BoxRec

Grimm wrote:
I have never boasted about being a boxer.

Yes you did...you implied that others who don't box know less than you...

2nd: People always think that because they have knowledge about boxers that it is the same thing as having knowledge of boxing. You would have to see me boxing to know whether or not if I have boxing knowledge.

I'll watch you at the grocery store while you're 'boxing'...if you put the eggs and bread at the bottom of the box, I'll then know for sure...

Yes you did...you implied that others who don't box know less than you...

That is a fact you cannot understand boxing unless you've boxed.

I'll watch you at the grocery store while you're 'boxing'...if you put the eggs and bread at the bottom of the box, I'll then know for sure...

HEHE get it he means actual boxing. :lol:
Stop with the played out joke.

Grimm wrote:
Stop with the change of heart bull, I am saying Wilt is my pick. If he is my pick then of course he has a chance.

You've flip flopped on that several times here...it's not 'bull'...I hope you're never subpoenaed to court...the judge would tear you a new asshole if you kept changing your testimony...

Grimm wrote:

silkov wrote:

Grimm wrote: I don't know if you've ever been in the ring, what I was saying is that the people that have never been in the ring (to box) will never know much about boxing. You can know all about boxers but you won't know much about boxing.

So why despite 'being in the ring' do you know so little about boxing?.
Because if you really belive that Chamberlin could have beaten Ali... even a shot Ali... then your knowledge is seriously screwed up son!.

1st: it is impossible to have knowledge of the situation because, there isn't any footage of Wilt Chamberlain boxing and there isn't anyone like Wilt Chamberlain that Muhammad Ali has fought.

2nd: People always think that because they have knowledge about boxers that it is the same thing as having knowledge of boxing. You would have to see me boxing to know whether or not if I have boxing knowledge.

Sorry that is rot!... boxers are boxing and to understand one you have to understand the other. As for you 'boxing' I just hope you have a strong headgaurd!!!... 8)

Grimm wrote:

Yes you did...you implied that others who don't box know less than you...

That is a fact you cannot understand boxing unless you've boxed.

I'll watch you at the grocery store while you're 'boxing'...if you put the eggs and bread at the bottom of the box, I'll then know for sure...

HEHE get it he means actual boxing. :lol:
Stop with the played out joke.

Who's joking...it's the only 'boxing' you'll ever know, judging by your recent posts...

silkov wrote:

Grimm wrote:

silkov wrote:
So why despite 'being in the ring' do you know so little about boxing?.
Because if you really belive that Chamberlin could have beaten Ali... even a shot Ali... then your knowledge is seriously screwed up son!.

1st: it is impossible to have knowledge of the situation because, there isn't any footage of Wilt Chamberlain boxing and there isn't anyone like Wilt Chamberlain that Muhammad Ali has fought.

2nd: People always think that because they have knowledge about boxers that it is the same thing as having knowledge of boxing. You would have to see me boxing to know whether or not if I have boxing knowledge.

Sorry that is rot!... boxers are boxing and to understand one you have to understand the other. As for you 'boxing' I just hope you have a strong headgaurd!!!... 8)

You do have to understand other boxers in order to box.

Good Silkov you are correct on that one.

But just because you have alot of knowledge of boxers doesn't mean that you know anything about boxing.

Grimm wrote:

silkov wrote:

Grimm wrote: 1st: it is impossible to have knowledge of the situation because, there isn't any footage of Wilt Chamberlain boxing and there isn't anyone like Wilt Chamberlain that Muhammad Ali has fought.

2nd: People always think that because they have knowledge about boxers that it is the same thing as having knowledge of boxing. You would have to see me boxing to know whether or not if I have boxing knowledge.

Sorry that is rot!... boxers are boxing and to understand one you have to understand the other. As for you 'boxing' I just hope you have a strong headgaurd!!!... 8)

You do have to understand other boxers in order to box.

Good Silkov you are correct on that one.

But just because you have alot of knowledge of boxers doesn't mean that you know anything about boxing.

Trying to talk in circles won't help you out of this one Grimm... I suggest keeping your gaurd up higher in future as your defense is nonexistant... 8)

Talking in circles.......hmm more like proving you wrong.

Grimm wrote: But just because you have alot of knowledge of boxers doesn't mean that you know anything about boxing.

He knows Wilt the Stilt wouldn't beat Ali...why don't you start a thread...Ask the question: who would win Muhammad Ali vs. Wilt Chamberlain--circa 1967

Then you can see how many others there are that, according to you, "don't know boxing"...

I'll be waiting for that thread that you don't have the balls to start!

Still waiting for your new thread...What's the matter...no guts?

Sweet Scientist wrote:Still waiting for your new thread...What's the matter...no guts?

See, Sweet Scientist you could never box if you think that guts is what it takes to post a topic on a message board.

Grimm wrote:

Sweet Scientist wrote:Still waiting for your new thread...What's the matter...no guts?

See, Sweet Scientist you could never box if you think that guts is what it takes to post a topic on a message board.

I don't see you doing it so...

