Tweet
Originally posted by Marchegiano
View Post
How about we talk about to this day Marciano seem obvious? Why is that? Do you really believe Moore and Charles couldn't've just moved? Of course they could. Anyone could, hell even barely mobile Wlad could. It's why didn't they? Because they saw what you see. Maybe dig into why it worked and why it's not been done since Marciano.
How about raw power? The ability to break bones on command? Do you think as people get larger their bones get stronger? Marciano put out more footpounds than anyone else ever recorded. He could break bones, period and open ended. It's like saying you believe there are men big enough to just take a bullet from a 9. You can think it, but yer ****ed to death stupid to.
How about the win-loss ratio of this "weak" era? I know the double digits of the L bracket hurt y'alls vag to see, but if you work out w-l ratios it's one of the finest eras of boxing.
How about how often the era fought or what advancements in the game came of it? I mean, it was enough to inspire Ali to take Walcott and LaStarza's techniques and claim they're his to beat the likes of Foreman etc. That's Walcott's shuffle and LzStarza's rope-a-dope....but ya know weak era.
How about we talk about how you guys act like you know **** all about a 1950s resume? This is why y'all reckon the 50s is weak. What the **** do you know about Jackie Burke? **** all? How the **** do you judge Harry Kid Mathews? By looking at the record and knowing you don't recognize the name? All great boxers have lots and lots of articles written about them do they? Nope, go learn on some Harry and some Jackie.
Right now you can't even explain to me what makes any of Marciano's opponents bad. Walcott was older, sure, does that make him a bad opponent or just older? Let me know that way I can tell everyone old who does something physical their age makes them **** at it regardless of their feats. What makes Harry Mathews not one of the best names on any resume period? How about ****ell? They lost? To who? How many times did Harry fight a guy with over a 100 wins on him? How many times did a name lose to another name? 5 losses to the same damn person is different from 5 to 5 people. These thing don't make someone good, or bad. They're adjectives, modifiers. If you believe Walcott would have been sharper younger show me with video. While you go try to prove that you're gonna find you're just wrong. Far more video for you to work with too.
So yeah, whatever bro, to a guy who has never heard of Jackie Burke your list should look the way it does. You're one of millions who loves to talk about the 1950s but doesn't bother to learn anymore than what can be found in any given single article on the subject. You couldn't spot a great resume of the past if I ****ing laid the out for you. Why do you support only Dempsey and Tunney of the 20s? Why is JJ the only HW of the 10s you like? Because that's all you know. You can't explain to me what made Dempsey. You don't know who the guys people were looking at are, nor do you recognize the decent resumes the make up what becomes a fantastic resume. It doesn't even make sense to pick a single from an era. If he's the only thing great about the era guess what? Weak ****ing era init ya dumb ****? Marciano, Moore, Walcott, Mathews, Charles, LaStarza, Layne, and ****ell. good supports great, and you recognize most those names. Who the **** is Jack Dempsey's Harry Mathews? Who is Jack Johnson's Jackie Burke? **** if you know right? You know about Tunney, Willard, Jeffries, and Langford, the easy ****. What made them worth a **** in the first place you don't know. So you've a ****ty list any casual could have shat out as a result.
Spending more hours with surface knowledge than youre average casual doesn't make you less casual.
The fact that I can't say Don ****ell is ****ed up. You ****ing ****s have put hurt feelings over history. **** you for that, you stupid silly *****es.
How about raw power? The ability to break bones on command? Do you think as people get larger their bones get stronger? Marciano put out more footpounds than anyone else ever recorded. He could break bones, period and open ended. It's like saying you believe there are men big enough to just take a bullet from a 9. You can think it, but yer ****ed to death stupid to.
How about the win-loss ratio of this "weak" era? I know the double digits of the L bracket hurt y'alls vag to see, but if you work out w-l ratios it's one of the finest eras of boxing.
How about how often the era fought or what advancements in the game came of it? I mean, it was enough to inspire Ali to take Walcott and LaStarza's techniques and claim they're his to beat the likes of Foreman etc. That's Walcott's shuffle and LzStarza's rope-a-dope....but ya know weak era.
How about we talk about how you guys act like you know **** all about a 1950s resume? This is why y'all reckon the 50s is weak. What the **** do you know about Jackie Burke? **** all? How the **** do you judge Harry Kid Mathews? By looking at the record and knowing you don't recognize the name? All great boxers have lots and lots of articles written about them do they? Nope, go learn on some Harry and some Jackie.
Right now you can't even explain to me what makes any of Marciano's opponents bad. Walcott was older, sure, does that make him a bad opponent or just older? Let me know that way I can tell everyone old who does something physical their age makes them **** at it regardless of their feats. What makes Harry Mathews not one of the best names on any resume period? How about ****ell? They lost? To who? How many times did Harry fight a guy with over a 100 wins on him? How many times did a name lose to another name? 5 losses to the same damn person is different from 5 to 5 people. These thing don't make someone good, or bad. They're adjectives, modifiers. If you believe Walcott would have been sharper younger show me with video. While you go try to prove that you're gonna find you're just wrong. Far more video for you to work with too.
So yeah, whatever bro, to a guy who has never heard of Jackie Burke your list should look the way it does. You're one of millions who loves to talk about the 1950s but doesn't bother to learn anymore than what can be found in any given single article on the subject. You couldn't spot a great resume of the past if I ****ing laid the out for you. Why do you support only Dempsey and Tunney of the 20s? Why is JJ the only HW of the 10s you like? Because that's all you know. You can't explain to me what made Dempsey. You don't know who the guys people were looking at are, nor do you recognize the decent resumes the make up what becomes a fantastic resume. It doesn't even make sense to pick a single from an era. If he's the only thing great about the era guess what? Weak ****ing era init ya dumb ****? Marciano, Moore, Walcott, Mathews, Charles, LaStarza, Layne, and ****ell. good supports great, and you recognize most those names. Who the **** is Jack Dempsey's Harry Mathews? Who is Jack Johnson's Jackie Burke? **** if you know right? You know about Tunney, Willard, Jeffries, and Langford, the easy ****. What made them worth a **** in the first place you don't know. So you've a ****ty list any casual could have shat out as a result.
Spending more hours with surface knowledge than youre average casual doesn't make you less casual.
The fact that I can't say Don ****ell is ****ed up. You ****ing ****s have put hurt feelings over history. **** you for that, you stupid silly *****es.
Comment