bert sugar is retarded!

ur being sarcastic obviously. only slightly :D no but seriously Bert Sugar tends to favorite certain races over others.... I like the guy talking about boxing history but I don't listen to where he rates boxers past or present because the guys just a dick more or less.....

Bert Sugar favors black fighters over any other race...Its kind of annoying, and I'm not being racist either.... ur being sarcastic obviously.

Bert Sugar favors black fighters over any other race...Its kind of annoying, and I'm not being racist either....

every1 cant have ali as number 1 butterfly. TRUE!! nuthugging right there! i think he got the nuts in a sleeper hold like the million dollar man ted dibiase!http://users.etown.edu/b/bonnerb/pictures/etown/3/teddrew.jpg

I actually think he is a joke. What's so special about him? He was never a trainer, or amatuer fighter or even a promoter. He was just some douche that had alot of time to waste and brags about old fighters, i dont see him as some boxing guru like others do. I guarantee if teddy atlas, emmanuel steward or larry merchant made a top 50 list, they would be less biased towards modern fighters than him. He has no respect towards todays fighters. Sugar is a joke. Hes biased and just downright crazy sometimes.

I guarantee if teddy atlas, emmanuel steward or larry merchant made a top 50 list, they would be less biased towards modern fighters than him. He has no respect towards todays fighters. Well the old fighters trained harder, fought for longer, had better fights,were mostly in wars, and were proper fighters, cant you name 5-10 over weight fighters in the heavyweight divison from when joe louis was around, cos im sure u could pick 5-10 from the top ten hw just now How many fighters has joe louis beat that would kick riddick bowe's ass, like none lol. He has a big legacy, no doubt. However, Joe Louis doesn't have that one defining win over another top 10 heavyweight of all times. No one ranks schmeling and walcott in the top 10, they are like top 15- 20 at best. If the old fighters trained harder, then why did some of them lose to cans during thier primes? If kid gavilan trained so hard, how the fuck did he lose 30 times, lol. Dont try and make an excuse for him, cuz willie pep only lost 12 times out of 250 fights. If the old fighters could have made a major living off boxing, they would fight less ok. Guys like ray robinson ended up broke and still had to fight, while leonard was well off and never had to fight full time after 1982.

I guarantee if teddy atlas, emmanuel steward or larry merchant made a top 50 list, they would be less biased towards modern fighters than him. He has no respect towards todays fighters. Well the old fighters trained harder, fought for longer, had better fights,were mostly in wars, and were proper fighters, cant you name 5-10 over weight fighters in the heavyweight divison from when joe louis was around, cos im sure u could pick 5-10 from the top ten hw just now

he said that jack dempsey left hook was more powerful than joe frazier's lol! frazier would rip dempsey's head off in four rounds or less! Doesnt jack dempsey have a record for hardest punch ever recorded against jess willard?for the first left hook that put him down?

That Brian Kenny is a retard IMO. On the top knockouts I'm pretty sure he said Castillo-Corrales was the best knockout in history or like top 3 in history. I think he's crazy.

Bert isn't retarded, but I think he's lost some touch. He believed that slow ass amateur like Baldomir could win a upset over Floyd. He went against Floyd November 4th and he believes Oscar will win. He will look bad once again come May 5th. I guess them cigars got to his head...lol.

He is an older guy, so he just prefers the old school fighters and the fighters and events that took place back in his day. That is to be expected. Jack Dempsey did have a huge left hook, and Louis versus Schmeling was a huge upset. It also not entirely unreasonable to say Joe Louis was the best heavyweight who ever lived. I'm guessing your quite a bit younger than Bert Sugar, so in all these situations you prefer the more recent fighters and events, so what we have is differences of opinion that come from a generation gap. It does not make one of the best boxing writers ever retarded. He is a retard if spinks is not in his top 100, sorry but only a dumbass would be blind enough to hate spinks that much.

i was watching classic rinside:top ten hw's and muhammad ali part one. i thought when he said that ali is the number two hw and joe louis is the number one hw, that he didn't know what he was talking about. but i have come to the conclusion that bert sugar is just plain retarded! besides robbing ali of the number one spot, he said that jack dempsey left hook was more powerful than joe frazier's lol! frazier would rip dempsey's head off in four rounds or less! he also said that the biggest upset in boxing history was louis-schmeling I lol! everyone knows that every human being on earth thought tyson would kill buster douglass in 10 sec. but douglass shocked mike tyson and the world! the only reason that the odds were 42:1 was because they had to get someone to vote for douglass for it to be legit, or else no one would have voted for douglass. he also had ezzard charles and gene tunney on the top ten list. so bert sugar has mental problems. He is an older guy, so he just prefers the old school fighters and the fighters and events that took place back in his day. That is to be expected. Jack Dempsey did have a huge left hook, and Louis versus Schmeling was a huge upset. It also not entirely unreasonable to say Joe Louis was the best heavyweight who ever lived. I'm guessing your quite a bit younger than Bert Sugar, so in all these situations you prefer the more recent fighters and events, so what we have is differences of opinion that come from a generation gap. It does not make one of the best boxing writers ever retarded.

Dude, I never said Sugar was perfect. He's not. As I clearly stated, he's got his biases. If you want to know "why" he thinks such and such...ask him, not me. I actually think he is a joke. What's so special about him? He was never a trainer, or amatuer fighter or even a promoter. He was just some douche that had alot of time to waste and brags about old fighters, i dont see him as some boxing guru like others do. I guarantee if teddy atlas, emmanuel steward or larry merchant made a top 50 list, they would be less biased towards modern fighters than him. He has no respect towards todays fighters.

