BoxRec

I think I said I didn't see your missing post....so yes....you are right......I didn't know what I was talking about....granted...but I was clear to you that I didn't know.

And thanks for your suggestions.

Kalan wrote:I guess I'm not allowed to defend myself against hypocrisy. I posted how Tony 1244 made many disrespectful and hateful statements and it was deleted. Maybe I can attack this another way.

Buster Douglas said Mike Tyson should take off his championship belt and put on a diaper because his deportment was that of a 2-year-old. That wasn't a respectful comment. It wasn't a positive comment. It was a legitimate comment.

Tyson was the undefeated Heavyweight Champion and Douglas was no box of chocolates. He'd been knocked out 3 times and didn't do a lot with his talent. He wasn't particularly deserving of a title shot from anything he accomplished and was one of the biggest underdogs in history. He was a name drawn out of a hat. He figured he was bigger, taller, faster, stronger, and had better skills...and if he prepared correctly he had the beating of one Mike Tyson... If he didn't win his comment was still valid... A man in this country generally gets to express his opinion as long as it's not hate speech.

What hateful statement did I make that was deleted?

Tony1244 wrote:

Kalan wrote:I guess I'm not allowed to defend myself against hypocrisy. I posted how Tony 1244 made many disrespectful and hateful statements and it was deleted. Maybe I can attack this another way.

Buster Douglas said Mike Tyson should take off his championship belt and put on a diaper because his deportment was that of a 2-year-old. That wasn't a respectful comment. It wasn't a positive comment. It was a legitimate comment.

Tyson was the undefeated Heavyweight Champion and Douglas was no box of chocolates. He'd been knocked out 3 times and didn't do a lot with his talent. He wasn't particularly deserving of a title shot from anything he accomplished and was one of the biggest underdogs in history. He was a name drawn out of a hat. He figured he was bigger, taller, faster, stronger, and had better skills...and if he prepared correctly he had the beating of one Mike Tyson... If he didn't win his comment was still valid... A man in this country generally gets to express his opinion as long as it's not hate speech.

What hateful did I make that were deleted?

....tony....it sounds like it wasn't your post that was deleted...but I'm not certain about that.

My comment about his hateful and disrespectful comments was deleted. Along with my reply to mercman.

Kalan wrote:I love the way my posts are deleted when I try to show the hypocrisy going on.

i love your posts being deleted too

Kalan wrote:My comment about his hateful and disrespectful comments was deleted. Along with my reply to mercman.

If I am the "his", I ask once again, what was my hateful comment? If I'm not the "his" then disregard.

You said people holding certain opinions were idiots and morons. You've made spiteful and disrespectful comments about women and Muslims. You've made various comments about Mayweather and other boxers you're not particularly fond of. I'm not going to go in depth because I'd be deleted for making spiteful and disrespectful comments, even if there're yours. Plus all this discussion of me and non-discussion of Boxing is starting to bore my ass off.

Kalan wrote:You don't know what you're talking about... I didn't make personal judgments about a person's character, worth as a human being, make up his sexual preferences, or make up a fanciful and unflattering life story and life history for him for him because he disagrees with me on the subject of Boxing... I posted hateful and disrespectful things a man said that had no class whatsoever and displayed his hypocrisy.

I prefer to just discuss Boxing and not get into pissing contests, but often when you note a boxer’s ineptitude, and back it up with facts, stats, history, bad losses, and common sense assessments of their skills -- partisans come out of the woodwork, not with a counter argument, but with personal attacks that are over-the-top and off the wall. That’s what should be deleted..

I am having a hard time reconciling this post with your previous post in which you referred to Richard Dunn as "wretched dung"

I don't understand why that is necessary, even if you are not overly impressed with his boxing ability.

I think that is what people react to, not so much your assessment of a given fighter or fight. Just my opinion.

Kalan wrote:You said people holding certain opinions were idiots and morons. You've made spiteful and disrespectful comments about women and Muslims. You've made various comments about Mayweather and other boxers you're not particularly fond of. I'm not going to go in depth because I'd be deleted for making spiteful and disrespectful comments, even if there're yours. Plus all this discussion of me and non-discussion of Boxing is starting to bore my ass off.

The only thing negative I remember writing to you is, "Show some class," regarding calling Richard Dunn a "Bum." I respect all fighters and try to avoid terms like Bum. There are always exceptions like cheaters like Margarito or chronic quitters like Tor Hamer. I'm fine if you call them bums. There are cases online and in real life where I haven't shown class either. Example, I deleted one of my own posts I thought was crass and stupid.

