Sr gives cold replies to HW topics?

[Steveh583]

We can let him off Schommer with the circumstances. And that guy was avoided with good reason (outboxed Virgil Hill in ams before Olympics), awful match making from Bazza.

you can, clearly lol. the gayness is strong with this one.

[coghaugen11]

We can let him off Schommer with the circumstances. And that guy was avoided with good reason (outboxed Virgil Hill in ams before Olympics), awful match making from Bazza.

you can, clearly lol. the gayness is strong with this one.

Bless.

[Steveh583]

We can let him off Schommer with the circumstances. And that guy was avoided with good reason (outboxed Virgil Hill in ams before Olympics), awful match making from Bazza.

you can, clearly lol. the gayness is strong with this one.

Bless.

im only messing about mate

[gp.]

Henry Akinwande couldn't even throw a punch properly. Garbage. Think what Tyson or a heavyweight Benn would've done to the poor bloke once inside his 4ft arm after 10-15secs.

But Henry Akinwande was "much better than normal people", which is what the person I am replying to claims is the definition of genius. Nobody is saying Akinwande was as good as Eubank.

[polecateddy]

Henry Akinwande couldn't even throw a punch properly. Garbage. Think what Tyson or a heavyweight Benn would've done to the poor bloke once inside his 4ft arm after 10-15secs.

But Henry Akinwande was "much better than normal people", which is what the person I am replying to claims is the definition of genius. Nobody is saying Akinwande was as good as Eubank.

If Akinwande had got to outclass Holyfield rather than testing positive for hepatitis it might have helped his cause. He could have perhaps got onto the Ruiz, Golota, Tua merry go round.

[gp.]

Henry Akinwande couldn't even throw a punch properly. Garbage. Think what Tyson or a heavyweight Benn would've done to the poor bloke once inside his 4ft arm after 10-15secs.

But Henry Akinwande was "much better than normal people", which is what the person I am replying to claims is the definition of genius. Nobody is saying Akinwande was as good as Eubank.

If Akinwande had got to outclass Holyfield rather than testing positive for hepatitis it might have helped his cause. He could have perhaps got onto the Ruiz, Golota, Tua merry go round.

Eh, you are entirely missing the point. Nobody is arguing any particular value to Akinwande. He was, indubitably, better than the average person at boxing. So if the definition of genius is "better than the average person", he was a genius. I think that's a stupid definition. That is the point.

[coghaugen11]

Henry Akinwande couldn't even throw a punch properly. Garbage. Think what Tyson or a heavyweight Benn would've done to the poor bloke once inside his 4ft arm after 10-15secs.

But Henry Akinwande was "much better than normal people", which is what the person I am replying to claims is the definition of genius. Nobody is saying Akinwande was as good as Eubank.

He was certainly much taller and much rangier. He's above the norm of a person who has commited to boxing if taking size and reach away, but not far and away.

[coghaugen11]

On his hardest night:

The Watson number two fight. It was vicious, bitter; like a public execution. At some point, you have to stand up and be counted and prove your worth.


Prophetic (Dubois)

[tonyevs]

Eh, you are entirely missing the point. Nobody is arguing any particular value to Akinwande. He was, indubitably, better than the average person at boxing. So if the definition of genius is "better than the average person", he was a genius. I think that's a stupid definition. That is the point

.

You appear unable to accept that being a genius does not require an IQ exceeding 148.
The definition given for genius is *Genius is an exceptional talent or skill, something above and beyond the norm" .. it doesn't take a genius to see that what Eubank achieved places him within that description; just consider how many other people from Brighton who have ever given boxing a go achieved as much? That should demonstrate how unique he is.

Not every person who turns professional will be regarded as a genius because not all of them will be good enough to even reach area level .. the exceptional ones go further.

It's easy to look down on guys you see as bad world title contenders; although these guys would be exceptionally better than the normal man in comparison; to share a ring with them you would soon painfully agree they were genius.

[margaret thatcher]

a lot of successful boxers have no particularly special boxing intelligence, they are just physically far beyond most people

being able to blast like wilder or have really fast hands or an iron chin for example requires f@ck all ring iq

[gp.]

Henry Akinwande couldn't even throw a punch properly. Garbage. Think what Tyson or a heavyweight Benn would've done to the poor bloke once inside his 4ft arm after 10-15secs.

But Henry Akinwande was "much better than normal people", which is what the person I am replying to claims is the definition of genius. Nobody is saying Akinwande was as good as Eubank.

