Tweet
I apologize for apologizing. Very bad for my image as a mindless troll.
-
-
Well i have told you many times, i have no hatred for any fighters and make no excuses for them. in the cases of Hagler & Lewis i actually rate them both quite highly, Hagler Top 12-15 @160lb. Lewis Top 12-15 @ over 200lbs. i rate Lewis right-hand as one of the best in history. Hagler's durability as up there with the best in history.... if you go back and read my posts you will see the above.. However unlike you, who rates Hagler & Lewis as Top 3 in their divisions All Time, So you get annoyed when a guy like me, who wont accept your idiotic idolization. When i put my case forward for not ranking them as highly as you rank them, you then turn your attention to me personally. You then try to ridicule me and try to make out i am some kind of fool because i don't agree with your rankings. But, you never ever put forward a case to justify such lofty rankings. Which is the difference between me you and several other posters. i regularly put forward a very strong case to back up my opinions. Whereas you never do... Much of my case against Lennox being a Top 10 All Time, spoils your agenda, but i am consistent in what i say and how i personally rate fighters. You don't have to agree, you don't have to get upset and resort to ridicule. What you should do, is what i do. Which is try to show how by debate, that the person you are debating with is vastly overrating that boxer. Point out how and why he is being overrated or underrated..but to claim it is "hate" why someone does not go along with your opinion is a "cop-out" and show's that you cannot justify a single word that you say.Hard to believe you actually believe that. To your simple mind though it is possible. The belief that boxing knowledge is like sugar in a jar, and some people just have more sugar. Sorry Sonny but the world does not work that way. You have time on your side compared to some, others blow you away there also, but what you really lack is the ability to look at things intelligently, past the most rudimentary "my fighter is better than your fighter" way. When asked for source material you give wrong sources which have nothing to do with your point, your rejoinder to any critiscism is "wa wa wa,
____ knows nothing about boxing cause I say so", and while you have some intersting things to say the points you argue are usually based on the unnatural hate you feel for a particular fighter.
And then you take things personally and cry about all you know compared to the paltry knowledge of others.
But my favorite is how with Lewis and Hagler, you have an innane excuse for why they were succesful, and then you make the most ordinary fighters appear extraordinary.
Your a funny guy....a clown though not a particularly bright "funny guy" but your good for a laugh.Comment
-
Except for Mike Tyson. No wait, that's not true. You prefer to suck his ****. If this is really how you see it, you really need to take off the crap colored glasses. Or put on some real ones, because you're not seeing what not only everyone else here, but also what trusted writers and historians in the media see. So I guess now you know better than Emanuel Stewart or countless others who rank these two men highly.
And yeah, you're consistent. Consistent in your statements which are imbued with hatred for these fighters. Either you really believe these things or are just trying to be the contrarian. Either way, you're wrong and others have posted links and proof as to how and why you are, which you either make excuses for or refuse to even acknowledge.
Sounds like you either had bad experiences meeting these two boxers in person, lost a bundle betting on them, are heartbroken from a past loss of theirs or they tried to **** your girlfriend.Comment
-
Emmanuel Stewart had a financial interest in Lewis.. i am not interested in "Trusted Writers or Historians".. They have no more knowledge of the sport than i do myself. i am entitled to my opinions just as you and the trusted writers & historians are entitled to their opinions... Your problem is, my opinion is spoiling your agenda.But you cannot address my opinions because you know in your heart of hearts that my opinion is more or less correct and that i will anihilate you if you put into print anything which you deem asa evidence i am incorrect about the career of Lennox Lewis.. This has been going on now for over 20yrs, not just on this website, but on dozens of boxing forums and websites. including YouTube.. Where posters rubbish me for what i claim about the career of Lewis. They resort to personal ridicule of me, calling me a fool and a liar. BUT never once in all the 20yrs on any of those websites, has a single person been able to show what i say about Lewis to be incorrect or wrong in any way... Never have they been able to show:
Lewis v Tyson - Tyson was addicted prescription anti-depressants, alcohol, ******* & cannabis. Their fight had to be held in Memphis Ten. due to Tyson failing pre & post fight drug tests.
Lewis avoiding every fighter in the 1990s who held a version of the Heavyweight Title from 1993-99.
Lewis was stripped of every championship belt for refusing to fight the No1 contenders.
For you to claim, "They have ****** my girlfriend" or " i have lost a bundle betting on them" is ridiculous...let me explain why it is ridiculous.
Both those boxers live in a different country to the country i live in. Lewis was/has never been a betting proposition, due to them always fighting limited opponents and him being a huge odds on favorite 1/9 or greater. with the exception of his bout against Tyson.. But due to Tyson's drug addiction it made Lewis a fantastic betting opportunity at odds of 8/15 to beat someone on such a ****tail of drugs.. So i lumped on Lewis to win via KO/TKO or DSQ any round at odds of 2/1... so my only ever bet on Lewis was a succsessful one.
