Cooney v Bugner

Bricks
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3916
Joined: 28 Apr 2008, 12:42

Re: Cooney v Bugner

Post by Bricks »

BoxBuzz wrote:Just because someone drops a load of much off at a major educational institution, does not mean that they gained knowledge.


I've been to Harvard.....many times. But G.I. still thinks I'm under edumacated.

go figger.
Irene is a jealous bum unable to deal with anyone who has a superior education to his outback jack billabong comprehensive schooling and Boxbuzz is the impotent father figure to Urineie :lol:
hhaehre
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6422
Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 07:26

Re: Cooney v Bugner

Post by hhaehre »

Goodnight, Irene wrote:
mugabi wrote:Lord i never knew my going to Oxford could upset and enflame feelings of insecurity in a faceless person across the world!! Mate you are always making statements like "bruno was a coward"....." i could take Earnie Shavers now he is in his 60's"...."Earnie Shavers was an amateur at world level even though he took Jimmy Young and Norton and beat other notable contenders , gave Holmes life and death, took Ali 15 rounds"....its not for me to say who the dick here is.....anyway thats my last word on this!
:lol:

If you went to Oxford, Im a Chinaman and Shavers had a left hand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyyXIO6z ... re=related

At 5:59 Earnie throws a left hook
loaded_gloves
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1907
Joined: 09 Mar 2011, 12:18

Re: Cooney v Bugner

Post by loaded_gloves »

Shavers left hook put Lyle on the floor in quite dramatic fashion. He had a good jab and a great hook.

Really it's a silly conversation to even have regarding Shavers. He competed in the elite class in the golden era and made a major dent, what more can you say?

I agree with GI on a lot of other threads and he seems to have good knowledge, unfortunately he also has this smug, know it all demeanor which a bloke in his 20s who started following boxing in the late 90s really doesn't need, especially around people who might have been following the game before he was even born. It's a bit off putting. I've been here on and off since 2001 and 'Boxers of the Past' has always, always had a GI type character. As one moves on a brand new one shows up.
BoxBuzz
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 29847
Joined: 07 Jun 2005, 16:37

Re: Cooney v Bugner

Post by BoxBuzz »

mugabi wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:Just because someone drops a load of much off at a major educational institution, does not mean that they gained knowledge.


I've been to Harvard.....many times. But G.I. still thinks I'm under edumacated.

go figger.
Irene is a jealous bum unable to deal with anyone who has a superior education to his outback jack billabong comprehensive schooling and Boxbuzz is the impotent father figure to Urineie :lol:

Well, at least your recognize my importance around here. The eggspressed respect does wonders for my self esteam.
Goodnight, Irene
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9463
Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43

Re: Cooney v Bugner

Post by Goodnight, Irene »

loaded_gloves wrote:Shavers left hook put Lyle on the floor in quite dramatic fashion. He had a good jab and a great hook.

Really it's a silly conversation to even have regarding Shavers. He competed in the elite class in the golden era and made a major dent, what more can you say?

I agree with GI on a lot of other threads and he seems to have good knowledge, unfortunately he also has this smug, know it all demeanor which a bloke in his 20s who started following boxing in the late 90s really doesn't need, especially around people who might have been following the game before he was even born. It's a bit off putting. I've been here on and off since 2001 and 'Boxers of the Past' has always, always had a GI type character. As one moves on a brand new one shows up.
Thanks for the kind words. As for the harsher ones, well, I only take umbrage at opinions which, to me, defy belief (and theres no shortage of them).

I started following Boxing in 1994, at ten.
BoxBuzz
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 29847
Joined: 07 Jun 2005, 16:37

Re: Cooney v Bugner

Post by BoxBuzz »

...so that's the "dark meaning" of the whole "1984" thing.

I've got shoes older than you G.I.

Honestly...I"ve got some brown wing tips that I have had re-soled that still look quite sharp. lol. However I don't hold on to socks that long.
Goodnight, Irene
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9463
Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43

Re: Cooney v Bugner

Post by Goodnight, Irene »

Im 27...not 15 :roll:
BoxBuzz
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 29847
Joined: 07 Jun 2005, 16:37

Re: Cooney v Bugner

Post by BoxBuzz »

..???

Shoes.......bought 'em in 82.
Goodnight, Irene
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9463
Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43

Re: Cooney v Bugner

Post by Goodnight, Irene »

How relevant.

Tell me, would you rather be your age, or mine?
BoxBuzz
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 29847
Joined: 07 Jun 2005, 16:37

Re: Cooney v Bugner

Post by BoxBuzz »

Been your age over 30 years ago and know all about it........however, since this is the oldest I've ever been, I do have trouble acting my own age....as I have no experience.

I'm at peace with time. It does it's thing I do mine. Nothin' lasts forever.

Relevance? Let me see...... Well I was around when Ali proclaimed that Bugner would be "the next big thing".

Ali was better at predicting the length of his own fights, than the future of his opponents.
raylawpc
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4871
Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 17:21

Re: Cooney v Bugner

Post by raylawpc »

BoxBuzz wrote:However I don't hold on to socks that long.
That's good news for the people who live with you!!
Post Reply