BoxRec

Spinks obviously didn't want to be there, but whilst the fight lasted he was throwing leather. He walked into a big punch from a puncher and lost fair & square.

Anyone saying the punch didn't 'look hard' or he laid down i would wager have never actually been in a boxing ring.

Agreed. I have heard people say this, and really dont know
how to answer them. As brief as it was and as little as Spinks
got to do, he wanted to fight. Tyson was just better, quicker
and hits damned hard.

granberry wrote:

ebeneezer wrote:

granberry wrote:Some retards (i.e.: Ali-worshippers) think Ali-Liston II was legitimate.

LOL

Some retards (i.e.: Terap) think Gerry Cooney Jimmy Young was a fix.

LOL

Some people know Young-Cooney was a fix.

Like anybody who knows the most basic techniques of boxing.

Young stood directly in front of Cooney and let Cooney hit him to the head and body.

It bothers poor ebeneezer to no end that Cooney was a media-created NY fake who lost to anyone who hit him back, even pathetic Michael Spinks.

LOL

Young almost lost his eye from the gash that one of Cooney's punches opened.

If it was a fic then why would Young stand there and risk losing his eye instead of taking a knee or falling down?

Because it disproves your fic theory perhaps,Terap?

The cut was above Young's eyes, on his forehead just above his eyes.

While I sat on a folding chair at Frazier's gym Young showed me where the cut had been and commented, "Cooney is not a puncher. Notice I stood right in front of him and he hit me to the head and body. And he never shook me. He is not a puncher."

Young also said that he didn't fight in his usual "way" for that obvious fake.

I said, "I know."

I never bought into the hype that Spinks was Tyson's most dangerous opponent going into that bout. I thought Spinks had looked fairly mediocre vs an old Holmes in the rematch (bad decision) and didn't even impress that much vs an alcoholic Cooney.

Great light HW . . .simply a decent Heavyweight. I don't see Spinks beating any of the other top contenders in that era (Tucker, Tubbs, Witherspoon etc.) Holyfield-Spinks at 190 would've been interesting.

Spinks was Tyson's biggest test, and he failed it. Tyson finally beat a great fighter - and with incredible ease - and it went to his head.

granberry wrote:The cut was above Young's eyes, on his forehead just above his eyes.

While I sat on a folding chair at Frazier's gym Young showed me where the cut had been and commented, "Cooney is not a puncher. Notice I stood right in front of him and he hit me to the head and body. And he never shook me. He is not a puncher."

Young also said that he didn't fight in his usual "way" for that obvious fake.

I said, "I know."

Georgie Benton said of the cut "I'd never seen a single punch do that before".

And he shook Young several times in that fight.

You = full of shit

ebeneezer wrote:

granberry wrote:The cut was above Young's eyes, on his forehead just above his eyes.

While I sat on a folding chair at Frazier's gym Young showed me where the cut had been and commented, "Cooney is not a puncher. Notice I stood right in front of him and he hit me to the head and body. And he never shook me. He is not a puncher."

Young also said that he didn't fight in his usual "way" for that obvious fake.

I said, "I know."

Georgie Benton said of the cut "I'd never seen a single punch do that before".

And he shook Young several times in that fight.

You = full of shit

WHY is ebeneezer SO FRANTIC about the fake Young-Cooney "fight" ?

It was a raw fake on Young's part.

Why does that matter so much to poor ebeneezer?

Tell us why, ebeneezer.

LOL

granberry wrote:

ebeneezer wrote:

granberry wrote:The cut was above Young's eyes, on his forehead just above his eyes.

While I sat on a folding chair at Frazier's gym Young showed me where the cut had been and commented, "Cooney is not a puncher. Notice I stood right in front of him and he hit me to the head and body. And he never shook me. He is not a puncher."

Young also said that he didn't fight in his usual "way" for that obvious fake.

I said, "I know."

Georgie Benton said of the cut "I'd never seen a single punch do that before".

And he shook Young several times in that fight.

You = full of shit

WHY is ebeneezer SO FRANTIC about the fake Young-Cooney "fight" ?

It was a raw fake on Young's part.

Why does that matter so much to poor ebeneezer?

Tell us why, ebeneezer.

LOL

You posted the same shit on the comments section of the Young vs Cooney fight on youtube and got laughed off the site.

