Frazier reminds me of La Motta

[War Room]

That's a misunderstanding of semantics.

Is cracked currently semantical?

Was cool semantics?

You sure you understand what you said to me and my response to you?

I didn't ask for a favor, billeu pointed out you've swerved the entire point I addressed to focus on the meaning of words on his own. Think on that a second, read it twice if you're slow. You chose to hold up debate over a subject to debate over words used to express a point in the subject regardless of your understanding of my meaning; semantics.

I'm not playing games with words or their meaning, you are.

Ironic you call a history lesson a parlor trick. I've furthered no point because you've given me nothing to further. I've addressed little because you've given me nothing to address. I haven't a clue who you think you can impress here with your bull**** but personally I reckon you're better suited for NSB.

Nemesis? More like antithesis, not much antagonism here though there is clear effort put in toward it. You've been whipped clean like excrement from a boot and it didn't take much effort. Nemesis he says Jittering monkeys climb trees to call themselves tall. Far as I am concerned, and anyone else here, you posted on opinion, I posted a counter-point, you went crying not knowing how to deal with rhetoric contradictory to your own.

Have you got any substance to you child?

You're comparing slang terminlogies to that which is not? Surely you jest you sad clown.

You said you weren't old enough to be nostalgic, I said that's not a criterion for anyone to be nostalgiac. You are wrong, can't admit defeat (a real man would to be considered credible), and are using parlor tricks to mince your way out of it. That IS the point of the spear.

Whipped clean like excrement from a boot?

You mean Wiped Clean, don't you? Again, you are wrong. You don't have basic grammar skills, how do you expect to win a war of words?

I never post opinions because opinions are devoid of fact. I post facts because facts hold weight and actually mean something. Did you not know that opinions are devoid of fact? Bet you didn't, simple pleb.

Marciano stopped a 55+ win streak, both fighters were 30, you don't seem to know much if any history.


Watched a documentary or some such and thought you could mix in here did you?

I'm a student and participant of the game my friend, you couldn't be more wrong.

Like I said before, you people are too easy. All work is what? Easy work --->

You Are Wrong
It was actually 50 fights if you're talking about Matthews who was already 15 years in as a pro. If you do your research, average prime for a boxer is 14-16 years depending on damage taken. 15 years, you're at the end of your rope in modern times. If you turn pro at 18, your prime is around 32-34, again it's damage and wear/tear dependant. Learning how to count (as well as learning how to spell) will help you have a more productive life.

You Are Wrong
Matthews was born on December 9, 1922 (Emmett, Idaho) which would have made him almost 33 in 1952 when he fought Marciano.

Again, for the human body in a very physically demanding sport like boxing, 33 is the end unless you're like a phenom like Mayweather, Mosely, Oscar, Foreman, etc, type. Matthews looks like a mailman and in that era of hardship, I think we could dial down those prime numbers even lower. Life was hard and it took a toll on your body back in the 30's/40's.

This fits Marciano's profile of beating up on old pastits, padding his already thin record.

Additionally, Matthews started as a welterweight and spent most of his lacklustre career at middleweight fight bum after bum. Again, this fits Marciano's career profile of beating up fighters with any sort of name having ***'s over their heads.

• When Matthews was 37-3-5 he fought a 2-9-2 Tommy Fair. BUM.
• When Matthews was 47-3-5 he fought a 6-6-4 Baby Joe Walcott (lol). BUM.
• When Matthews was 59-3-5 he fought a 8-3 Sonny Andrews. BUM.
• When Matthews was 66-3-5 he fought a 19-13-6 Frank Buford. BUM.
• When Matthews was 66-3-5 he fought a 19-13-6 Frank Buford. BUM.

In conclusion, winning 50 fights in a row when the opposition is weak doesn't really mean much now does it?

Nobody besides Marciano fans and curators of boxing history know who Matthews is, historical nobody that's more than likely only referenced through Marciano.

Matthews is like the composer Antonio Salieri. Salieri is forgotten by the classical music world and only referenced through Mozart because they were bitter rivals.

Seems like you don't know as much history as you think you do, do ya? Maybe it's you that watched a documentary and thought they could mix it up against someone on a high level?

