BoxRec

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 08:37 So why are people so offended about my conduct in most threads I’m involved in?

I guess at some point you simply have to recognise that maybe, just maybe, the problem might be you, not everyone else. You’re not there yet. Do I have faith you will get there? Not sure.

Riddick Blowe wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 08:45

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 08:37 So why are people so offended about my conduct in most threads I’m involved in?

I guess at some point you simply have to recognise that maybe, just maybe, the problem might be you, not everyone else. You’re not there yet. Do I have faith you will get there? Not sure.

Why have you quoted something I didn’t even write? They're your words, not mine.

How can you pretend to take the moral high ground when you do that?

How can you pretend to take the moral high ground when you actively refuse to follow the same advice you persistently provide to others, since you keep pretending to ignore my posts, but yet you always respond to them and also regularly contribute to my threads? And you also keep telling everyone to ignore me, despite your own conduct.

You can’t deny that the vast majority of my posts simply list facts, so you shouldn’t pretend that nearly everything I write is offensive either.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 08:58

Riddick Blowe wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 08:45

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 08:37 So why are people so offended about my conduct in most threads I’m involved in?

I guess at some point you simply have to recognise that maybe, just maybe, the problem might be you, not everyone else. You’re not there yet. Do I have faith you will get there? Not sure.

Why have you quoted something I didn’t even write? They're your words, not mine.

How can you pretend to take the moral high ground when you do that?

How can you pretend to take the moral high ground when you actively refuse to follow the same advice you persistently provide to others, since you keep pretending to ignore my posts, but yet you always respond to them and also regularly contribute to my threads? And you also keep telling everyone to ignore me.

You can’t deny that the vast majority of my posts simply list facts, so you shouldn’t pretend that nearly everything I write is offensive either.

You’re right about one thing at least. I just didn’t have the self control to simply ignore your post. To this end I proposed a solution. I think my colour coding scheme may be helpful to alert people that what you’re writing is universally considered bullshit before they bother responding to it and waste their life getting embroiled in your disingenuous debating tactics.

Riddick Blowe wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 08:45

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 08:37 So why are people so offended about my conduct in most threads I’m involved in?

I guess at some point you simply have to recognise that maybe, just maybe, the problem might be you, not everyone else. You’re not there yet. Do I have faith you will get there? Not sure.

I have an excellent remedy for this situation, which I accidentally discovered just now

I had invested in a cracking new bluetooth speaker, a real audiophile's bit of kit which the good fellows at DPD delivered and i set up and tested just after my last post

my previous setup was decent with a decent-quality Bose portable, but as I play my music in my large-ish open-plan living room, I wanted something with a bigger sound, the portable's pretty good for smallish rooms but i just wanted more.

anyway, my god, invest in real quality speakers if you really enjoy music (i understand I may be preaching to the choir here but since I transitioned from CD's to phone/bluetooth about 2 years ago, my sound quality has lagged way behind, i have a really good cd/amp/speaker separates set-up currently gathering dust and I really needed to pick up the quality on my digital-only options)

I'm just totally blissed out at the amazing sounds I'm going to be enjoying. even at the really low volume I tried, the bass and the sound separation of this thing are totally awesome. I was blown away by the sound quality and muscularity even at very low volume. better yet, my neighbour's on holiday from today so my first day of testing can be at fucken maximum volume, raaaaaaagggh. I'm so fucken pumped for when i get home from work tonight

anyway EO, bro if you're using a portable wireless/bluetooth speaker, it really, really pays to upgrade. it will make you smile the first time you play your favourite tune

I'll give a full review tomorrow if anyone's interested. I'll probably give one even if you're not.

Bringing the thread back on topic...

"Anthony Joshua warns Mike Tyson: We’re bigger, we’re stronger"

AJ says boxing has changed since Mike Tyson dominated the heavyweight division in the 1980s and 1990s. Today’s heavyweights are younger, bigger, and more durable than the guys in Tyson’s era, says Joshua.

“To someone watching from home, it looks like this guy is going to come and rule the heavyweight division,” said Joshua to Sky Sports on Mike Tyson’s video workouts that he’s been posting on social media.

“It’s what they’ve known. Good luck to them both, it’s all they know. They haven’t got to do it to compete with the young lions in the division now.

“We’re bigger, we’re stronger, sports science has improved so there is more technology,” said Joshua.