Correcting blatant lies such as "Cooney vs Young was a fix" isn't frantic behaviour.

Trolling around various internet sites spreading lies as part of your bizzare agenda against fighters you don't like is quite frantic however.

Correcting blatant lies such as "Cooney vs Young was a fix" isn't frantic behaviour.

Trolling around various internet sites spreading lies as part of your bizzare agenda against fighters you don't like is quite frantic however.

What did Cooney do to earn granny's wrath...He was a big , strong guy with limited skills and athleticism...He made the most of what he had...Ironically, he has the same skill set as some of the old timers granny thinks so much of and would have beat more than a couple of them...

There does seem to be a striking co-relation between "granberry favored" fighters losing fights.....and conspiratorial operations that are ultimately the "actual reason" for such losses.

For me when Frazier beat Ali....it was because on that night Frazier was the better fighter
For me when Hearns Beat Duran it was because on that night Hearns was the better fighter
For me when Charles beat Archie Moore it was because on those nights (and those nights only) Charles was the better fighter
For me when Hatton beat Tszyu it was because on that night Hatton was the better fighter.
Pryor over Cervantes.....same thing

I was unhappy with each of those outcomes....but I think all the answers are to be found within the ring itself from the time the bell rang to begin the fight to fights final moment.

When my fighters lose I don't think there has ever been a "conspiratorial answer" as to why. (Although once in a while I sure have wished that the officials had either better eyesight, judgment, or education.) But that's a different kettle of fish.

Now when Carnera fought...I'd say all bets were off. I'm with granberry on those conspiracies. But wait, granberry has assured me that all the Carnera fights were on the up an up.

Oh well Louis Carrol can probably explain all of this.

Outside of going 3-0 against Moore, Charles had a better record at 160, 175 and heavyweight. He twice dominated the Charley Burley that destroyed Moore.

You know, why get so upset about Granberry? Just set your profile so that you can't read his posts.

Big Bad John wrote:Outside of going 3-0 against Moore, Charles had a better record at 160, 175 and heavyweight. He twice dominated the Charley Burley that destroyed Moore.

You know, why get so upset about Granberry? Just set your profile so that you can't read his posts.

He's entertaining...I just disabled the images...

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

Big Bad John wrote:Outside of going 3-0 against Moore, Charles had a better record at 160, 175 and heavyweight. He twice dominated the Charley Burley that destroyed Moore.

You know, why get so upset about Granberry? Just set your profile so that you can't read his posts.

He's entertaining...I just disabled the images...

Yeah, he's like David Icke.

Stark raving mad but fun to watch because he really believes the nonsense he comes out with.

And like Icke, he is able to sway the minds of the very gullible.

And that's fun to watch too.

Collins2000 wrote:

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

Big Bad John wrote:Outside of going 3-0 against Moore, Charles had a better record at 160, 175 and heavyweight. He twice dominated the Charley Burley that destroyed Moore.

You know, why get so upset about Granberry? Just set your profile so that you can't read his posts.

He's entertaining...I just disabled the images...

Yeah, he's like David Icke.

Stark raving mad but fun to watch because he really believes the nonsense he comes out with.

And like Icke, he is able to sway the minds of the very gullible.

And that's fun to watch too.

collins is like a spiteful 14-year old female.

collins works behind the scenes sending out his stooges ebeneezer, irene, TheOne, to do his sly work of trashing every boxrec thread that doesn't sell Ali.

The spiteful, feminine collins trashes boxrec with the approval of 'moderator' buzz.

What a sick, useless exercise boxrec is.

BoxBuzz wrote:There does seem to be a striking co-relation between "granberry favored" fighters losing fights.....and conspiratorial operations that are ultimately the "actual reason" for such losses.

For me when Frazier beat Ali....it was because on that night Frazier was the better fighter
For me when Hearns Beat Duran it was because on that night Hearns was the better fighter
For me when Charles beat Archie Moore it was because on those nights (and those nights only) Charles was the better fighter
For me when Hatton beat Tszyu it was because on that night Hatton was the better fighter.
Pryor over Cervantes.....same thing

I was unhappy with each of those outcomes....but I think all the answers are to be found within the ring itself from the time the bell rang to begin the fight to fights final moment.