[Willie Pep 229]

You're comparing slang terminlogies to that which is not? Surely you jest you sad clown.

You said you weren't old enough to be nostalgic, I said that's not a criterion for anyone to be nostalgiac. You are wrong, can't admit defeat (a real man would to be considered credible), and are using parlor tricks to mince your way out of it. That IS the point of the spear.

Whipped clean like excrement from a boot?

You mean Wiped Clean, don't you? Again, you are wrong. You don't have basic grammar skills, how do you expect to win a war of words?

I never post opinions because opinions are devoid of fact. I post facts because facts hold weight and actually mean something. Did you not know that opinions are devoid of fact? Bet you didn't, simple pleb.



I'm a student and participant of the game my friend, you couldn't be more wrong.

Like I said before, you people are too easy. All work is what? Easy work --->

You Are Wrong
It was actually 50 fights if you're talking about Matthews who was already 15 years in as a pro. If you do your research, average prime for a boxer is 14-16 years depending on damage taken. 15 years, you're at the end of your rope in modern times. If you turn pro at 18, your prime is around 32-34, again it's damage and wear/tear dependant. Learning how to count (as well as learning how to spell) will help you have a more productive life.

You Are Wrong
Matthews was born on December 9, 1922 (Emmett, Idaho) which would have made him almost 33 in 1952 when he fought Marciano.

Again, for the human body in a very physically demanding sport like boxing, 33 is the end unless you're like a phenom like Mayweather, Mosely, Oscar, Foreman, etc, type. Matthews looks like a mailman and in that era of hardship, I think we could dial down those prime numbers even lower. Life was hard and it took a toll on your body back in the 30's/40's.

This fits Marciano's profile of beating up on old pastits, padding his already thin record.

Additionally, Matthews started as a welterweight and spent most of his lacklustre career at middleweight fight bum after bum. Again, this fits Marciano's career profile of beating up fighters with any sort of name having ***'s over their heads.

• When Matthews was 37-3-5 he fought a 2-9-2 Tommy Fair. BUM.
• When Matthews was 47-3-5 he fought a 6-6-4 Baby Joe Walcott (lol). BUM.
• When Matthews was 59-3-5 he fought a 8-3 Sonny Andrews. BUM.
• When Matthews was 66-3-5 he fought a 19-13-6 Frank Buford. BUM.
• When Matthews was 66-3-5 he fought a 19-13-6 Frank Buford. BUM.

In conclusion, winning 50 fights in a row when the opposition is weak doesn't really mean much now does it?

Nobody besides Marciano fans and curators of boxing history know who Matthews is, historical nobody that's more than likely only referenced through Marciano.

Matthews is like the composer Antonio Salieri. Salieri is forgotten by the classical music world and only referenced through Mozart because they were bitter rivals.

Seems like you don't know as much history as you think you do, do ya? Maybe it's you that watched a documentary and thought they could mix it up against someone on a high level?

Bitter rivals is a bit much - early on they were fierce competitors as they both positioned themselves at Cort, (also they found themselves caught in the on-going Italian-German rivalry in Vienna) but once established they cooperated to each other's advantage and even collaborated on a piece.

[billeau2]

Another resident dumbass gets added to the "pay no mind" list. War Room.

I tell ya....

[billeau2]

Best heavyweight left hooker? His left hook was bollocks mate, you're out of your mind. Look at him in the video, arm punching. If you can't see it, YDKSAB and might as well hang 'em up.

One thing you don't lose is power and if Tommy could take Foremans power on his 2nd run, he could have taken it on the first. Frazier was hopping around like a leprechaun, I thought he was going to die in the ring.

I've seen all of each fighters fights. Even the Joe Hipp fight, Get 'Em Joe lol!

Marciano fought guys all on their way out, not a valid comparison. Frazier would put Macriano in a casket, levels kid.



I've been watching boxing probably longer than you've been alive. I was just a kid, but started around 76'. Don't play with fire son, I'll burn your soul. You Marciano knob goblins are the easiest to break.

