BoxRec

2 +2 can't = 3 just because you want it to, Elmo. It's not opinion, you're just stubborn and stupid. Very embarrassing display, even for the likes of you.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑22 Nov 2019, 13:24 2 +2 can't = 3 just because you want it to, Elmo. It's not opinion, you're just stubborn and stupid. Very embarrassing display, even for the likes of you.

And I am saying that I didn't say that. I said that Alp has a different criteria than mine. What makes one criteria better over the other? Mine over his or his over mine doesn't exist in this situation.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑22 Nov 2019, 13:58

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑22 Nov 2019, 13:24 2 +2 can't = 3 just because you want it to, Elmo. It's not opinion, you're just stubborn and stupid. Very embarrassing display, even for the likes of you.

And I am saying that I didn't say that. I said that Alp has a different criteria than mine. What makes one criteria better over the other? Mine over his or his over mine doesn't exist in this situation.

You know what? I made a mistake. I said it was 27 fights that Hearns had over 7 rounds; he only had 24. Since he had 9 KOs after 7 rounds, his KO% after 7 rounds is actually 37.5% . My bad.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑22 Nov 2019, 13:58

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑22 Nov 2019, 13:24 2 +2 can't = 3 just because you want it to, Elmo. It's not opinion, you're just stubborn and stupid. Very embarrassing display, even for the likes of you.

And I am saying that I didn't say that. I said that Alp has a different criteria than mine. What makes one criteria better over the other? Mine over his or his over mine doesn't exist in this situation.

They are not "criteria". I am using the right way to figure it out, you are using an incorrect way. % of KOS after 7 rounds.

You brought up KO% after 9 rounds. To figure that out, you use KO's after 7 rounds divided by the number of fights he had that went over 9 rounds.

Elmer what you are doing is something else. You are figuring out what % of Hearns total knockouts were after 7 rounds. That is something else.
You aren't even factoring in fights that went the distance in your formula. That is incorrect.

In math, there are wrong ways to do things. You don't factor in home runs when figuring out batting average for example.

You are using an incorrect way to figure out KO% after 7 rounds.

I give up. I can't count the number of times I've disagreed with both Alp and OTO, but this one is just being on the side of correct, not opinion. This whole thing started to see how he carries his power late. If it's not clear to Elmer at this point, it never will be. Carry on gentlemen.

oogiebe wrote: ↑22 Nov 2019, 15:03 I give up. I can't count the number of times I've disagreed with both Alp and OTO, but this one is just being on the side of correct, not opinion. This whole thing started to see how he carries his power late. If it's not clear to Elmer at this point, it never will be. Carry on gentlemen.

It started to prove McCallum stopping a guy on cuts a round later than hearns shut him out is more impressive. Somehow, Elmer got dumber from there!

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑22 Nov 2019, 15:46

oogiebe wrote: ↑22 Nov 2019, 15:03 I give up. I can't count the number of times I've disagreed with both Alp and OTO, but this one is just being on the side of correct, not opinion. This whole thing started to see how he carries his power late. If it's not clear to Elmer at this point, it never will be. Carry on gentlemen.

It started to prove McCallum stopping a guy on cuts a round later than hearns shut him out is more impressive. Somehow, Elmer got dumber from there!

Even worse.

oogiebe wrote: ↑22 Nov 2019, 15:49

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑22 Nov 2019, 15:46
It started to prove McCallum stopping a guy on cuts a round later than hearns shut him out is more impressive. Somehow, Elmer got dumber from there!

Even worse.

Not to mention Mike's % after 7 is lower using his gorilla math. So he invented a new formula to disprove his own point.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑22 Nov 2019, 16:33

oogiebe wrote: ↑22 Nov 2019, 15:49

Even worse.

Not to mention Mike's % after 7 is lower using his gorilla math. So he invented a new formula to disprove his own point.

Just saying, if a fighter has 30 1st round KO's and that's all, his KO ratio past 7 rounds would be 0% and Elmer would say he doens't carry his power late. Unless I'm directly replied to here, I'm done. Sayonara.

Mike McCallum vs Steve Collins. Collins was an undefeated young Irishman from Dublin. He had only 16 fights and challenged the experienced champion McCallum. It was The Body Snatcher first title defense of his WBA World Middleweight crown.

