BoxRec

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=115472

I vote no

It was a "baiting " thread.

Ken Norton wasn't Joe Louis but he's a top 25 heavyweight.

ThatOne wrote:It was a "baiting " thread.

Be that as it may, it doesn't mean a so-called moderator with a holier-than-thou complex, should be starting the baiting.

Seems rather strange behaviour when his boss, Shep, claims he wants to clean this place up.

I am pleased with the results.

I enjoyed Ken Norton.


And a nice guy too.

Collins, I just disagree. And doubt that I can be persueded differently.

My humor is what it is. Sorry that you interpret it thusly. I certainly did not mean to bait you, or anyone else. I suppose sometimes a person's mere presence can be considered such.

As for the legitimate issue a hand, it does appear to be rather one sided in terms of collective opinion.



However, Just so it's not considered such, I have retracted my comment.

BoxBuzz wrote: However, Just so it's not considered such, I have retracted my comment.

Smart move, mate.

I shouldn't have to be here to keep you honest, though.

Not a bum, but surely not an all time great...Imho

how can anyone say he was a bum?

Collins2000 wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote: However, Just so it's not considered such, I have retracted my comment.

Smart move, mate.

I shouldn't have to be here to keep you honest, though.

If someone were to respond to this by saying

"Anything for the ladies".

would that be taken as disrespectful? or just attentive and nurturing?

Purely hypothetical of course. However I would assume one would take it as being attentive.

Adamj1987 wrote:how can anyone say he was a bum?

You'd be surprised at the opinions that float about where people are free to express themselves......and sometimes the opinions that float to the top and are given much review are some of the most aromatically offensive of all.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Adamj1987 wrote:how can anyone say he was a bum?

You'd be surprised at the opinions that float about where people are free to express themselves......and sometimes the opinions that float to the top and are given much review are some of the most aromatically offensive of all.

im not surprised by any opinion on here any more since the thread about de la hoya being and overachieving bum with no tallent

Well it's legitimate, as an opinion. But for most of us it reveals more about the purveyor of the opinion than it would about DLH.

But hey the fans have been calling out to sports figures that they are "bums" since the first fight broke out. (I have to assume that fighting was the first sport invented, since it comes so naturally, though only a few can raise it to an art, like great boxers do.)

BoxBuzz wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote: However, Just so it's not considered such, I have retracted my comment.

Smart move, mate.

I shouldn't have to be here to keep you honest, though.

If someone were to respond to this by saying

"Anything for the ladies".

would that be taken as disrespectful? or just attentive and nurturing?

Purely hypothetical of course. However I would assume one would take it as being attentive.

It depends who said it, Buzz

Hypothetically speaking, of course, if you said it, I'd expect Shep to call you into his metaphorical office and give you a lecture to get you back on message. It's an imprtant "job" being a moderator, Buzz. <snigger>

So, you are aware of the theme for 2010, Buzz?

The good SHEPherd wants to clean up the stable. I'm doing my bit. Let me see you doing yours, sir.

ThatOne wrote:I am pleased with the results.

I enjoyed Ken Norton.


And a nice guy too.

Anybody know what kind of shape Ken is in nowadays? I know he was in a bad wreck.

BoxBuzz wrote:Well it's legitimate, as an opinion. But for most of us it reveals more about the purveyor of the opinion than it would about DLH.

But hey the fans have been calling out to sports figures that they are "bums" since the first fight broke out. (I have to assume that fighting was the first sport invented, since it comes so naturally, though only a few can raise it to an art, like great boxers do.)

indeed its a gernally bad opinion but they are titled too it like the opinion this thread is based on

yancey wrote:

ThatOne wrote:I am pleased with the results.

I enjoyed Ken Norton.


And a nice guy too.

Anybody know what kind of shape Ken is in nowadays? I know he was in a bad wreck.

He recovered from the wreck which by the way Muhammad Ali was the first non-family member to come see him in the hospital.

yancey wrote:

ThatOne wrote:I am pleased with the results.

I enjoyed Ken Norton.


And a nice guy too.

Anybody know what kind of shape Ken is in nowadays? I know he was in a bad wreck.

I hear conflicting reports about Kenny's condition. I saw a photo of him at a WBHOF golf tournament a couple of years ago and he looked okay in the picture.

ThatOne wrote:

yancey wrote:

ThatOne wrote:I am pleased with the results.

I enjoyed Ken Norton.


And a nice guy too.

Anybody know what kind of shape Ken is in nowadays? I know he was in a bad wreck.

He recovered from the wreck which by the way Muhammad Ali was the first non-family member to come see him in the hospital.

I would not say he recovered. Although he is functional, he suffered some relatively profound physical and neurological deficits from the accident. For example, Kenny talks with a slurred speech, which resulted from the accident, not his boxing career.

Norton was no bum.

HomicideHenry wrote:Norton was no bum.

THE DEFINITIVE REPLY.

I don't believe Ali considers Kenny a bum, or Larry Holmes? Quarry and a few others would never co-sign that notion.
Of course, what do boxers know about boxing? We have real experts blowing wind on internet boxing sites.

Collins2000 wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:Norton was no bum.

THE DEFINITIVE REPLY.

indeed but correct

27-0? This is quite the day for elections.

28-0

Maybe Kenny wants to post here.

im sick of seeing this thread can it not be locked its gone into a personal slanging match