you wrote one. I'd buy it, just to complain about ratings!!!!!
If it get's published, then that's a bonus. Give it a snappy name like Blood On Canvas (Boxing's Most Brutal Fights) and you never know.
I'd also rank Walcott over Tunney at HW, far deeper and better HW resume.
And please, saying 'Tunney invented scientific boxing' is one of those long-propagated myths like Corbett invented the jab, Ali invented dancing lateral movement, and Kid Gavilan invented the bolo punch.
dempseyfire wrote:I'd also rank Walcott over Tunney at HW, far deeper and better HW resume.
And please, saying 'Tunney invented scientific boxing' is one of those long-propagated myths like Corbett invented the jab, Ali invented dancing lateral movement, and Kid Gavilan invented the bolo punch.
dempseyfire wrote:I'd also rank Walcott over Tunney at HW, far deeper and better HW resume.
And please, saying 'Tunney invented scientific boxing' is one of those long-propagated myths like Corbett invented the jab, Ali invented dancing lateral movement, and Kid Gavilan invented the bolo punch.
dempseyfire wrote:I'd also rank Walcott over Tunney at HW, far deeper and better HW resume.
And please, saying 'Tunney invented scientific boxing' is one of those long-propagated myths like Corbett invented the jab, Ali invented dancing lateral movement, and Kid Gavilan invented the bolo punch.
Who invented the jab?
It's been a component of fist-fighting since caveman walked upright . . .
dempseyfire wrote:I'd also rank Walcott over Tunney at HW, far deeper and better HW resume.
And please, saying 'Tunney invented scientific boxing' is one of those long-propagated myths like Corbett invented the jab, Ali invented dancing lateral movement, and Kid Gavilan invented the bolo punch.
Who invented the jab?
It's been a component of fist-fighting since caveman walked upright . . .
Saad.... i don't care if you write for the daily planet & are superman.
Tunney is FAR better than Walcott.... its not even a debate - sorry
Maybe the jibe about Tunney inventing scientific boxing is a tad far - i'd say it was Joe Gans but for Big men (the heavys) Tunney was the first to adopt a jab & move - before him the big guys were just strongmen or sluggers - he brough finesse.
Walcott fights at heavyweight & lost 18 times............. thats 18 times!!!!
Your comparing him to a man who only lost once in his career which was avenged on numerous occasions! One of a select band of boxers in history who have beaten EVERY opponent they have ever faced......
Just think that over for a while will you b4 telling everyone your a keyboard historian - Mr i know more than you coz i've had drinks with Bert Sugar!
If you still think a man whos lost 18 times (did i mention that?) still a better resume at heavyweight then you just sit still, i'll get you some jelly & ice-cream & we can wait for the nice men in white coats to collect you