You realize these posts don't goaway right? One day if you learn something about boxing, read this back, but don't have a gun around, or be near a window in a high location. Foreman the second coming was nowhere near the fighter he was and fought in a different manner. You should really trademark ****** you could make a fortune.

[billeau2]

You're comparing slang terminlogies to that which is not? Surely you jest you sad clown.

You said you weren't old enough to be nostalgic, I said that's not a criterion for anyone to be nostalgiac. You are wrong, can't admit defeat (a real man would to be considered credible), and are using parlor tricks to mince your way out of it. That IS the point of the spear.

Whipped clean like excrement from a boot?

You mean Wiped Clean, don't you? Again, you are wrong. You don't have basic grammar skills, how do you expect to win a war of words?

I never post opinions because opinions are devoid of fact. I post facts because facts hold weight and actually mean something. Did you not know that opinions are devoid of fact? Bet you didn't, simple pleb.



I'm a student and participant of the game my friend, you couldn't be more wrong.

Like I said before, you people are too easy. All work is what? Easy work --->

You Are Wrong
It was actually 50 fights if you're talking about Matthews who was already 15 years in as a pro. If you do your research, average prime for a boxer is 14-16 years depending on damage taken. 15 years, you're at the end of your rope in modern times. If you turn pro at 18, your prime is around 32-34, again it's damage and wear/tear dependant. Learning how to count (as well as learning how to spell) will help you have a more productive life.

You Are Wrong
Matthews was born on December 9, 1922 (Emmett, Idaho) which would have made him almost 33 in 1952 when he fought Marciano.

Again, for the human body in a very physically demanding sport like boxing, 33 is the end unless you're like a phenom like Mayweather, Mosely, Oscar, Foreman, etc, type. Matthews looks like a mailman and in that era of hardship, I think we could dial down those prime numbers even lower. Life was hard and it took a toll on your body back in the 30's/40's.

This fits Marciano's profile of beating up on old pastits, padding his already thin record.

Additionally, Matthews started as a welterweight and spent most of his lacklustre career at middleweight fight bum after bum. Again, this fits Marciano's career profile of beating up fighters with any sort of name having ***'s over their heads.

• When Matthews was 37-3-5 he fought a 2-9-2 Tommy Fair. BUM.
• When Matthews was 47-3-5 he fought a 6-6-4 Baby Joe Walcott (lol). BUM.
• When Matthews was 59-3-5 he fought a 8-3 Sonny Andrews. BUM.
• When Matthews was 66-3-5 he fought a 19-13-6 Frank Buford. BUM.
• When Matthews was 66-3-5 he fought a 19-13-6 Frank Buford. BUM.

In conclusion, winning 50 fights in a row when the opposition is weak doesn't really mean much now does it?

Nobody besides Marciano fans and curators of boxing history know who Matthews is, historical nobody that's more than likely only referenced through Marciano.

Matthews is like the composer Antonio Salieri. Salieri is forgotten by the classical music world and only referenced through Mozart because they were bitter rivals.

Seems like you don't know as much history as you think you do, do ya? Maybe it's you that watched a documentary and thought they could mix it up against someone on a high level?

If you study the heavyweight division you will find that many times the division was "weak." Weak in a relative sense, a characterization that refers more to a lack of prime ATG fighters competing, and not considering the general level of competition, the average ability of ALL fighters in the division. For example, Roland LaStarza, an excellent fighter... La Starza won't be in record books, will not be on any lists, but typlifies the skills and ability one had to have to compete in the division at that time. You have to look at the fights to see how fighters looked in the ring what they could, could not do...

[Marchegiano]

You're comparing slang terminlogies to that which is not? Surely you jest you sad clown.

You said you weren't old enough to be nostalgic, I said that's not a criterion for anyone to be nostalgiac. You are wrong, can't admit defeat (a real man would to be considered credible), and are using parlor tricks to mince your way out of it. That IS the point of the spear.

Whipped clean like excrement from a boot?

You mean Wiped Clean, don't you? Again, you are wrong. You don't have basic grammar skills, how do you expect to win a war of words?