Yes I have called people idiots and morons and I don't always take that back. If someone had written that Richard Dunn was a superior fighter to Lennox Lewis, i think we both could rightfully write that poster is an idiot.

I've made it clear that I don't adhere to any organized religion and today, statistically Muslims are the cause of most religiously based crime. That's an opinion followed by a fact.

Mayweather is an All Time Great who is often a jerk outside of the ring. Nothing news breaking there.

I don't and can't delete posts. If you called me an idiot, personally I wouldn't have deleted. But obviously don't know if it was a lot more than that.

jas80s wrote:I am having a hard time reconciling this post with your previous post in which you referred to Richard Dunn as "wretched dung"

Wretched Dung was a great play on words.. Like Ali always calling Leon Spinks "Leon Stinks" ... At that time in his career Spinks was better than Dunn.

Kalan wrote:

jas80s wrote:I am having a hard time reconciling this post with your previous post in which you referred to Richard Dunn as "wretched dung"

Wretched Dung was a great play on words.. Like Ali always calling Leon Spinks "Leon Stinks" ... At that time in his career Spinks was better than Dunn.

Fair enough, though Ali was in the game and always promoting with his outlandishness. You and those of us contributing here, have a different context. And having some respect for the principles of the sport appeals to some of us.

I don't think I've ever used that sort of language, even regarding those fighters that I have been most critical of. I very much think Aaron Pryor was over valued, and in my local area was way overrated and enjoyed way to much patronizing press, and I often attempt to point that out. And maybe Aaron would want to take a swing at me....but I have to say, I paid to attend many of his fights, and have respect for his participation in the sport. Even if I feel obliged to push back dramatically to those who hold him in the highest esteem. I just don't think he lives up to his pro rep. And I've pointed that out time and again. But I would never characterize him as anything less than a fella who gave it his best, and was worthy of respect as a competitor in the sport.

I and many of us on occasion may go past that line. But I would admit that it's always an error when I do. I sure would rather watch a boxing match, and give my take, than step into the ring on a pro basis. My hat goes off to all that have participated. They have provided me with much in the way of good times. And I owe them my thanks.

Aaron Pryor had great talent... Fabulous talent... So you have no idea what you're talking about again.

AP was 39-1 with an 88% KO ratio... At his best he was certainly far better than Henry Armstrong who did nothing but push, foul, butt, shove, shoulder, throw low, and use his body and head as a battering ram... The problems with Pryor were psychological... He destroyed himself with drugs like so many boxers.

Kalan wrote:Aaron Pryor had great talent... Fabulous talent... So you have no idea what you're talking about again.

AP was 39-1 with an 88% KO ratio... At his best he was certainly far better than Henry Armstrong who did nothing but push, foul, butt, shove, shoulder, throw low, and use his body and head as a battering ram... The problems with Pryor were psychological... He destroyed himself with drugs like so many boxers.

Pryor's ATG fight should have been Leonard, without the Leonard fight there was no opportunity for 'greatness' - there is only one HOF name on his resume (please correct if wrong) and he was an old blown-up featherweight seeking a fourth title. - I feel by not getting the Leonard fight Pryor got screwed out of his chance to rise to the very top of the game.

I saw his lost to Bobby Joe Young live;, (at the Sunrise Musical Theater, Sunrise, Florida - 'what a dump' - both the venue and the town.) he looked a finished fighter, both his timing and legs were wanting.

Duran was also not interested in fighting Pryor... I don't judge boxers on their resume---people can duck them---but on their boxing and punching ability.

Kalan wrote:Duran was also not interested in fighting Pryor... I don't judge boxers on their resume---people can duck them---but on their boxing and punching ability.

I've said it before...I'll say it again...the only fight that would have ever taken place between Pryor and Duran was the fight that would occur between Pryor and the four guy it would take to muscle him into the ring against Duran.

What Pryor DID HAVE was brilliant managers.

Kalan, I understand I hold the minority viewpoint on this, and remember...I was a local and followed his career....so it either affected me to greater knowledge or greater bias. I'll count you under the "greater bias" group.


We can disagree all day long. And we don't have to be disagreeable....for the most part. In this case you are simply wrong....and I am right. (I just checked the Akashik record on this)

Be that as it may, I'd still belly up to the bar and have a beer with you, as long as you were buyin'.

I don't buy drinks for souses... I wouldn't encourage your bad habits... And my belly is flat and hard as a rock, so it never touches the bar like your beer gut.

