BoxRec

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:You remind me of my dad watching history documentaries Jim. He fvcking hates them, only watches them so he can get angry about their license with the facts, overgeneralizations and outright lies. He watches them and fumes, then next time he sees me he rants about their shortcomings. None of them are a patch on The World At War, he'll say. They should have just stopped making history docs right there.

'The World At War' is the high-water mark of documentary - your dad knows what he's talking about. Learn from him. And me.

He isn't telling me anything I don't already know, though, Jim, and therein lies the problem. WaW is possibly my favourite series of any kind, ever


He simply regurgitates the same bile over and over, preaching to the converted the whole time, until its impossible to avoid the conclusion that he derives pleasure from the very act of ranting and regurgitating, he actively seeks to put himself in the position of outraged standard-bearer for a rectitude now sadly long in the past

It can make him a colossal fvking bore, at times.

You learn from him.

I don't suppose you have read A Confederacy of Dunces?

Counter-puncher wrote:I don't suppose you have read A Confederacy of Dunces?

Datsue wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:I don't suppose you have read A Confederacy of Dunces?

Ignatius at the cinema?

That's our Jim

Counter-puncher wrote:

Datsue wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:I don't suppose you have read A Confederacy of Dunces?

Ignatius at the cinema?

That's our Jim

"I am writing a lengthy indictment against modern heavyweights. When my brain begins to reel from my labours, I make the occasional cheese dip."

Heheh. I suspect Jims being is not without its Proustian element, to boot.

He possibly also admires Batman as the most existential (but not- not, mark you-nihilist) of the comic book heroes.

Molina did better than I imagined he would and showed bravery. Wilder is still very raw and Wlad or Poverkin will beat him pretty easily.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:
The crucial difference is that Bowe massacred those men - Wilder had to grope and flail his way to a victory over Eric Molina.

Eric Molina!

Why did you watch the fight Jim?

To see whether the heavyweight division could really be as bad as I thought it was.

It was worse!

People can groan about my pessimism if they wish - simply watch Wilder vs Molina and remember this is for the belt contested in Bowe/Holyfield, Tyson/Spinks, Holmes/Norton, Ali/Frazier III and Frazier/Ali.

Mate, this belt has been fought for by Lorenzo Zanon, Danny Williams, Phil Jackson, Ossie Ocasio, Terry Daniels, Jose Roman, Chuck Wepner and Tex Cobb.

Do you really think this was all that different. So Wilder took an easy first defence. So did pretty much everyone who held the WBC.

Counter-puncher wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:You remind me of my dad watching history documentaries Jim. He fvcking hates them, only watches them so he can get angry about their license with the facts, overgeneralizations and outright lies. He watches them and fumes, then next time he sees me he rants about their shortcomings. None of them are a patch on The World At War, he'll say. They should have just stopped making history docs right there.

'The World At War' is the high-water mark of documentary - your dad knows what he's talking about. Learn from him. And me.

He isn't telling me anything I don't already know, though, Jim, and therein lies the problem. WaW is possibly my favourite series of any kind, ever


He simply regurgitates the same bile over and over, preaching to the converted the whole time, until its impossible to avoid the conclusion that he derives pleasure from the very act of ranting and regurgitating, he actively seeks to put himself in the position of outraged standard-bearer for a rectitude now sadly long in the past

It can make him a colossal fvking bore, at times.

You learn from him.

It was obviously a tongue in cheek comment from myself. However I'm happy to serve as a proxy father so you can expunge the terrible grudges you bear him, if it helps. You sound a troubled soul.

sure, Jim, you're the tongue-in-cheek type.

Datsue wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:I don't suppose you have read A Confederacy of Dunces?

"I am writing a lengthy indictment against modern heavyweights. When my brain begins to reel from my labours, I make the occasional cheese dip."

Appreciation of any modern heavyweight only reflects a posters lack of theology and geometry; it even cast doubts upon one's soul.

The rota fortunae has served me up a real pair of mongoloids in this thread.

I await with interest your attempt to find me saying anything appreciative about modern heavyweights.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Datsue wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:I don't suppose you have read A Confederacy of Dunces?

"I am writing a lengthy indictment against modern heavyweights. When my brain begins to reel from my labours, I make the occasional cheese dip."

Appreciation of any modern heavyweight only reflects a posters lack of theology and geometry; it even cast doubts upon one's soul.

The rota fortunae has served me up a real pair of mongoloids in this thread.

I'd say The Ascent of Man slightly pips WaW for best documentary series, and that's coming from a fan of war documentaries. Clark's Civilisation is also great.

I know Le Chagrin et la pitié is mocked slightly in Annie Hall but it is actually outstanding.