I never post opinions because opinions are devoid of fact. I post facts because facts hold weight and actually mean something. Did you not know that opinions are devoid of fact? Bet you didn't, simple pleb.



I'm a student and participant of the game my friend, you couldn't be more wrong.

Like I said before, you people are too easy. All work is what? Easy work --->

You Are Wrong
It was actually 50 fights if you're talking about Matthews who was already 15 years in as a pro. If you do your research, average prime for a boxer is 14-16 years depending on damage taken. 15 years, you're at the end of your rope in modern times. If you turn pro at 18, your prime is around 32-34, again it's damage and wear/tear dependant. Learning how to count (as well as learning how to spell) will help you have a more productive life.

You Are Wrong
Matthews was born on December 9, 1922 (Emmett, Idaho) which would have made him almost 33 in 1952 when he fought Marciano.

Again, for the human body in a very physically demanding sport like boxing, 33 is the end unless you're like a phenom like Mayweather, Mosely, Oscar, Foreman, etc, type. Matthews looks like a mailman and in that era of hardship, I think we could dial down those prime numbers even lower. Life was hard and it took a toll on your body back in the 30's/40's.

This fits Marciano's profile of beating up on old pastits, padding his already thin record.

Additionally, Matthews started as a welterweight and spent most of his lacklustre career at middleweight fight bum after bum. Again, this fits Marciano's career profile of beating up fighters with any sort of name having ***'s over their heads.

• When Matthews was 37-3-5 he fought a 2-9-2 Tommy Fair. BUM.
• When Matthews was 47-3-5 he fought a 6-6-4 Baby Joe Walcott (lol). BUM.
• When Matthews was 59-3-5 he fought a 8-3 Sonny Andrews. BUM.
• When Matthews was 66-3-5 he fought a 19-13-6 Frank Buford. BUM.
• When Matthews was 66-3-5 he fought a 19-13-6 Frank Buford. BUM.

In conclusion, winning 50 fights in a row when the opposition is weak doesn't really mean much now does it?

Nobody besides Marciano fans and curators of boxing history know who Matthews is, historical nobody that's more than likely only referenced through Marciano.

Matthews is like the composer Antonio Salieri. Salieri is forgotten by the classical music world and only referenced through Mozart because they were bitter rivals.

Seems like you don't know as much history as you think you do, do ya? Maybe it's you that watched a documentary and thought they could mix it up against someone on a high level?

There's a line in Hamlet about ****** people thinking themselves clever by the exactness of a term. I took nostalgia by it's common usage and you chose to make an issue of it. Then you call me a sad clown. It's not my fault you're either too ****** or uninterested to follow along.

If you want to be very exact nostalgia is when Greek soldiers complain about Roman procedure as they're integrated into Roman armies. How you used it has a context, how I interpreted has a context, what we're doing now is an exercise in semantics you chose to have.

Yes, we do think highly of our ability to use spell check and boxrec.


On Matthews, you again move the goal post because yer accretions can't be defended as is. Did I counter with Harry because he's quality or because he's a peer?

Superficial victories no one here cares I was mistaken because everyone here understands the points I made regardless. 50 vs 55 is a small victory that doesn't address the point of fighting a man on the rise.

To further that point, Rex Layne was being promoted by Ring magazine as the next HW champion. On the way out was he?

[War Room]

You realize these posts don't goaway right? One day if you learn something about boxing, read this back, but don't have a gun around, or be near a window in a high location. Foreman the second coming was nowhere near the fighter he was and fought in a different manner. You should really trademark ****** you could make a fortune.

Curiosly, I'm not sure what you mean here: "One day if you learn something about boxing, read this back, but don't have a gun around, or be near a window in a high location."

But don't have a gun around, or be hear a window blah blah blah.

Why did you add but in there? Surely this was an error on your part? And why so many comma's? It's not English and it doesn't make sense. The proper grammar and syntax here would be to omit the but and comma's like so:

"One day if you learn something about boxing and read this back, don't have a gun around or be near a window in a high location."

Saying I'm going to kill myself when I read this post back after I learn something? Don't you think you're getting a little over-emotional over some posts on a boxing forum? Wishing suicide on someone because they disagree with you is ok?

