Top ten list of "rolling stone" Fighters

[Anthony342]

Some great responses. this is a tough category, if it is one... to suss out lol.

Not really. I mean if Keith Richards can survive all those drugs, he can probably survive just about anything in a boxing ring as well, so he gets the edge in endurance if it goes to the later rounds, the George Chuvalo/Rocky Marciano of the group, so to speak. Mick Jagger would have the reach advantage with those lanky arms and legs. Watts and Wood or their original bassist would be the most focused, as not as much attention is paid to them by fans, so they'd have more time to train. Probably don't do as many drugs either. I say Keith by UD or late TKO in most cases.

The magazine around the late 90s started to suck as well and lose all relevance when they put more TV stars than rock stars on the cover. Cast of Friends was the beginning of the end, Jersey Shore was the nail in the coffin.

[markusmod]

Billy Conn needs to be on it. His middleweight resume is excellent but overlooked because of his status at light heavyweight. Had a number of wins over contenders at heavyweight as well

Agree with this.

[billeau2]

Not really. I mean if Keith Richards can survive all those drugs, he can probably survive just about anything in a boxing ring as well, so he gets the edge in endurance if it goes to the later rounds, the George Chuvalo/Rocky Marciano of the group, so to speak. Mick Jagger would have the reach advantage with those lanky arms and legs. Watts and Wood or their original bassist would be the most focused, as not as much attention is paid to them by fans, so they'd have more time to train. Probably don't do as many drugs either. I say Keith by UD or late TKO in most cases.

The magazine around the late 90s started to suck as well and lose all relevance when they put more TV stars than rock stars on the cover. Cast of Friends was the beginning of the end, Jersey Shore was the nail in the coffin.

All mags... Scientific America used to have articles that averaged around 12 pages,or so... Today? half the magazine is press releases, the other material is dumbed down considerably.

[markusmod]

All mags... Scientific America used to have articles that averaged around 12 pages,or so... Today? half the magazine is press releases, the other material is dumbed down considerably.

Damn right. I stopped reading it years ago.

[Willie Pep 229]

All mags... Scientific America used to have articles that averaged around 12 pages,or so... Today? half the magazine is press releases, the other material is dumbed down considerably.

Try American Scientist instead - I think you'll find more of what you are looking for.

I personally still read Scientific America because it's simplistic presentations is a good way for a humanities guy like me to stay abreast of major events. I think you're being too harsh on it; it serves a different audience and is better to exist than not.

[billeau2]

Try American Scientist instead - I think you'll find more of what you are looking for.

I personally still read Scientific America because it's simplistic presentations is a good way for a humanities guy like me to stay abreast of major events. I think you're being too harsh on it; it serves a different audience and is better to exist than not.

But it changed... It used to be a lot more dense with scientific information in the articles. I have no problem with less dense material, if that is the audience. Same with the weeklies. I grew up as a kid reading the best alternative writers in the Village Voice. Then it was bought by Murdoch and it became a nothing burger.