I haven't watched Ascent of Man but will do so now. Since we'd rather discuss documentaries than the WBC heavyweight champion, can I also recommend Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos'? 5 or 6 discs, and Sagan gives the complete account of existence from beginning to present. A cautionary note. The subjects are of such colossal immensity that watching it will make your life feel like the obscure blip that it is.

Cosmos is good, I'd recommend Connections, and the sequels. Burke got a bit of stick for his presentation style but you can't argue with the content.

I like the Ken Burns stuff, the Civil War one in particular is outstanding but if you view too many at once you get tired of the plinky plonk music and use of moving photos.

and that was the guy Arreola KO'd in 1 haha

Tuan_Jim wrote:I haven't watched Ascent of Man but will do so now. Since we'd rather discuss documentaries than the WBC heavyweight champion, can I also recommend Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos'? 5 or 6 discs, and Sagan gives the complete account of existence from beginning to present. A cautionary note. The subjects are of such colossal immensity that watching it will make your life feel like the obscure blip that it is.

RE: heavyweights. To echo C-P, please to be finding one positive thing I've had to say about a heavyweight...? I merely expressed boredom with a boring subject, & am self-aware (& old enough) to remember a Glyn Leach article circa 1993 alternately bemoaning & hacking wildly at the (then-current) state of the heavyweight division.

That such lean times are now viewed as the last sort of Golden Age of the heavyweights (well, all right, an Iron Pyrite Age of the Heavyweights) is alternately sobering & massively hilarious to me, remembering also Srikumar Sen writing of Holyfield's defence versus Holmes: "A journeyman is still a journeyman, even when he wears a crown."

I really don't think much of Wilder (I wrote a two thousand word screed/takedown for Boxrec News the day after he beat Scott, describing him, amongst other things, as "little more than a giant pair of shoulders balanced on a pair of pipe-cleaners"; what else is there to say about him, apart from his astonishing technical ineptness & brilliant marketing? Perhaps I don't talk about him much 'cos I've already used up all my best jokes), but then again neither does everyone else apart from some xenophobes on the Current Scene, so instead of blustering about the whole shitfest more than is seemly I devote my attention to more worthy (or at least, interesting) matters. I have to say that Wlad, though I've ripped the piss out of him for years, has surprised me with his longevity & gained a sort of grudging respect, & I think people will look back on him with some fondness when he goes.

Sen & Leach's views of the heavies of their time is useful to remember, I think, as I slide inexorably into middle age: sometimes things were really good. But also: Butterbean, Herbie Hide as some sort of heavyweight champ, Oliver McCall alternating crack with going mental, Tyson raping & biting to bookend the decade, Michael Moorer being shouted at by the execrable Teddy Atlas, Frans Botha & Axel Schultz. Some things were clearly not at all good.

You do get points for the O'Toole joke, though, nice one.



PS: & yes documentaries are far more interesting than the current heavyweight division (which, to go back on what I said above, lacks the shoot-outs & spectacular crumblings at the last hurdle that made 90s heavies so awkwardly compelling, imo: whither the likes of Darroll Wilson vs Tshabalala these days?). Another vote for Cosmos over here.

Have you seen any of Adam Curtis's stuff, especially "Century of the Self"? Very good if you can stomach a sort of John Dos Passos approach to Big Questions, though his targets are so massive he sets himself up to fail from the start, really.

I love Curtis' work, it's great, albeit not unflawed. Did you check out the last one, on the iplayer only? Bitter Lake.

I love Power of Nightmares, The Trap & Machines of Loving Grace.

Power of Nightmare & All Watched Over... are fantastic, yes, not seen his new one, will have to look that up.

More of the same really but it's quite long, about 3 hours I think? Worth a watch, great visuals and quite funny in bits. I think it's intentional, anyway, the humour...

I wish he'd stop using burial on his soundtracks though.

The worst heavyweight title fight I can remember was Witherspoon vs Page, nothing has been as boring since then. They just embraced for half an hr with occasional shoving. It's probably on YouTube but you'll never get that time back again
Watching Wilder is comparatively riveting!

Datsue wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:I haven't watched Ascent of Man but will do so now. Since we'd rather discuss documentaries than the WBC heavyweight champion, can I also recommend Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos'? 5 or 6 discs, and Sagan gives the complete account of existence from beginning to present. A cautionary note. The subjects are of such colossal immensity that watching it will make your life feel like the obscure blip that it is.

RE: heavyweights. To echo C-P, please to be finding one positive thing I've had to say about a heavyweight...? I merely expressed boredom with a boring subject, & am self-aware (& old enough) to remember a Glyn Leach article circa 1993 alternately bemoaning & hacking wildly at the (then-current) state of the heavyweight division.