When my fighters lose I don't think there has ever been a "conspiratorial answer" as to why. (Although once in a while I sure have wished that the officials had either better eyesight, judgment, or education.) But that's a different kettle of fish.

Now when Carnera fought...I'd say all bets were off. I'm with granberry on those conspiracies. But wait, granberry has assured me that all the Carnera fights were on the up an up.

Oh well Louis Carrol can probably explain all of this.

buzz, the enabler of the trashing of boxrec,

has a problem when it comes to boxing.

The poor jerk has less instincts for the subject than the average eight year old girl.

Remember buzz, reguritating what Thomas Hauser has to say word for word really shows how much you comprehend the subject of boxing.

granberry wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:
Yeah, he's like David Icke.

Stark raving mad but fun to watch because he really believes the nonsense he comes out with.

And like Icke, he is able to sway the minds of the very gullible.

And that's fun to watch too.

collins is like a spiteful 14-year old female.

collins works behind the scenes sending out his stooges ebeneezer, irene, TheOne, to do his sly work of trashing every boxrec thread that doesn't sell Ali.

The spiteful, feminine collins trashes boxrec with the approval of 'moderator' buzz.

What a sick, useless exercise boxrec is.

Capslock, I have no stooges and there is no conspiracy.

I know it must irk you, but the fact is most people in here know too much about boxing to fall for your hogwash. You need to find a site full of haters who might just buy into the racist element of your 'theory'.

I can sympathise with you being constantly rebuffed in your attempts to revise boxing history, but really you aren't intelligent enough to sell this line you are peddling. Not in here, anyway.

And you also aren't intelligent enough to realise this.

That's what makes you such an amusing read.

granberry wrote:
The poor jerk has less instincts for the subject than the average eight year old girl.

Klanberry not only hates non whites like Ali and the Obamas but also has a grudge against women.

Good thing you can use the internet as a forum to vent this.

ebeneezer wrote:

granberry wrote:
The poor jerk has less instincts for the subject than the average eight year old girl.

Klanberry not only hates non whites like Ali and the Obamas but also has a grudge against women.

Good thing you can use the internet as a forum to vent this.

Fear of the unknown, no doubt.

granberry wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:There does seem to be a striking co-relation between "granberry favored" fighters losing fights.....and conspiratorial operations that are ultimately the "actual reason" for such losses.

For me when Frazier beat Ali....it was because on that night Frazier was the better fighter
For me when Hearns Beat Duran it was because on that night Hearns was the better fighter
For me when Charles beat Archie Moore it was because on those nights (and those nights only) Charles was the better fighter
For me when Hatton beat Tszyu it was because on that night Hatton was the better fighter.
Pryor over Cervantes.....same thing

I was unhappy with each of those outcomes....but I think all the answers are to be found within the ring itself from the time the bell rang to begin the fight to fights final moment.

When my fighters lose I don't think there has ever been a "conspiratorial answer" as to why. (Although once in a while I sure have wished that the officials had either better eyesight, judgment, or education.) But that's a different kettle of fish.

Now when Carnera fought...I'd say all bets were off. I'm with granberry on those conspiracies. But wait, granberry has assured me that all the Carnera fights were on the up an up.

Oh well Louis Carrol can probably explain all of this.

buzz, the enabler of the trashing of boxrec,

has a problem when it comes to boxing.

The poor jerk has less instincts for the subject than the average eight year old girl.

Remember buzz, reguritating what Thomas Hauser has to say word for word really shows how much you comprehend the subject of boxing.

gran....you just stick to bein' you. That's what your good at.

buzz now arrives to go into his tired act of

deleting my posts

while leaving the trash posted by his stooges collins and ebeneezer.

Nice toilet you run here buzz.

Collins2000 wrote:

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

Big Bad John wrote:Outside of going 3-0 against Moore, Charles had a better record at 160, 175 and heavyweight. He twice dominated the Charley Burley that destroyed Moore.

You know, why get so upset about Granberry? Just set your profile so that you can't read his posts.

He's entertaining...I just disabled the images...

Yeah, he's like David Icke.

Stark raving mad but fun to watch because he really believes the nonsense he comes out with.

And like Icke, he is able to sway the minds of the very gullible.

And that's fun to watch too.

Thats it......Gerry Cooney is an alien reptile !!!

jersey joe messed the whole thing up ..bless him