BoxRec

ThatOne wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Not true....

And furthermore...if he's going to an institution he's going on his own dime.

I don't want my tax money supporting his nonsense......any more than it already is.

It's run by a not for profit.

Very well then....carry on.

Il Duce

Respectfully: the post you referred to was MY post......it has MY name associated with it....and though it quotes your ill advised entry....it also contains the word "FIXED" at the end. This is done so that you do not attempt to take credit for my clever and borderline humorous editing of your contributed fabrication.

Please know that I would seldom take one of your quotes and attempt to insinuate that what you offered up was worthy of anyone's attention or respect. Unless of course I found it to be fair, honest, and truthful.

The reason I say it this way, is because it has become your chronic routine to mix truth with something other than truth in order to further your alternate take on history.

You are not a liberator of the truth....though it appears you believe you are just that. I believe that YOU believe your very venomous take on this one fighter. So in order to be well informed, I have learned to utilize a healthy skepticism on every entry you offer up. And I have gone back and researched much of your work. I have discovered that just about half of what you dish out IS indeed true and/or factual. And it's a damn lot of work to keep up with which half that is...but it has had me do more honest research on this sport than I have done in years. And that's not totally a bad thing.

It occurs to me, that you're not at all good for the children. You'll have them all confused, and if they should go about repeating your thoughts, they may end up getting a good bullying from the wiser children who have done their homework. And I know of no responsible adult who openly supports bullying of children. It's just not right. And yet, it appears you are perhaps it's soul supporter. Will you please comment on your stand regarding being "pro child bullying"? Most of us have come to understand that it's just wrong.

Your complicit advocacy of child bullying is worthy of concern from anyone who knows it to be true.

You should seriously consider my suggestion of voluntarily offering up a disclaimer on your works of fiction or it could give one the impression that you have a warped sense of humor regarding "confusing the kids". I appeal to you to check your facts, eat oats for their fibre content, and research your topics more seriously. I also suggest you use your very prodigious typing nature to unhitch yourself from your disingenuous statements. Statements that may well have a ripple affect that you had never imagined, though you may well have intended. (It does seem to me that your intent transcends even your imagination.)

What I have chiefly noticed about your work, is that a good percentage of it appears to be manufactured and created with specific purpose, in order to deceive the reader.

Would you agree with me that to subscribe to such methods is unscrupulous?

Let's assume we agree, then we can also reasonably assume that when one is acting in such a manner...they are also acting unprincipled, unethical, immoral, conscienceless, shameless, reprobate, exploitative, corrupt, dishonest, dishonorable, deceitful, devious, underhanded, unsavory, disreputable, evil, wicked, villainous, Machiavellian and perhaps....yes....less than wholesome?

However with that clearly stated, I do very much appreciate the majority of your spelling, and your punctuation is seldom in error....with the exception of your somewhat liberal position on the use of quotation marks as "qualifiers".

I trust this will find you in good stead, in the midst of further deliberate deception, and both hale, and hardy.

Good day to you sir.

BoxBuzz wrote:Il Duce

Respectfully: the post you referred to was MY post......it has MY name associated with it....and though it quotes your ill advised entry....it also contains the word "FIXED" at the end. This is done so that you do not attempt to take credit for my clever and borderline humorous editing of your contributed fabrication.

Please know that I would seldom take one of your quotes and attempt to insinuate that what you offered up was worthy of anyone's attention or respect. Unless of course I found it to be fair, honest, and truthful.

The reason I say it this way, is because it has become your chronic routine to mix truth with something other than truth in order to further your alternate take on history.

You are not a liberator of the truth....though it appears you believe you are just that. I believe that YOU believe your very venomous take on this one fighter. So in order to be well informed, I have learned to utilize a healthy skepticism on every entry you offer up. And I have gone back and researched much of your work. I have discovered that just about half of what you dish out IS indeed true and/or factual. And it's a damn lot of work to keep up with which half that is...but it has had me do more honest research on this sport than I have done in years. And that's not totally a bad thing.

It occurs to me, that you're not at all good for the children. You'll have them all confused, and if they should go about repeating your thoughts, they may end up getting a good bullying from the wiser children who have done their homework. And I know of no responsible adult who openly supports bullying of children. It's just not right. And yet, it appears you are perhaps it's soul supporter. Will you please comment on your stand regarding being "pro child bullying"? Most of us have come to understand that it's just wrong.

