BoxRec

granberry wrote:CORRECTION:

Duran thumbed Davey Moore within an inch of his life.

(with the "referee's" full approval.)

No he didn't.

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:

granberry wrote:CORRECTION:

Duran thumbed Davey Moore within an inch of his life.

(with the "referee's" full approval.)

No he didn't.

He certainly did.

Saying "he didn't" can't change that.

He should have lost on a foul.

The most heinous foul of them all.

granberry wrote:

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:

granberry wrote:CORRECTION:

Duran thumbed Davey Moore within an inch of his life.

(with the "referee's" full approval.)

No he didn't.

He certainly did.

Saying "he didn't" can't change that.

He should have lost on a foul.

The most heinous foul of them all.

Firstly, I have the fight. Secondly I'm a Duran annorak, which makes me a geek, I know. Thirdly I've read Christian Giurdice's non biased Hands Of Stone, which is the most comprehensive Duran book you can get. None of these mention continuous thumbing from Duran.

Fourthly, you saying Duran thumbed him within an inch of his life, doesn't make it so. See, I can turn it around too.

He thumbed him, yes. I'm not disputing that. But in no way does it deter from the outcome, or the beating Davey took. Davey's corner was more to blame for keeping him in there for longer than they should've.

[quote="Terry D]You just made a rational and reasoned reply.[/quote]

Only took me a year.

As usual on these "boxing" sites, no-one has the slightest reality on the subject.

ONE thumb in the eye is all that is needed to put a fighter out of commission.

That's exactly what Duran did, brazenly, in his "fight" with Davey Moore.

Any competent ref would have awarded the fight immediately to Davey Moore on a foul.

But in those putrid times of boxing, the fact that Duran was a name and could be used for future attractions was all that counted, while Moore was a non-attraction in comparison.

The level of ignorance displayed by one poster who wrote that Duran thumbed Davey Moore only "once," is to be expected on a site like this.

Unreality is the most noticeable characteristic of the internet "boxing" website keyboard peckers.

The"experts" of boxrec have now established that thumbing an opponent is fine (at least as long as Roberto Duran does it).

granberry wrote:Unreality is the most noticeable characteristic of the internet "boxing" website keyboard peckers.

The"experts" of boxrec have now established that thumbing an opponent is fine (at least as long as Roberto Duran does it).

Please tell me where I stated that thumbing was fine in any of my posts?

Also, when you talk about "Unreality" could you please tell me how many southpaws you've seen that have knocked themselves out. I'd love to see the footage.

Many Thanks

PS, out of interest could you please tell me how many rounds you've sparred, gyms you've visited, fighter's you've talked to, fight cards you've gone to and journalistic pieces you've written. I'd be interested to know.

granberry wrote:Unreality is the most noticeable characteristic of the internet "boxing" website keyboard peckers.

The"experts" of boxrec have now established that thumbing an opponent is fine (at least as long as Roberto Duran does it).

Unless I've misread the previous posts, nobody said thumbing an opponent is fine. It's not good. Neither is hitting below the belt. But they happen in fights and I can't remember anyone in a title fight being Dq'd for thumbing. Even in the case of hitting below the belt, fighters generally have to repeatedly hit their opponent in the nuts before being DQ'd.
If I remember my 1980s fights correctly, Michael Spinks thumbed Eddie Mustafa Muhammad when he took his lt. heavy title in 1981 and Larry Holmes appeared to thumb Scott Frank in a title defense in 1983. Neither was disqualified. In both those cases a DQ would have been stupid because the winners (Spinks and Holmes) were clearly the superior fighters that day. Duran kicked Moore's ass, thumbing or no thumbing. Duran was stronger and Moore was there to be hit. Duran obliged. End of story

The unreality is 100%-- and PROUDLY displayed.

Have someone stick his thumb in your eye and you will have quick dose of reality.

tegenm wrote:Roy Jones collapsed relatively fast from his spot as PFP #1 to barely top 10 in his division. Freddie Steele also collapsed rather quickly.

Damn, these were the EXACT two names that came to my mind when I saw this thread.

Kid Gavilan also had a pretty quick decline. He was a fantastic welterweight champion for about 3 or 4 years, and even when he lost the title, it was on a blatant robbery of a decision.

But after he lost the title, he was through within a matter of months. Once he slowed down, he basically just became a journeyman, good enough to test the other contenders (and always go the distance) but rarely beating them. His record was something like 10-15 in the last few years of his career. There was no "Second Act" to his career.

Did anyone mention Terry Norris? After Keith Mullings knocked him out (very surprisingly), I don't think he ever won another fight.

How about David Reid?

Elton John wrote:
Same with Leonard who was outclassed and outsped by Norris. He was too busy making a name for himself with all the old men until Norris exposed him.

geez did the by-then ancient leonard not look good against a prime norris? you should have mentioned ......

Counter-puncher wrote:

Elton John wrote:
Same with Leonard who was outclassed and outsped by Norris. He was too busy making a name for himself with all the old men until Norris exposed him.

geez did the by-then ancient leonard not look good against a prime norris? you should have mentioned ......

Hopkins was 36 when he became primetime fighter. Dick Tiger was 37 when he won the lightheavy title. Even older when he defeated middleweight champ Benvenuti. Walcott finally won the title at 37 as well. Moore 40 plus making title defenses, challenging Marciano giving him a good scrap and even flooring the Rock. How is Leonard's age of 34 ancient or are you just covering for him with excuses?

Just let me know in a some day if you come up with an answer, which I know you won't.

Elton John wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

Elton John wrote:
Same with Leonard who was outclassed and outsped by Norris. He was too busy making a name for himself with all the old men until Norris exposed him.

geez did the by-then ancient leonard not look good against a prime norris? you should have mentioned ......

Hopkins was 36 when he became primetime fighter. Dick Tiger was 37 when he won the lightheavy title. Even older when he defeated middleweight champ Benvenuti. Walcott finally won the title at 37 as well. Moore 40 plus making title defenses, challenging Marciano giving him a good scrap and even flooring the Rock. How is Leonard's age of 34 ancient or are you just covering for him with excuses?

Just let me know in a some day if you come up with an answer, which I know you won't.

oh okay sorry i didn't realise that all fighters have exaclty the same biological clock and if one fighter has not declined in his 30s then by definition all other fightters must be the same

you do appreciate some fighters peak earlier and some later than others, right? Little red lopez was shot to shit aged 29, and so on.....

so tell me did Moore or Tiger have detached retinas, or have to come back from years of inactivity? both of which, along with SRL's age, meant he was relatively ancient when he fought Norris. or do you expect fighters to be just fine with a detached retina etc?

but why bother? you're a hater of the worst kind it seems. go on now, come back with that 'he looked awful against norris' line yet again, you've only used it like 10 times this week you've got 20 more to go to hit your weekly repetitiveness target. which is the only one you'll be hitting this week brutha

granberry wrote:As usual on these "boxing" sites, no-one has the slightest reality on the subject.

You being the perfect example.