That such lean times are now viewed as the last sort of Golden Age of the heavyweights (well, all right, an Iron Pyrite Age of the Heavyweights) is alternately sobering & massively hilarious to me, remembering also Srikumar Sen writing of Holyfield's defence versus Holmes: "A journeyman is still a journeyman, even when he wears a crown."

I really don't think much of Wilder (I wrote a two thousand word screed/takedown for Boxrec News the day after he beat Scott, describing him, amongst other things, as "little more than a giant pair of shoulders balanced on a pair of pipe-cleaners"; what else is there to say about him, apart from his astonishing technical ineptness & brilliant marketing? Perhaps I don't talk about him much 'cos I've already used up all my best jokes), but then again neither does everyone else apart from some xenophobes on the Current Scene, so instead of blustering about the whole shitfest more than is seemly I devote my attention to more worthy (or at least, interesting) matters. I have to say that Wlad, though I've ripped the piss out of him for years, has surprised me with his longevity & gained a sort of grudging respect, & I think people will look back on him with some fondness when he goes.

Sen & Leach's views of the heavies of their time is useful to remember, I think, as I slide inexorably into middle age: sometimes things were really good. But also: Butterbean, Herbie Hide as some sort of heavyweight champ, Oliver McCall alternating crack with going mental, Tyson raping & biting to bookend the decade, Michael Moorer being shouted at by the execrable Teddy Atlas, Frans Botha & Axel Schultz. Some things were clearly not at all good.

You do get points for the O'Toole joke, though, nice one.



PS: & yes documentaries are far more interesting than the current heavyweight division (which, to go back on what I said above, lacks the shoot-outs & spectacular crumblings at the last hurdle that made 90s heavies so awkwardly compelling, imo: whither the likes of Darroll Wilson vs Tshabalala these days?). Another vote for Cosmos over here.

Have you seen any of Adam Curtis's stuff, especially "Century of the Self"? Very good if you can stomach a sort of John Dos Passos approach to Big Questions, though his targets are so massive he sets himself up to fail from the start, really.

Well, being sane people presumably neither of you have ever written anything positive about contemporary heavyweights. I too remember those Leach editorials - there was one with a picture of a rotund, slobbering Dokes slapped over an editorial about how the 80s champs, plunged in crack smoke, looked like Greats compared to the 90s. And the 90s were terrible in many ways, but I suppose at least the bitter taste stems from talent that failed to fight each other, talent that didn't achieve maximum potential, talent traded in for uncommon bulk (muscle or fat, usually both). So at least the frustration was borne of talent, rather than a lack thereof. We still enjoyed a fiendish number of punchups, from the various composites of Bowe, Holyfield, Tyson, Morrison, Foreman, Moorer, Mercer, Ruddock, and the never dependable Smokin' Bert. While being guilty of making the same point once again, and even boring myself now, today we have a division that looks like the brood Axel Schulz might produce, if Alex Zolkin impregnated him.

A strong depiction of Deontay Wilder, btw. Difficult to match that.

Delighted to see Mr Toole recognised. The most flawlessly executed comedy that I have ever read.

I'll watch some Adam Curtis tonight. He's been recommended to me a couple of times now, particularly Bitter Lake. It seems that with Ascent of Man, my complaint about Wilder/Molina has unearthed a whole booty of fine entertainment.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

MightyWarrior wrote:It was telling that Deontay was so terrified of getting his china chin tapped, that he was too wary of stepping in and demolishing the over weight Mexican - which he should have, and could have done, inside around.
He was so ultra cautious, I think the rumours about him getting knocked out in sparring might have been true, because after the best win of his career, in this fight he looked like his confidence had gone. Very strange.

Any word on who allegedly KOd him?

Charlie Zelenoff.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:
The crucial difference is that Bowe massacred those men - Wilder had to grope and flail his way to a victory over Eric Molina.

Eric Molina!

Why did you watch the fight Jim?

To see whether the heavyweight division could really be as bad as I thought it was.

It was worse!

People can groan about my pessimism if they wish - simply watch Wilder vs Molina and remember this is for the belt contested in Bowe/Holyfield, Tyson/Spinks, Holmes/Norton, Ali/Frazier III and Frazier/Ali.

Mate, this belt has been fought for by Lorenzo Zanon, Danny Williams, Phil Jackson, Ossie Ocasio, Terry Daniels, Jose Roman, Chuck Wepner and Tex Cobb.

Do you really think this was all that different. So Wilder took an easy first defence. So did pretty much everyone who held the WBC.[/quote]


Cobb was much better than those other names tho, he gave Dokes and Norton real hard fights when he was prime. Tough man and a heavy puncher