He was certainly much taller and much rangier. He's above the norm of a person who has commited to boxing if taking size and reach away, but not far and away.

Look, it wasn't you that gave the definition of genius I am arguing about. If you don't think genius means "much better than normal people" then I have no argument with you. Why are you taking issue with me? What do you think I am saying, and what point do you think you are making with your post?

[gp.]

Eh, you are entirely missing the point. Nobody is arguing any particular value to Akinwande. He was, indubitably, better than the average person at boxing. So if the definition of genius is "better than the average person", he was a genius. I think that's a stupid definition. That is the point

.

You appear unable to accept that being a genius does not require an IQ exceeding 148.
The definition given for genius is *Genius is an exceptional talent or skill, something above and beyond the norm" .. it doesn't take a genius to see that what Eubank achieved places him within that description; just consider how many other people from Brighton who have ever given boxing a go achieved as much? That should demonstrate how unique he is.

Not every person who turns professional will be regarded as a genius because not all of them will be good enough to even reach area level .. the exceptional ones go further.

It's easy to look down on guys you see as bad world title contenders; although these guys would be exceptionally better than the normal man in comparison; to share a ring with them you would soon painfully agree they were genius.

It has nothing to do with IQ, ffs. We are talking about boxing geniuses. Someone can be a genius of football and an absolute cretin, nobody has a problem understanding that.

So is it just professional boxers above the norm of other professional boxers? OK, that includes Akinwande and McDermott. A world champion and British champion. Hardly any get to those levels. Will you answer the question, do you include those two as geniuses? If so, do you think it is a very useful word? Please, if you reply again, actually answer that.

Nobody is looking down on anyone, ffs, You don't have to be a genius to beat me. You don't even have to be good. Or average, come to that, Does someone have to be a chess genius to beat you at chess? No, of course not.

[Tuan_Jim]

Henry Akinwande couldn't even throw a punch properly. Garbage. Think what Tyson or a heavyweight Benn would've done to the poor bloke once inside his 4ft arm after 10-15secs.

But Henry Akinwande was "much better than normal people", which is what the person I am replying to claims is the definition of genius. Nobody is saying Akinwande was as good as Eubank.

If Akinwande had got to outclass Holyfield rather than testing positive for hepatitis it might have helped his cause. He could have perhaps got onto the Ruiz, Golota, Tua merry go round.

Akinwande never showed the toughness, heart, talent or chin to live with Evander Holyfield. He crapped his pants vs McCall and Lewis. If you think Henry could tame Holyfield for 12 rounds with his jab, feeble power and look of anxiety then you are mental.

[mickey1975]

But nobody would be debating him if it wasn’t for our Cog.

[coghaugen11]

Hang on, doesn't Eubank have a self-proclaimed IQ of 180 or 190?

[gp.]

Hang on, doesn't Eubank have a self-proclaimed IQ of 180 or 190?

It's completely irrelevant whether he does or doesn't. Nobody is talking about his intelligence, or lack of intelligence.

[mickey1975]

Hang on, doesn't Eubank have a self-proclaimed IQ of 180 or 190?

I didn’t notice that with Louis Theroux. He got tied in nots.

[coghaugen11]

Hang on, doesn't Eubank have a self-proclaimed IQ of 180 or 190?

I didn’t notice that with Louis Theroux. He got tied in nots.

It was a good back and forth battle of word games.

[mickey1975]

Hang on, doesn't Eubank have a self-proclaimed IQ of 180 or 190?

I didn’t notice that with Louis Theroux. He got tied in nots.

It was a good back and forth battle of word games.

It wasn’t. He was just lying!

[coghaugen11]

I didn’t notice that with Louis Theroux. He got tied in nots.

It was a good back and forth battle of word games.

It wasn’t. He was just lying!

He said if he drinks, he wouldn't say. Not lying.

[tonyevs]

Eh, you are entirely missing the point. Nobody is arguing any particular value to Akinwande. He was, indubitably, better than the average person at boxing. So if the definition of genius is "better than the average person", he was a genius. I think that's a stupid definition. That is the point

.

You appear unable to accept that being a genius does not require an IQ exceeding 148.
The definition given for genius is *Genius is an exceptional talent or skill, something above and beyond the norm" .. it doesn't take a genius to see that what Eubank achieved places him within that description; just consider how many other people from Brighton who have ever given boxing a go achieved as much? That should demonstrate how unique he is.