You're obviously not OK. Maybe you should avoid someone like me and take some time off for health & wellbeing? Maybe talk to your doctors, therapist, etc.

If you study the heavyweight division you will find that many times the division was "weak." Weak in a relative sense, a characterization that refers more to a lack of prime ATG fighters competing, and not considering the general level of competition, the average ability of ALL fighters in the division. For example, Roland LaStarza, an excellent fighter... La Starza won't be in record books, will not be on any lists, but typlifies the skills and ability one had to have to compete in the division at that time. You have to look at the fights to see how fighters looked in the ring what they could, could not do...

So you're back for another comment, I really think you should take a break. Thanks for proving exactly what I said before, Matthews and his 50 mile run was weak. Take care and get some much needed rest. Have like a hot chocolate and watch a comedy.

There's a line in Hamlet about ****** people thinking themselves clever by the exactness of a term. I took nostalgia by it's common usage and you chose to make an issue of it. Then you call me a sad clown. It's not my fault you're either too ****** or uninterested to follow along.

If you want to be very exact nostalgia is when Greek soldiers complain about Roman procedure as they're integrated into Roman armies. How you used it has a context, how I interpreted has a context, what we're doing now is an exercise in semantics you chose to have.

Yes, we do think highly of our ability to use spell check and boxrec.


On Matthews, you again move the goal post because yer accretions can't be defended as is. Did I counter with Harry because he's quality or because he's a peer?

Superficial victories no one here cares I was mistaken because everyone here understands the points I made regardless. 50 vs 55 is a small victory that doesn't address the point of fighting a man on the rise.

To further that point, Rex Layne was being promoted by Ring magazine as the next HW champion. On the way out was he?

Hamlet, how fancy of you! Do you even see the change in your approach? You're trying to use $5 words and references to challenge my obvious level of intelligence. Dont you think that's like kind of sad, like why wouldnt you just be you? Now you're trying to recite Hamlet and the Greeks/Romans like I give a **** as$? I am thoroughly not impressed.

How would you know what the lingua franca is if you don't know what the word actually means? You used a word inappropriately, you can hum and haw about the Greeks & Romans all you like, but at the end of the day you sound like someone who just repeats words they think they know what it means, but they really don't. It's obvious you're corrupt to the point where you just move the goal posts to suit your shortcomings.

Listen to me you fleabottom choad, I know what words mean and you don't ---> it's as simple as that. Your arguments are rubbish and your points are dull. My victories don't need to be individually grandiose, I'm only rebounding them down your throat as you present them so how can I be at fault?

You're actually insulting me for using boxrec because I want to be precise and factual? It's not ok to continuously make mistakes, like you. I don't need spellcheck, I'm good on my own thank you very much. I never thought I would see the day that another person would throw daggers at me for trying to be precise.

The virtue signaling you're doing is disgusting.

Bert Cooper > Joe Frazier.

[billeau2]

Curiosly, I'm not sure what you mean here: "One day if you learn something about boxing, read this back, but don't have a gun around, or be near a window in a high location."

But don't have a gun around, or be hear a window blah blah blah.

Why did you add but in there? Surely this was an error on your part? And why so many comma's? It's not English and it doesn't make sense. The proper grammar and syntax here would be to omit the but and comma's like so:

"One day if you learn something about boxing and read this back, don't have a gun around or be near a window in a high location."

Saying I'm going to kill myself when I read this post back after I learn something? Don't you think you're getting a little over-emotional over some posts on a boxing forum? Wishing suicide on someone because they disagree with you is ok?

You're obviously not OK. Maybe you should avoid someone like me and take some time off for health & wellbeing? Maybe talk to your doctors, therapist, etc.



So you're back for another comment, I really think you should take a break. Thanks for proving exactly what I said before, Matthews and his 50 mile run was weak. Take care and get some much needed rest. Have like a hot chocolate and watch a comedy.



Hamlet, how fancy of you! Do you even see the change in your approach? You're trying to use $5 words and references to challenge my obvious level of intelligence. Dont you think that's like kind of sad, like why wouldnt you just be you? Now you're trying to recite Hamlet and the Greeks/Romans like I give a **** as$? I am thoroughly not impressed.

