Page 2 of 2
re
Posted: 29 Jan 2006, 03:56
by barry
No this is what you say:
>>>Seriously, what name on Fitzsimmon's record suggests that he's even on the same level as Corrie Sanders or Tony Tucker? Or that he'd be competitive with either of them?<<<
Sanders and Tucker more superior than Fitz?
Perhaps I could drag out some of your other many "gems" as there are many, many to choose from
re
Posted: 29 Jan 2006, 04:08
by barry
That's a stupid debate...plain and simple...but since you are keen on it why don't you give a solid argument as to why Sanders should even be mentioned along-side of Fitzsimmons!
Posted: 29 Jan 2006, 11:39
by theone
Sanders and Tucker more superior than Fitz?
A middleweight knocking out a heavyweight with a body shot would never happen today. Both Tucker and Sanders would destroy Fritz, and probably beat any heavyweight of that era with the exception of Johnson.
re
Posted: 29 Jan 2006, 20:02
by barry
>>>except Virgil Hill was a better fighter than James Corbett.<<<
Yep...one weapon...the jab...and that made Hill superior, that's pathetic...you cats are stupid...not stupid in a "you should have know better sense," but stupid in a "I have no idea what I am talking about sense!"
Posted: 30 Jan 2006, 08:18
by Ezzard
Decagon wrote:Ezzard wrote:expug wrote:Ya I got it up there Ez.
Just seen it. It's a legendary fight that captured the imagination of sports fans and non-sports fans. Wouldn't it be great if boxing could somehow get abck to its former glory.
Who cares about boxing's former glory? This is the best era of boxing that the sport has ever seen. We have access to more fights and more materials than any generation before us. Guys sitting in the barbershop in the 1960s could argue over Marciano or Louis. We can compare film footage of Jim Corbett and Muhammad Ali simply by downloading it.
Come on Dec...
I love watching old fights but nothing can beat that sense of a great match up. In my own life the anticipation of Hagler-Hearns, Leonard-Hagler, Holyfield-Tyson, Leonard-Hearns, Chavez-Taylor, Whittaker-Chavez... was a great thing.
Imagine having tickets for Greb-Walker? Imagine waiting to see Robinsom-La Motta and not knowing who was going to win the fight. What about Clay-Liston and the way that shook up the boxing world?
Looking back on fights is great but to watch some Panamanian kid's career develop or wandering whether Joe Louis could win his rematch against Schmeling they've got to be the best of boxing experiences. This takes nothing away from watching these tapes but to have been around and lived through the times e.g. whilst Pep and Saddler had their rivalry!!! you can't compare an internet downlaod with that.
Posted: 30 Jan 2006, 08:41
by The Great John L
Jaclem wrote:barry and johnl...thanks....but...i have no problem with getting into a verbal pier sixer with anyone...as those who have been on this forum for some time surely know. my point was just on that one particular post. by adding the personal put down...deserved or not...this is....well..the usual cliche is don't play in the other guy's ballpark...but here it would be don't fight in the other guy's home town, especially if the other guy and the referee have a strong family resemblance. if you...well, o.k....if WE...keep our opinions and arguments on the subject the guy who jumps in and turns his response into name-calling or insulting the intelligence of the other...he is the one making the fool of himself. by adding a gratuitist slam at the end of a sensible comment you..we...are opening the door for a personal argument right back at us....and the discussion gets lost.
i've been guilty of this myself many times..hey it's fun....but it also virtually asks for the same kind of response....and then becomes just a dogfight between two guys and has little interest to the rest of the forum members.
..of course, if some idiot would come on and say ezzard charles was a mediocre fighter i'd jump all over the horse's ass and ask if his mother had any children with i.q's in double digits....and...oh dear...see what i mean?
hey..i don't want to get rid of the battles here....i want to be part of many of them....just as long as they stay on the subject.
Jaclem, did you not read my last post? Why are you continuing this discussion? And since you must continue this, FWIW, there is a long history of Decagon posts that he starts out with something like "so-and-so sucks" and then usually descends quickly into him using grade school insults and name calling as a substitute for an intelligent response.
Why didn't you just let this die out??
Posted: 30 Jan 2006, 14:27
by Jaclem
...john l...if you want this one to die out, why did you reprint my entire post and respond to it?
Posted: 30 Jan 2006, 14:38
by The Great John L
Sorry, but in this case you were the one who wouldn't let it die. I certainly feel that you're comment required some type of a response since I had clearly admitted a mistake and there was no reason for you to continue a discussion of this non-issue. Certainly not with my moniker in the discussion. I guess I'm just wondering why you felt the need to continue some moral lecture when I had already acknowledged a transgression. Why are are you practicing the very thing you admonished me for earlier in the thread?
Posted: 30 Jan 2006, 14:55
by The Great John L
Oh yes, the reason I quoted your post was because it was several posts before my response and my comments would have made little sense without it. In retrospect I should have also included my initial response.
Posted: 30 Jan 2006, 16:20
by Jaclem
..little john....how am i "practicing the very thing" you say i admonished you for when that post just said i thought it was not constructive to get into name calling? all i did to bring another response from you was to say you were the one who was keeping it alive.....no name calling....no nasty remarks...no insults....sigh...i don't shoot at sitting ducks.
so..now you have brought it up again. twice.
have a nice day...unless, of course, you have other plans.
Posted: 30 Jan 2006, 16:53
by The Great John L
Jaclem wrote:..little john....how am i "practicing the very thing" you say i admonished you for when that post just said i thought it was not constructive to get into name calling?
In response to your direct question.
Unfortunately, since you seem to have a hard time keeping track of discussions, so I will have to summarize this topic for you. If you recall, I posted a response to a Decagon post and included a less than friendly comment at the close of the post and you called me on it. You rightly suggested I refrain from this to make the forum more civil. I agreed and expressed regret.
You then posted another, much longer post basically admonishing me again, seemingly ignoring the fact that I had already admitted my transgression. You even decided to play father figure with advice on how to do better in the future. Not a personal attack, but insulting and certainly uncalled for since I had already recanted my statement. Perhaps you just need to feel intelligent by providing such thoughtful and priceless advice?
Now you have clearly become insulting, and and you are starting to use your typical, rather unimaginative sarcastic comments. If you can't be civil, please refrain from lecturing others on proper forum etiquette. Nothing is worse than a hypocrite.
Posted: 31 Jan 2006, 02:53
by Jaclem
..."admonishing"....."transgressions".....such wonder words in a forum written by those whom are usually accused of being dese dems and youse speakers of the language ...considering the subject. you're doing us proud, little man.
..let's see....keeping track of discussions....well, yes...it is hard to keep track of over 2000 posts, compared to ..what....800+
as for sarcasm...my my...you have no idea how gently i am treating you....mostly because the touch of anger is strictly one-sided. i have no ill will toward you at all....you just arouse my paternal instinct.
Posted: 31 Jan 2006, 03:16
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
haahahahah I love seeing two educated sophisticated adults get into a "as civil as possible" verbal arguement. john L and jaclem are hilarious!