“The whole sporting world has kind of developed,” said Joshua. “If Mike Tyson wants to come back and fight someone from his era for the love of the sport, crack on, I wish them well.”

Thoughts?

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 09:28 Bringing the thread back on topic...

"Anthony Joshua warns Mike Tyson: We’re bigger, we’re stronger"

AJ says boxing has changed since Mike Tyson dominated the heavyweight division in the 1980s and 1990s. Today’s heavyweights are younger, bigger, and more durable than the guys in Tyson’s era, says Joshua.

“To someone watching from home, it looks like this guy is going to come and rule the heavyweight division,” said Joshua to Sky Sports on Mike Tyson’s video workouts that he’s been posting on social media.

“It’s what they’ve known. Good luck to them both, it’s all they know. They haven’t got to do it to compete with the young lions in the division now.

“We’re bigger, we’re stronger, sports science has improved so there is more technology,” said Joshua.

“The whole sporting world has kind of developed,” said Joshua. “If Mike Tyson wants to come back and fight someone from his era for the love of the sport, crack on, I wish them well.”

Thoughts?

https://www.whathifi.com/audio-pro/addon-c10/review

Thoughts:

How many sports scientists does it take to change a fighter's chin?

Looks like a Cracking speaker, I place a lot of trust in my, erm, Trust Jukebar Wireless but im open to new considerations. Anyone else have any strong recommendations for speakers? Specifically noise cancelling speakers?

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 04:29

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 04:13

“We’re bigger, we’re stronger, sports science has improved so there is more technology,”

“

don't fvck with me, my rainbow-coloured piss is so toxic it melts steel.

Spot on. That is exactly what AJ is warning.

Tyson might have had the obsessive drive, the laser-like focus and the killer instinct but Joshua's got the 21st century big pharma behind him with enough diplomatic immunity/complimentary T.U.E.'s to see him through to his date with the Queen.

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 09:28 I'll give a full review tomorrow if anyone's interested. I'll probably give one even if you're not.

That sounds VERY interesting. I'll be sure to check back ON HERE tomorrow.

The Gratest wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 09:54

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 09:28 I'll give a full review tomorrow if anyone's interested. I'll probably give one even if you're not.

That sounds VERY interesting. I'll be sure to check back ON HERE tomorrow.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 08:12

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 07:35
here's what happened in this thread:

you say 'thoughts?'

syntax error gave his thoughts

you then started spouting your usual 'bigger faster SPORTS SCIENCE FACTS FACTS FACTS' bullsh1t because you were simply waiting for somebody, anybody to contradict your tired, repetitive bullsh1t spiel.

GTFo with your tired act, you sad-sack fucken loser

I don't think there's anything unreasonable to point out the fact that Tyson's prime was 32½ years ago, not twenty years ago.

And I didn't think it was inappropriate to share Mike Tyson's own thoughts on the matter either.

I certainly wasn't aggressive with Syntax.

I'll concede I was slightly less friendly towards Onamastus though, because he was hostile.

You're being aggressive and I haven't done a damn thing to you in this thread. You've only submitted an irrelevant comment in order attack me.

And don't you think you're being a hypocrite for behaving in that manner, considering the nature of your criticism aimed towards me?

May I reiterate, I have never said Tyson's prime was 20 years ago; I intimated that he had been an active HW inside the last 20 years.

Tyson Fury summed it up beautifully after beating Wilder; to paraphrase him, he said boxing is a simple sport; it's two blokes hitting each other.

Now, it's obvious that there is much more to it than that, but fundamentally, he is right.

It's part of the reason why I am not 100% sold on the sports science aspect.

I consider Tyson to be a modern(ish)day fighter, even if his prime years were between 24 - 34 years ago, because I don't believe the training regimen would have changed significantly between then and now.

Even though sports science has improved, I am not convinced that it is enough of a factor to say that Tyson's chances in the present day would be severely diminished.

Syntax Error wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 10:58 May I reiterate, I have never said Tyson's prime was 20 years ago; I intimated that he had been an active HW inside the last 20 years.

No, that's fair enough.

However, people evaluate Tyson's ability to beat today's heavyweights on the basis of how he fought during his prime, 32½ years ago, which is a very long time ago.

An awful lot of advancements can be made in sporting science over a 32½ year timeframe, which Mike Tyson himself even conceded.

I also feel that size and strength, which AJ and Tyson himself both mentioned, are factors that cannot be ignored either.