How would you know what the lingua franca is if you don't know what the word actually means? You used a word inappropriately, you can hum and haw about the Greeks & Romans all you like, but at the end of the day you sound like someone who just repeats words they think they know what it means, but they really don't. It's obvious you're corrupt to the point where you just move the goal posts to suit your shortcomings.

Listen to me you fleabottom choad, I know what words mean and you don't ---> it's as simple as that. Your arguments are rubbish and your points are dull. My victories don't need to be individually grandiose, I'm only rebounding them down your throat as you present them so how can I be at fault?

You're actually insulting me for using boxrec because I want to be precise and factual? It's not ok to continuously make mistakes, like you. I don't need spellcheck, I'm good on my own thank you very much. I never thought I would see the day that another person would throw daggers at me for trying to be precise.

The virtue signaling you're doing is disgusting.

Bert Cooper > Joe Frazier.

Joe Frazier an arm puncher is sig worthy. When people start correcting grammer... they lost, everyone knows it. You came here and you were the cyber equivalent of curb stomped. So like most you happened upon the magic formula of just keep repeating it and... and... It will magically be true!! Sorry, don't work that way Governer!

In any organized system of epistemology, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. People who are clueless never learn this principle. Fighters study greats like frazier for a reason. But apparently you know better. And because you say so right? lol.

You can be critical of great fighters, But assertions like "Frazier is an arm puncher" are ridiculous.

[War Room]

Joe Frazier an arm puncher is sig worthy. When people start correcting grammer... they lost, everyone knows it. You came here and you were the cyber equivalent of curb stomped. So like most you happened upon the magic formula of just keep repeating it and... and... It will magically be true!! Sorry, don't work that way Governer!

In any organized system of epistemology, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. People who are clueless never learn this principle. Fighters study greats like frazier for a reason. But apparently you know better. And because you say so right? lol.

You can be critical of great fighters, But assertions like "Frazier is an arm puncher" are ridiculous.

Put as a sig you corny niblet. The other schmuck doesn't know what basic words mean, so I should let that go? You, you ramble and string together words that don't make sense. It's just everything you've put out there, you're blathering, derranged, and sound concussed. Maybe try to be better and you wouldn't get pansted in public so often.

Where did I get curb stomped? When you told me to kill myself? Or was it when you said Frazier as an arm puncher was sig worthy?

Epistemology, big word for an idiot. There is nothing extraordinary going on here. It's all rather simple and who the fvuck says that word without trying to sound smart ---> nobody lmao. You're a chimp in a suit with the arse cut out.

Nobody studies Frazier you daft cvnt. You've never walked the walk so what the fcuk would you know about anything anybody studies? I've never EVER once met a pro or heard or a pro who studied Frazier. What's to study? Call your doctors for a refill or a dosage increase, do it for your mum.

Just promise me you wont go shooting someone at a piggly wiggly or something, deal?

[them_apples]

I remember him fighting when I was a kid and he's pretty much known for giving Ali his first loss. Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena, Foster, these guys had loads of losses when he fought them and he fought a few of them a few times. Never fought Lyle or Norton, Foreman turned him into a leprechaun. Not a fan of Frazier as a fighter tbh.

La Motta same thing, mainly known for giving Robinson his first loss and honestly, his record is kind of similar to Fraziers, beat up the same guys a lot. Maybe 2 notable names on there.

I'm not saying Frazier and La Motta were terrible fighters, just they're kind of similar in a way ---> B+ level fighters I think get overclassed as A level fighters.

What do you guys think?

yeah but he did all this in a very competitive era. Just about anyone on a given night could beat you or would try to, they all had loads of experience and no money so they pretty much fought and trained full time. The title was the only way to make money. Boxing has always been corrupt, but you couldn't duck fighters as easy back then because you had no power to pick and choose as there was 1 governing body, one belt and one source of income (the belt). on top of that, I just personally think it was a tougher time to be around and produced tougher fighters. Today you get paid a lot of money even for being a contender who loses constantly, half the goal is to walk away with all your marbles.