And Pryor would have no trouble facing Duran... It would be millions of dollars... He knocked out Alexis Arguello as an underdog -- and then blasted him out again... He improved on his performance the 2nd time... He was also leading on points in both fights heading into the KO round.. Pryor was undefeated in his first 36 fights including 11 World Title Fights.. He had very good boxing skills, sharp weapons, a nice jab, and a savage punch.

Duran-Pryor would have been VERY big money -- so Pryor would have taken that fight in a heartbeat -- with a good chance of winning due to Duran's fistic inconsistency. So your fantasies about needing 4 goons to muscle Pryor into the ring against one of your favorites -- are as delusional as usual.

Kalan wrote:I don't buy drinks for souses... I wouldn't encourage your bad habits... And my belly is flat and hard as a rock, so it never touches the bar like your beer gut.

And Pryor would have no trouble facing Duran... It would be millions of dollars... He knocked out Alexis Arguello as an underdog -- and then blasted him out again... He improved on his performance the 2nd time... He was also leading on points in both fights heading into the KO round.. Pryor was undefeated in his first 36 fights including 11 World Title Fights.. He had very good boxing skills, sharp weapons, a nice jab, and a savage punch.

Duran-Pryor would have been VERY big money -- so Pryor would have taken that fight in a heartbeat -- with a good chance of winning due to Duran's fistic inconsistency. So your fantasies about needing 4 goons to muscle Pryor into the ring against one of your favorites -- are as delusional as usual.

In my opinion, You don't know much about what your talkin' about in this specific circumstance. But you say it well enough to sound like you do. And that's got to count for something.

Your defensive comment means you get your feeble brain around 1% of my argument... That shows a slightly better cohesiveness than a fart in a hurricane.. As always, you say "you're wrong. I'm right" without thinking or making any substantive case because you're not capable of doing that.

Kalan wrote:Your defensive comment means you get your feeble brain around 1% of my argument... That shows a slightly better cohesiveness than a fart in a hurricane.. As always, you say "you're wrong. I'm right" without thinking or making any substantive case because you're not capable of doing that.

Man, you are intendingly hurting my feelings by going after me with personal barbs, just because I'm not cheerleading you in this case.

You've got to get a hold of yourself man. Sensible people will end up discounting what you have to say if you can't behave in public.

Aaron was out of his prime about as fast as Riddick Bowe. Which would get your attention if you weren't so contrary toward the quiet reserved and thoughtful folks such as myself.

The only thing of substance that you said related to Aaron Pryor's lack of longevity... He got involved with drinking and drugs...

So did Rocky Lockridge who had a short career at the top... It doesn't take away the fact that Lockridge won 2 World Titles.. Gerry Cooney fell off the wagon when he was 25.. Ike Ibeabuchi went to jail... Tony Ayala did as well... Riddick Bowe got hit in the head too much and peeled off early... Wilfred Benitez was gone at an early age... Some guys fight in World Title Fights when they're 45... Very few.

Aaron Pryor was a great fighter when he held his life together well... That should count for as much letting mental illness and addictions grab hold of you.

Fair enough, though I hold a dimmer view of his skillset than you.

If you are going to give full faith and credit to fighters that just didn't last that long....you could make an argument that Riddick Bowe was the best that ever lived.

Short and remarkable "best days". You know...like you do for Valero.

We were talking about Aaron Pryor.

BoxBuzz wrote:Fair enough, though I hold a dimmer view of his skillset than you.

If you are going to give full faith and credit to fighters that just didn't last that long....you could make an argument that Riddick Bowe was the best that ever lived.

Short and remarkable "best days". You know...like you do for Valero.

How can you have a dim view of a guy who had 11 World Title fights and didn't lose any of them -- and finished 39-1 in 40 fights, knocking out Alexis Arguello twice -- and achieving an 88% KO ratio??? ... Do you know what Henry Armstrong's record was after 40 fights??? He won only 30 wins and lost 3 of his next 5 fights after that... His record was extremely spotted with losses his whole career.

And you could never have made the argument that Bowe was the best in Boxing History -- not even when he was undefeated and had just beaten the undersized Holyfield ... not with the way the inept Bowe got punched in the head by about anybody who he fought -- and he fought extremely few good fighters in his career because he ducked Lewis and many others.. Bowe simply had a softer noggin than Armstrong which didn't hold up to hard punches as well over time... Bowe didn't have that head like Archie Moore that could absorb limitless punishment without suffering.. It didn't mean Bowe wasn't just as terrible a boxer as Armstrong -- the blows just affected him a lot more and knocked him out of the running early.