The fight was staged in Boston, MA. A city where Irish culture and heritage is felt. The pro partizan crowd was all for Collins to cheer him on.

But, McCallum, like a TRUE CHAMPION in a hostile environment (no one but his dad, his mom and his only daughter were rooting for him) knew what to do. For the first 6 rounds it showed the Jamaican superiority, maturity and experience. Collins won big rounds 6 and 7, and probably the last round in my view in a valiant effort that wasn't enough. McCallum retained his crown in his first defense by unanimous decision. I scored it 117-112 in favor of McCallum.

McCallum looked sharp in his punches, but it seemed that his power punching and speed at Middleweight has diminished a little bit. He had to rely heavily in his boxing skills that got him were he at as one of the most COMPLETE fighters ever.

What was Steve Collins KO% after 7 rounds?

Mike McCallum vs Michael Watson.

Watson was game and brave, but was totally outclassed by one of boxing's most complete and greatest technicians ever. McCallum was at his absolute best. He probably lost that punching power a little bit, and maybe some speed because of age and stepping up in weight, but his ring IQ, ring generalship, coolness under pressure and experience was still intact. It was the second defense of his Middleweight title.

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑24 Nov 2019, 07:59 What was Steve Collins KO% after 7 rounds?

I will say I learned something here. I always would have considered McCallum more dangerous late than Tommy but Elmer's 'criteria' has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that hearns was more dangerous late.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑24 Nov 2019, 16:46 Mike McCallum vs Michael Watson.

Watson was game and brave, but was totally outclassed by one of boxing's most complete and greatest technicians ever. McCallum was at his absolute best. He probably lost that punching power a little bit, and maybe some speed because of age and stepping up in weight, but his ring IQ, ring generalship, coolness under pressure and experience was still intact. It was the second defense of his Middleweight title.

I honestly think Watson’s KO % after 7 rounds really hurt him here.

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑24 Nov 2019, 21:04

elmersalsa wrote: ↑24 Nov 2019, 16:46 Mike McCallum vs Michael Watson.

Watson was game and brave, but was totally outclassed by one of boxing's most complete and greatest technicians ever. McCallum was at his absolute best. He probably lost that punching power a little bit, and maybe some speed because of age and stepping up in weight, but his ring IQ, ring generalship, coolness under pressure and experience was still intact. It was the second defense of his Middleweight title.

I honestly think Watson’s KO % after 7 rounds really hurt him here.

not to mention his ko by % after 7. Underrated stat

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑24 Nov 2019, 21:12

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑24 Nov 2019, 21:04

I honestly think Watson’s KO % after 7 rounds really hurt him here.

not to mention his ko by % after 7. Underrated stat

I just wish I knew the criteria

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑24 Nov 2019, 21:13

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑24 Nov 2019, 21:12

not to mention his ko by % after 7. Underrated stat

I just wish I knew the criteria

I think the main component is delahoya and Lennox are bad.

elmer would never let whether or not he like a a guy or not influence his opinions.

Btw, I wonder what elmer's "criteria" is for ERA is in baseball, Free throw % in basketball, yards per carry in football? Could be interesting.

I wonder where you rank this ravens team compared to your sorry rams?

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑25 Nov 2019, 22:16 I wonder where you rank this ravens team compared to your sorry rams?

Don't be too high on just one game against the Rams. The championship is not won in November.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑26 Nov 2019, 15:45

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑25 Nov 2019, 22:16 I wonder where you rank this ravens team compared to your sorry rams?

Don't be too high on just one game against the Rams. The championship is not won in November.

3-5 in their last eight, I'd say they're done.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑26 Nov 2019, 15:45

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑25 Nov 2019, 22:16 I wonder where you rank this ravens team compared to your sorry rams?

Don't be too high on just one game against the Rams. The championship is not won in November.

The rams won't be playing when championships are being decided this year. The ravens will

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑26 Nov 2019, 16:21

elmersalsa wrote: ↑26 Nov 2019, 15:45

Don't be too high on just one game against the Rams. The championship is not won in November.

The rams won't be playing when championships are being decided this year. The ravens will

We will see!