Your complicit advocacy of child bullying is worthy of concern from anyone who knows it to be true.

You should seriously consider my suggestion of voluntarily offering up a disclaimer on your works of fiction or it could give one the impression that you have a warped sense of humor regarding "confusing the kids". I appeal to you to check your facts, eat oats for their fibre content, and research your topics more seriously. I also suggest you use your very prodigious typing nature to unhitch yourself from your disingenuous statements. Statements that may well have a ripple affect that you had never imagined, though you may well have intended. (It does seem to me that your intent transcends even your imagination.)

What I have chiefly noticed about your work, is that a good percentage of it appears to be manufactured and created with specific purpose, in order to deceive the reader.

Would you agree with me that to subscribe to such methods is unscrupulous?

Let's assume we agree, then we can also reasonably assume that when one is acting in such a manner...they are also acting unprincipled, unethical, immoral, conscienceless, shameless, reprobate, exploitative, corrupt, dishonest, dishonorable, deceitful, devious, underhanded, unsavory, disreputable, evil, wicked, villainous, Machiavellian and perhaps....yes....less than wholesome?

However with that clearly stated, I do very much appreciate the majority of your spelling, and your punctuation is seldom in error....with the exception of your somewhat liberal position on the use of quotation marks as "qualifiers".

I trust this will find you in good stead, in the midst of further deliberate deception, and both hale, and hardy.

Good day to you sir.

Just what I like.

Brief and to the point.

SteveO wrote:

ThatOne wrote:I know he wrecked your favorite fighters when he was in his prime or remotely close to it but there's really no reason to wildly exaggerate to libel the guy.

I was wondering whether some of Il Duce's posts are actually libelous.

Has Ali been financially damaged by them? If not, then no. Plus, Ali is a public figure, so New York Times v. Sullivan would make it a very hard climb to trump Il Duce's 1st Amendment rights.

Yep...making comments whether good or bad regarding Ali...is about like commenting on the weather.

I think our laws on this make more sense than the British versions, which hold us more culpable to our words regarding celebs.


I guess if I say Kim Kardashian has big ol' butt in England....I could be taken to court to prove it.


In this case...I think I have evidence to support my allegation.

The number of clinches Ali initiated that night pale in comparison to the number of Ali-related threads the Duce has posted over the last three years.

Another inane thread by Duchebag...

fatcity69 wrote:Another inane thread by Duchebag...

And in another recent development they have discovered water is wet.

Il Duce wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

fatcity69 wrote:Another inane thread by Duchebag...

And in another recent development they have discovered water is wet.

Maybe you liked the 'fouling' that Muhammad Ali displayed in the 'Grab-and-Hold Festival'.

This from a 6' 3" 220 lb. man...........who was supposed to be the World's Greatest Boxer ever.

Is that directed to me or mr. city?

i guess this is the fight where the ref just keeps lifting Ali's glove off or just brushing it aside throughout the entire fight.

thats not how you referee

No, that was Carlos Padilla in the third fight. Perez simply broke up the clinches and forced them to reset, which obviously didn't do Frazier many favours as far as being able to work inside - not that ll Douche has any interest in highlighting these very legitimate complaints for Frazier's benefit, of course.

Speaking of ringside writers:


"A random poll of writers at ringside had it 18-4 for Ali, with one even."


We know who Red Smith and Dick Young scored the fight for, but what of the other two? Did Art Daley and Jimmy Cannon fill in their scorecards before they passed on?

Hairy Arse wrote:Speaking of ringside writers:


"A random poll of writers at ringside had it 18-4 for Ali, with one even."


We know who Red Smith and Dick Young scored the fight for, but what of the other two? Did Art Daley and Jimmy Cannon fill in their scorecards before they passed on?

Hairy, don't you think you could have given yourself a classier moniker?

as far as il douchebag is concerned...we need more hairy arses !!!!!!

If Perez was favouring Ali why did Perez stop the 2nd round very early after Frazier was hurt by a right hand and on shaky legs?

Controversial wrote:If Perez was favouring Ali why did Perez stop the 2nd round very early after Frazier was hurt by a right hand and on shaky legs?

Asked and answered.

Tony Perez wanted to start a new custom of giving fighters respites during rounds as well as between them.

