Reasons Why Mythical Matches Are Valid In History Section

[Marchegiano]

No, I take back the take back... **** this ****. Do you really expect me to take you seriously Willie Pep 229? Or, do you think I have the memory of a fish?

Fantasy fights between fighters from the sane era can make for an interesting discussion, e.g. Dempsey-Wills.

But when you start trying to match Jack Johnson against Sonny Liston the whole thing becomes fantasy. I.e. A waste of time.

My complaint against these cross epoch match-ups is that the conversation never gets anywhere near being interesting. Just loud aggressive opinions which are not, and CAN NOT be based on any facts, or even logic. All they do is open the door to the same old, beaten to death, remarks. "The game has evolved; past fighters were too small; the gloves were different."

How many times are we suspose to read the same remarks, over and over.

These match-ups can only be pure opinion.

At least with fantasy match-ups from the same era, we can examine common opponents and don't need to make outlandish, unfounded speculations about how this would be different, or that would be different. Etc.

I am going to say this bluntly one more time and then, if you don't cue up, you will be my next ***** on this forum. I am Marchegiano. You should think a bit before you respond to me, or, put just me on ignore. Don't respond out of defensive emotional bull****, you'll just be working right into my hand. I presented this prompt, don't think I didn't do research before I made this decision. My real advice and maybe the last friendly thing I say to you; look at my real account's post history, look at yours, look at this subject, and note this quote below took seconds to drum up:

Dempsey-Marciano would be a better fight.

But Tyson-Marcinao is a must see..

Tyson '89 is bigger and faster than Rocky and would seem to be the 'smart money' bet.

What we found out later was Tyson didn't like being hit much and showed a tendency to quit mentally when fights got tough.

If Rocky could whether the first two rounds and land enough elbows/foremans and maybe a willingness to clash heads on the inside (not to mention hard body blows) '89 Tyson may give way to mentally quitting e.g. Holyfield II and Douglas. Tyson didn't like being 'stood up to.'

If Rocky can turn the fight to an inside war Tyson might give way to Marcinao's relentless pressure, but Tyson '89 threw combinations inside as hard and fast as any HW, so Rocky may not be able to make it out of round 2.

The 'smart money' --> Tyson - but I got a time machine and I saw what happened to Tyson mentally so I wouldn't bet this fight.

What does the quote above me and below me mean? Juxtaposed to without me?

Exactly what I just said. You pontificate based on lies you tell yourself not the reality of how you conduct yourself. You've become emotional like a woman in your old age and probably won't read **** so let me make this last bit unavoidable.

Hypocrite

[Willie Pep 229]

No, I take back the take back... **** this ****. Do you really expect me to take you seriously Willie Pep 229? Or, do you think I have the memory of a fish?





I am going to say this bluntly one more time and then, if you don't cue up, you will be my next ***** on this forum. I am Marchegiano. You should think a bit before you respond to me, or, put just me on ignore. Don't respond out of defensive emotional bull****, you'll just be working right into my hand. I presented this prompt, don't think I didn't do research before I made this decision. My real advice and maybe the last friendly thing I say to you; look at my real account's post history, look at yours, look at this subject, and note this quote below took seconds to drum up:





What does the quote above me and below me mean? Juxtaposed to without me?

Exactly what I just said. You pontificate based on lies you tell yourself not the reality of how you conduct yourself. You've become emotional like a woman in your old age and probably won't read **** so let me make this last bit unavoidable.

Hypocrite

I didn't reply to you.

[Marchegiano]

I didn't reply to you.

That's an attempt to counter the point I just made is it

[max baer]

I didn't reply to you.

i think that is the best "owned" riposte here by willie he should be top of that list.

[Marchegiano]

i think that is the best "owned" riposte here by willie he should be top of that list.

I can't compete because I'd just be giving it to Body every month. BodyBagz is my dude, we joke, he knows he can make fun and I won't get upset and he already tried that exploit, but I don't deny the point made. Pep's a great poster. I don't waste time calling out rabble. ... That's why you and I have had basically no interaction.

[max baer]

I can't compete because I'd just be giving it to Body every month. BodyBagz is my dude, we joke, he knows he can make fun and I won't get upset and he already tried that exploit, but I don't deny the point made. Pep's a great poster. I don't waste time calling out rabble. ... That's why you and I have had basically no interaction.

if i had a lower IQ i could enjoy your posts!

[Marchegiano]

if i had a lower IQ i could enjoy your posts!

Oh, you're just white knighting for the member you're more familiar with.

That's not even a fun prompt bud, try again.

[Slugfester]

I like 'em here because this section has a little more analytical juice on the whole than the other sections.

By the way, the best so-called fights I have witnessed here have been between Apples and Bundana. They both fight fair and have opposing positions in the perennial old timers vs later fighters debate--an actual argument about boxing and not someone's toothpaste choice. An old argument, but one I still find charming when done right. I guess you are all a bit charming when you're done right.

[The Defecator]

Fantasy fights between fighters from the sane era can make for an interesting discussion, e.g. Dempsey-Wills.

But when you start trying to match Jack Johnson against Sonny Liston the whole thing becomes fantasy. I.e. A waste of time.

My complaint against these cross epoch match-ups is that the conversation never gets anywhere near being interesting. Just loud aggressive opinions which are not, and CAN NOT be based on any facts, or even logic. All they do is open the door to the same old, beaten to death, remarks. "The game has evolved; past fighters were too small; the gloves were different."

How many times are we suspose to read the same remarks, over and over.

These match-ups can only be pure opinion.

At least with fantasy match-ups from the same era, we can examine common opponents and don't need to make outlandish, unfounded speculations about how this would be different, or that would be different. Etc.

The same thing could be said for just about anything revolving around boxing history: It's all opinion and nobody can actually prove anything. And nobody really changes anyone's mind, anyway.

[Willie Pep 229]

The same thing could be said for just about anything revolving around boxing history: It's all opinion and nobody can actually prove anything. And nobody really changes anyone's mind, anyway.

Never should one's goal be to change a mind. That's not history, that's propaganda.

Share information, opinions, (hopefully) insights, that's history.

History is not a professin, it is a vocation. You do it for the love of the doing not the reward of any success.