Can you tell us why he considers pernell and hagler as barely in his top 50, while most consider both top 20? Can you tell us why michael spinks is not in his top 100? Last but not least, ali beat foreman, liston twice, frazier twice and patterson twice. Joe's best wins are schmeling, baer, walcott and conn. Ali beat the better fighters, nuff said. He hates modern fighters, there is no other way to it. The guy never saw a single fight of harry greb, so he has no right to say greb would beat hagler. Actually commonsense would say hagler would win cuz greb likes to get inside and every fighter that tries to kill marvin, gets killed in the process, But we all know boxing is a sport where common sense flies out of the window. Dude, I never said Sugar was perfect. He's not. As I clearly stated, he's got his biases. If you want to know "why" he thinks such and such...ask him, not me.

:nonono: Butterfly, just becaue you see things differently, it doesn't make Sugar "retarded". He has his own biases as we all do; but he has knowledge and reasoning behind his picks. For me, Ali was the best Heavyweight, no questions asked, for the longest time....and I may put him on top again; but I have to look at Louis's record and such and be as objective as possible. Ali, four years off or no, lost to Frazier and broken jaw or no, lost to Kenny Norton when Louis was still making defenses and not losing. Ali at 36 lost to 7-0-1 Leon Spinks while Louis in his late 30's lost to Ezzard Charles and Rocky Marciano. Also, Louis was a better technical fighter than Ali...Muhammad rarely went to the body at all. Now whether or not Ali could beat Louis head to head is merely conjecture...nobody will ever know. Sure, you can say Ali was bigger and faster, etc.; but until two men square off, you just don't know. Believing Ali was the best or that Frazier's hook was harder than Dempsey's is one thing...that's your opinion and you are surely entitled to it; but it give you no right to call Bert Sugar "retarded"....and given his track record and years of experience, in the end, such a statement makes you looke bad. Can you tell us why he considers pernell and hagler as barely in his top 50, while most consider both top 20? Can you tell us why michael spinks is not in his top 100? Last but not least, ali beat foreman, liston twice, frazier twice and patterson twice. Joe's best wins are schmeling, baer, walcott and conn. Ali beat the better fighters, nuff said. He hates modern fighters, there is no other way to it. The guy never saw a single fight of harry greb, so he has no right to say greb would beat hagler. Actually commonsense would say hagler would win cuz greb likes to get inside and every fighter that tries to kill marvin, gets killed in the process, But we all know boxing is a sport where common sense flies out of the window.

Bert Sugar is an assclown. I hate his "Its to soon to be rated great" bullshit he always spits out. He acts like if it didn't happen in the black and white era it sucked. and light the godamn cigar already, asshole!

i was watching classic rinside:top ten hw's and muhammad ali part one. i thought when he said that ali is the number two hw and joe louis is the number one hw, that he didn't know what he was talking about. but i have come to the conclusion that bert sugar is just plain retarded! besides robbing ali of the number one spot, he said that jack dempsey left hook was more powerful than joe frazier's lol! frazier would rip dempsey's head off in four rounds or less! he also said that the biggest upset in boxing history was louis-schmeling I lol! everyone knows that every human being on earth thought tyson would kill buster douglass in 10 sec. but douglass shocked mike tyson and the world! the only reason that the odds were 42:1 was because they had to get someone to vote for douglass for it to be legit, or else no one would have voted for douglass. he also had ezzard charles and gene tunney on the top ten list. so bert sugar has mental problems. :nonono: Butterfly, just becaue you see things differently, it doesn't make Sugar "retarded". He has his own biases as we all do; but he has knowledge and reasoning behind his picks. For me, Ali was the best Heavyweight, no questions asked, for the longest time....and I may put him on top again; but I have to look at Louis's record and such and be as objective as possible. Ali, four years off or no, lost to Frazier and broken jaw or no, lost to Kenny Norton when Louis was still making defenses and not losing. Ali at 36 lost to 7-0-1 Leon Spinks while Louis in his late 30's lost to Ezzard Charles and Rocky Marciano. Also, Louis was a better technical fighter than Ali...Muhammad rarely went to the body at all. Now whether or not Ali could beat Louis head to head is merely conjecture...nobody will ever know. Sure, you can say Ali was bigger and faster, etc.; but until two men square off, you just don't know. Believing Ali was the best or that Frazier's hook was harder than Dempsey's is one thing...that's your opinion and you are surely entitled to it; but it give you no right to call Bert Sugar "retarded"....and given his track record and years of experience, in the end, such a statement makes you looke bad.

I like Bert Sugar but he is definatley biased to the old fighters, BrownPimps is always defending Modern fighters and 90% of the time the dudes rite, at least in my opinion

bert knows a lot but he's pretty out there with some of the things he says. like not having michael spinks in his top 100 and saying gene tunney is a top 10 hw partially b/c of his great light heavyweight career I never liked Bert. Jack Newfield (R.I.P.) was much better. Compare Ring Magazine's 80 best fighters of last 80 years to Bert's 100 best fighters. You can clearly tell that Ring is more objective to all era's while little bert sugar is basically blind to the fighters that he grew up watching in the 1940's and 50's. I dont know why people call him a boxing guru, he's a joke in my opinion. The guy has no respect towards tyson, spinks, holyfield and lennox so why the fuck should we respect him as fans.

bert knows a lot but he's pretty out there with some of the things he says. like not having michael spinks in his top 100 and saying gene tunney is a top 10 hw partially b/c of his great light heavyweight career I never liked Bert. Jack Newfield (R.I.P.) was much better.