Il Duce wrote:

Controversial wrote:If Perez was favouring Ali why did Perez stop the 2nd round very early after Frazier was hurt by a right hand and on shaky legs?

You will just have to ask Tony Perez that one.

Maybe, Tony wanted to see Muhammad Ali 'foul' Joe Frazier a bunch more.

Tony Perez was 'one bad referee'.

Should Controversial also ask Tony why he unilaterally decided to throw away over hundred years of boxing tradition and give a boxer a respite during a round instead of between them?

Il Duce...that is a fair question.


Why have you NEVER addressed or responded to the other side of this equation. Does it not exist? Or is it because it is a 20 to 1 issue?

It appears you do not even recognize his errors in Joe's favor.

Like you say, he may have simply been a bad referee. But he did not seem to be a bias referee....even if the cookie that was his "lameness" happened to crumble one way or the other.

Is that a fair statement?

Or do you take exception to that assessment?

BoxBuzz wrote:Il Duce...that is a fair question.


Why have you NEVER addressed or responded to the other side of this equation. Does it not exist? Or is it because it is a 20 to 1 issue?

It appears you do not even recognize his errors in Joe's favor.

Like you say, he may have simply been a bad referee. But he did not seem to be a bias referee....even if the cookie that was his "lameness" happened to crumble one way or the other.

Is that a fair statement?

Or do you take exception to that assessment?

Hanlon's Razor-Never attribute to malice that which can equally be attributed to incompetence.

Oh, Frazier probably doesn't go down but he might have taken some more shots that slowed him down for the rest of the evening. For instance Jimmy Ellis said in his fight with Ali that a straight right he received in the second round affected him for the rest of the fight.

ThatOne wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Il Duce...that is a fair question.


Why have you NEVER addressed or responded to the other side of this equation. Does it not exist? Or is it because it is a 20 to 1 issue?

It appears you do not even recognize his errors in Joe's favor.

Like you say, he may have simply been a bad referee. But he did not seem to be a bias referee....even if the cookie that was his "lameness" happened to crumble one way or the other.

Is that a fair statement?

Or do you take exception to that assessment?

"Oh, Frazier probably doesn't go down but he might have taken some more shots that slowed him down for the rest of the evening."
That One


Don't tell Buzz this, he thinks Joe was ready to go.

Now Yancey....be fair here.

All I've really said...is we will never know.

I know I don't know.

But I "imagine" Joe would have been in trouble.

You just as honorably imagine Joe was just taking a breather. Perhaps just letting those pitty pats bounce off of his face, acting like a good cup of espresso.

BoxBuzz wrote:Now Yancey....be fair here.

All I've really said...is we will never know.

I know I don't know.

But I "imagine" Joe would have been in trouble.

You just as honorably imagine Joe was just taking a breather. Perhaps just letting those pitty pats bounce off of his face, acting like a good cup of espresso.

I'm just thankful that Perez stepped in before Ali could come with the "anchor" punch.

Joe would have been laid out for sure.

yancey wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Now Yancey....be fair here.

All I've really said...is we will never know.

I know I don't know.

But I "imagine" Joe would have been in trouble.

You just as honorably imagine Joe was just taking a breather. Perhaps just letting those pitty pats bounce off of his face, acting like a good cup of espresso.

I'm just thankful that Perez stepped in before Ali could come with the "anchor" punch.

Joe would have been laid out for sure.

Well.....of course....but wiley Joe was not going to fall for that trap.

Joe never fell for an anchor punch from anyone.

In fact...even as hard as George hit him.....He was never really stopped.

Not even in Manilla. Took George and a ref the first time....and Ali and a cornerman the second time.

Il Duce wrote:

Il Duce wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Did Joe think he won all three fights?

How bitter was he at the judges in fight two?


Not sure we've heard that from Il Duce to this point.

Just curious.

Joe Frazier vs. Muhammad Ali II

Based upon the 'incessant' fouling and continuous holding in a nearly uncountable number
of 'cuffing fouls'.

I had Joe Frazier ahead on Points {10-Point Must System}.......114-108

Muhammad Ali loses '7-Points' for Fouls in Rounds; {1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11 and 12}.

I don't tolerate that 'unclean, unwashed and filthy' stuff.

Joe, doesn't lie.

LMFAO, Ali put on a clinic ...

Il...

I just went back and checked the record book again.....

Same winner as last week when I looked.

Let me know if you see anything different.