Sweet Scientist wrote:

Grimm wrote:

Sweet Scientist wrote:Still waiting for your new thread...What's the matter...no guts?

See, Sweet Scientist you could never box if you think that guts is what it takes to post a topic on a message board.

I don't see you doing it so...

I should reverse that statement since I made the topic 8 minutes ago..............
YOU IMBECILE

Grimm wrote:

Sweet Scientist wrote:Still waiting for your new thread...What's the matter...no guts?

See, Sweet Scientist you could never box if you think that guts is what it takes to post a topic on a message board.

Mate, you have never boxed in your life!... you know it, I know it and just about everyone here knows it, so stop the charade... its boring!....

silkov wrote:

Grimm wrote:

Sweet Scientist wrote:Still waiting for your new thread...What's the matter...no guts?

See, Sweet Scientist you could never box if you think that guts is what it takes to post a topic on a message board.

Mate, you have never boxed in your life!... you know it, I know it and just about everyone here knows it, so stop the charade... its boring!....

::sigh::

I don't have to prove anything to you,but my trainer does post here sometimes maybe you should get him on the Pm.
Username:Zuru

Yup, that's right go and think of something meaningless to say, or go bring up something old to argue about.

That's all you 2 have left to do.

Grimm wrote:Yup, that's right go and think of something meaningless to say, or go bring up something old to argue about.

That's all you 2 have left to do.

If you really do box then your knowledge of boxing and indeed boxers is even more atrocious... which kind of blows your argument up that being a boxer you understand boxing doesn't it?....

silkov wrote:

Grimm wrote:Yup, that's right go and think of something meaningless to say, or go bring up something old to argue about.

That's all you 2 have left to do.

If you really do box then your knowledge of boxing and indeed boxers is even more atrocious... which kind of blows your argument up that being a boxer you understand boxing doesn't it?....

You know nothing of my knowledge of boxing. Like what I would do in the ring or how etc. So stop bringing that up, you are again confusing knowledge of boxing with knowledge of boxers.

It's funny how you did exactly what I posted above.

Grimm wrote:

silkov wrote:

Grimm wrote:Yup, that's right go and think of something meaningless to say, or go bring up something old to argue about.

That's all you 2 have left to do.

If you really do box then your knowledge of boxing and indeed boxers is even more atrocious... which kind of blows your argument up that being a boxer you understand boxing doesn't it?....

You know nothing of my knowledge of boxing. Like what I would do in the ring or how etc. So stop bringing that up, you are again confusing knowledge of boxing with knowledge of boxers.

It's funny how you did exactly what I posted above.

Oh yes its hilarious mate!... all I need to know about your 'knowledge of boxing' is that you think Chamberlin would have a chance of beating Muhammad Ali!..... that says it all!..... 8)

Bump:

(Don't mind my comments just trying to make an argument.)

Size, speed and power may sum up how many people view boxing...but boxers are some of the most skilled sportsmen across the range of sports. Chamberlain would be embarrassed and beaten by many a journeyman let alone Ali.

As for Tyson he has a chance against anyone but there's very little evidence to suggest he could beat Ali. He has about 4 rounds and a left hook but that's it. Ali by late stoppage or Tyson quits.

Ezzard wrote:Size, speed and power may sum up how many people view boxing...but boxers are some of the most skilled sportsmen across the range of sports. Chamberlain would be embarrassed and beaten by many a journeyman let alone Ali.

As for Tyson he has a chance against anyone but there's very little evidence to suggest he could beat Ali. He has about 4 rounds and a left hook but that's it. Ali by late stoppage or Tyson quits.

- I'd say that is about as minimal as limited boxing analysis gets.

I've pointed out Ali was vulnerable throughout his career by a wide range of fighters. This is FACTUAL and PROVEN. Now, maybe in your unsupported fashion you can come up with the "perfect" version of Ali, fine, claim that tiny slice of Ali whoops all and be done with it. I could do the same for Liston, Dempsey, Louis, and so on including the much hated Iron Mike.

Last I checked, the only heavy champ never upset officially is Rocky, so in the fogged up mists of muddle that pass for much boxing analysis, he beats all. Factually, he had his fair share of trials and tribulations that with different judges, refs, or slightly improved versions of his opponents, the record might show some defeats.

At any rate, before 5 yrs of his career had passed, Tyson has 6 KOs between the 5th and the 10th rds over an excellent class of opponent as well as 4 UDs, two 10 and 12 rounders apiece in his 37-0 record. Notable in that every one of his wins shows at the very least a wide scoring advantage on the cards if not a shutout.

If you can find a better record of excellence over a similar time range, have at it and get back to us in, oh, maybe a hun'erd years.

This one is pretty simple to anyone with a brain. Ali is out of there in a few rounds....He doesn't have what it takes to cope with Mikes ferocity. He never faced a fighter like MT due to the lack of talent in that era. Every grampa always wants to say that Ali was great, but it's just mostly wishful thinking. He got beat by a lot of people...plus he was always protected.....nobody protected MT.

fekkin eejit