The prime iteration of Tyson and his opponents were the physical equivalents of today's rehydrated cruiserweights, coupled with Mike's lack of height, would have been big obstacles to overcome.

I'm not saying the size, strength, athleticism and sporting science are the only determining factors of Tyson's ability to compete against today's heavyweights, but they cannot be ignored.

I don't feel I've said anything particularly controversial, since Mike Tyson and Anthon y Joshua (the topic of this thread) have conveyed precisely the same claims.

Best case scenario: The little wh0re AJ who has zero claim to being the best HW in the world is trying to get a little attention for himself by talking about Mike Tyson.

Worst case scenario: Anthony Joshua is hoping for a supersweet payday vs an ancient Mike Tyson down the road.

Either way, fck that guy.

H8Usernames wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 11:14 Best case scenario: The little wh0re AJ who has zero claim to being the best HW in the world is trying to get a little attention for himself by talking about Mike Tyson.

Worst case scenario: Anthony Joshua is hoping for a supersweet payday vs an ancient Mike Tyson down the road.

Either way, fck that guy.

To be fair on Anthony Joshua, all he did was answer a question posed by Sky Sports.

Riddick Blowe wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 08:30 People just can’t help themselves

There’s something inherent in all of us that just can’t let EO’s bullshit slide , but it’s worth remembering that so few people agree with him on these sorts of topics that letting him babble away to an empty room is probably the way to go.

Says me, contributing to his thread

Serious suggestion: Maybe he could have a colour coding next to his posts advising that while replying is not prohibited, the best course of action is not to encourage him. This system could be applied to any poster who is democratically voted by boxrec users as befitting such a system.

EO is the gift that keeps on giving. I think he's hilarious. Regarding ID'ing his posts, bold and pink is befitting.

What exactly is he warning Tyson of?

It's obvious AJ and a lot of the current guys are physically bigger than Tyson. Hell most of the guys he fought back in his heyday were physically bigger than him too.

He was a better fighter though.

Simply being larger only takes you so far.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 12:25 What exactly is he warning Tyson of?

It's obvious AJ and a lot of the current guys are physically bigger than Tyson. Hell most of the guys he fought back in his heyday were physically bigger than him too.

He was a better fighter though.

Simply being larger only takes you so far.

I had the very same argument recently on here,someone claiming Joshua would beat Holmes purely because he was bigger,Holmes's skills,jab,chin and stamina counted for nothing apparently

I wonder how many threads we have now with the same moronic argument that size means everything in boxing

And I wonder how many involve EO

Taco Bell science is Andy's secret weapon

Riddick Blowe wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 12:41 I wonder how many threads we have now with the same moronic argument that size means everything in boxing

And I wonder how many involve EO

LOL! It's worse than silly at this point. Not sure if EO has actually ever seen a bout.

AJ would beat a guy like 6 foot 185 Jack Johnson, who himself won the hw title vs a 5'7 160s on fight day opponent, but not Lar or Moo or Mike. These threads always pick the wrong guys, size matters for sure but the elitest of the elite can overcome it. Tyson was around 220 of muscle in his prime too, he was more just a shorty than some little tiny guy.

That said, going back to that holmes discussion mentioned, Lar did have issues with a number of opponents, arguably beat by Carl Williams, badly badly hurt and down by Renny Snipes, admitted to being hurt to the body by Gerr, plenty of other struggles. He wouldnt easily whoop AJ, he'd have issues, but he had more ability and amazing recovery (not chin), he'd get AJ in the end

Thomastearns wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 09:42

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 04:29

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020, 04:13

“We’re bigger, we’re stronger, sports science has improved so there is more technology,”

“

don't fvck with me, my rainbow-coloured piss is so toxic it melts steel.

Spot on. That is exactly what AJ is warning.

Tyson might have had the obsessive drive, the laser-like focus and the killer instinct but Joshua's got the 21st century big pharma behind him with enough diplomatic immunity/complimentary T.U.E.'s to see him through to his date with the Queen.

To be fair, it doesn't look like 2020 Tyson is a stranger to the chemists these days

Hey, nobody outside LA LA Land thinks Tyson is going to do anything
more than have a few low key sparring sessions.
He isn't going to compete with the young lions of today or take over
any division including bantam weight on up.
Any fights Tyson has now will be akin to pro wrestling.
Just entertainment.