Not every person who turns professional will be regarded as a genius because not all of them will be good enough to even reach area level .. the exceptional ones go further.

It's easy to look down on guys you see as bad world title contenders; although these guys would be exceptionally better than the normal man in comparison; to share a ring with them you would soon painfully agree they were genius.

It has nothing to do with IQ, ffs. We are talking about boxing geniuses. Someone can be a genius of football and an absolute cretin, nobody has a problem understanding that.

So is it just professional boxers above the norm of other professional boxers? OK, that includes Akinwande and McDermott. A world champion and British champion. Hardly any get to those levels. Will you answer the question, do you include those two as geniuses? If so, do you think it is a very useful word? Please, if you reply again, actually answer that.

Nobody is looking down on anyone, ffs, You don't have to be a genius to beat me. You don't even have to be good. Or average, come to that, Does someone have to be a chess genius to beat you at chess? No, of course not.

It appears your getting very emotional because of your inability to convince others of your own flawed opinion. If you simply re-read what I have previously written in regards to a definition of a genius then hopefully it will become clear to you; it really isnt complicated or even difficult to understand if you let go of your rigid flawed opinion on the subject.

As for your question - I shall ask you to consider did Akinwande and McDermott achieve anything comparable to what Eubank achieved? and then refer back to the description of genius.

[gp.]

.

You appear unable to accept that being a genius does not require an IQ exceeding 148.
The definition given for genius is *Genius is an exceptional talent or skill, something above and beyond the norm" .. it doesn't take a genius to see that what Eubank achieved places him within that description; just consider how many other people from Brighton who have ever given boxing a go achieved as much? That should demonstrate how unique he is.

Not every person who turns professional will be regarded as a genius because not all of them will be good enough to even reach area level .. the exceptional ones go further.

It's easy to look down on guys you see as bad world title contenders; although these guys would be exceptionally better than the normal man in comparison; to share a ring with them you would soon painfully agree they were genius.

It has nothing to do with IQ, ffs. We are talking about boxing geniuses. Someone can be a genius of football and an absolute cretin, nobody has a problem understanding that.

So is it just professional boxers above the norm of other professional boxers? OK, that includes Akinwande and McDermott. A world champion and British champion. Hardly any get to those levels. Will you answer the question, do you include those two as geniuses? If so, do you think it is a very useful word? Please, if you reply again, actually answer that.

Nobody is looking down on anyone, ffs, You don't have to be a genius to beat me. You don't even have to be good. Or average, come to that, Does someone have to be a chess genius to beat you at chess? No, of course not.

It appears your getting very emotional because of your inability to convince others of your own flawed opinion. If you simply re-read what I have previously written in regards to a definition of a genius then hopefully it will become clear to you; it really isnt complicated or even difficult to understand if you let go of your rigid flawed opinion on the subject.

As for your question - I shall ask you to consider did Akinwande and McDermott achieve anything comparable to what Eubank achieved? and then refer back to the description of genius.

So, if Akinwande and McDermott, who are clearly well above the level of normal men, and well above the level of normal professional boxers, are NOT geniuses, where do you draw the line? At what point does being a good boxer turn into being a genius? It's somewhere, to you, between Akinwande and Eubank, but where? The definition you keep citing means nothing unless you define what "normal" is, and you keep changing it.

[tonyevs]

I cant make things any simpler for you to understand sorry.

[gp.]

I cant make things any simpler for you to understand sorry.

Oh you could, by answering direct questions.

Let me try another.

Most people if asked to name boxing geniuses they had seen would come up with maybe five names, maybe ten. Not many. Chris Eubank would not figure in many of those lists, good boxer though he was.

When you say he was a genius is it because your list of geniuses contains a much higher number of names, or because you consider Chris Eubank to be one of the ten best boxers of your lifetime? That's an easy question to give a straightforward answer to, so please just try and do so.

[coghaugen11]

against a load of no marks tho. he was a right cherry picker. and he was given gifts in about 3 of those fights.

Not according to professional judges. None were close to true gifts apart from one (Schommer) in reality, and that can be forgiven for flying 48hrs and fighting 7k ft above sea etc, fasting for 72hrs before et al.

They were all in the top 10. Almost all fighting for other versions too.

ray close beat him if i remember rightly. and I'm sure there were others. maybe it was sugar boy malinga but i'd have to watch it again.

Laughable.