You also claim, " i am not seeing what everyone else is seeing"..Well Emmanuel Stewart claimed Lewis would beat any heavyweight in history, he claimed Lewis was the best of all time. Then when he took charge of Wlad Klitschko he claimed Wlad to be even better than Lewis and Wlad to be the greatest of all times... Try telling anyone on any forum that Wlad is as great as Emmanuel Stewart tried to make out and see the response. LOL
So you are talking in riddles, which i put down to you, "Not knowing what you are talking about"Last edited by sonnyboyx2; 07-23-2015, 05:07 AM.Comment
-
I never rate any fighters you idiot! I have never stated that I consider either guy top, bottom or in between. Do you understand that you are accusing me of something that I have never posted? Actually I say very little about Hagler and while I admire both guys, since I don't make lists....i can't rank them, or anybody.
How about this? Sonny you get angry at me because you think Lazlo pap was the best lightweight ever and I don't agree!
Now every time you put words in my mouth this will be what I accuse you of doing from now on, got it?
You catch shizzle occasionally because you are an arrogant poofter who is always telling people how much you know, not because of your opinions. you also falsely accuse people of things, like you did in this post.Comment
-
Just out of curiosity what is Anthony's agenda?
You never aniliated anyone....
Stop rubbishing people stop repeating the same old crap about the same fighters with your baiting threads, its tired and old. Post in a manner where others can see you are knowlegable and you won't have to tell others how much you know. The proof is in the pudding.Comment
-
When I mentioned Stewart, I was referring to him saying that Marvin Hagler was the best middleweight of all time, not for any comments he made about his own fighters, that wouldn't make any sense. This isn't opinion you're talking about, they're facts. And to quote Pat Moynihan from the past and others recently "You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts." You're the one with the agenda here. The fight happened in Memphis with Lewis and Tyson not because of Tyson's drug problem, but because of his bad reputation, with anger and violent tendencies. He never tested positive then, because he used someone else's clean urine, so him being high wasn't known until later:
Speaking of proof, I see you making plenty of claims with no legitimate links to back them up, so why don't you practice what you preach?
Your opinions have been addressed plenty of times by others and been disproven with links to back them up. Yet you claimed you would then admit to being wrong, yet somehow never have.
I'm right and I have annihilated you are last ditch efforts of someone who knows he's been beat. Like a guy who gets beat down in a street fight and then, when his opponent walks away says he would've won because he was recovering and getting his second wind. Forgotten more about boxing than anyone here? More like forgotten everything, if you ever knew anything in the first place. But now you'll just take that one previous statement and say I'm resorting to name calling or "rubbishing" and not arguing your points. Well, let's look at those points then, shall we?
You say Tyson failed pre and post fight drug tests vs. Lewis. Actually, he only ever tested positive after the Andrew Golota fight:
The reason why the fight couldn't be held in Vegas, was because of sexual assault charges he was facing at the time: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/mike-tyson-rap-sheet-1.308253
Scroll down to 2002.
Lewis avoiding every fighter who held a version of the heavyweight title from 1993-99. That was already disproven in another thread by the guy with the Joe Frazier avatar, so feel free to refer to those links. I'm sure he'd be happy to repost them here as well. He fought Holyfield twice to unify the title though, so that alone disproves that statement.
Lewis stripped of every major championship. No, he was only stripped of the WBA belt when he didn't immediately fight the chosen contenders, Henry Akinwande, who had hepatitis B and cirrhosis of the liver and John Ruiz. John Ruiz was number one contender by the WBA, but how? He held a minor title belt, which unfairly shot him up the rankings after losing the WBC belt in 1 round to David Tua. The only major opponent he beat after that was a shot to s#&t Tony Tucker who was pushing 40 and only fought once more professionally after that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_T..._boxing_record
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Boxing...LT.-a061765009
The WBA sanctioned the Grant fight, but Lewis was stripped after Don King demanded it. Lewis was never stripped of the WBC, lineal or Ring championship belts, which he still held at the time of his retirement:
So, as you've previously stated, Now that evidence had been presented, I await your admission/retraction.Comment
-
Wrong again... i said Tyson "WOULD FAIL" pre and post fight drug tests..and those links are not genuine links, they are opinions from british fight rags. Which i pointed out awhile back. All this Don King crap is laughable. Lewis actually had an injunction taken out on King, which prevented King even speaking to Lewis... Lewis fought Frans Botha on the date he had agreed he would fight John Ruiz, So he was stripped of the WBA title.When I mentioned Stewart, I was referring to him saying that Marvin Hagler was the best middleweight of all time, not for any comments he made about his own fighters, that wouldn't make any sense. This isn't opinion you're talking about, they're facts. And to quote Pat Moynihan from the past and others recently "You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts." You're the one with the agenda here. The fight happened in Memphis with Lewis and Tyson not because of Tyson's drug problem, but because of his bad reputation, with anger and violent tendencies. He never tested positive then, because he used someone else's clean urine, so him being high wasn't known until later:
Speaking of proof, I see you making plenty of claims with no legitimate links to back them up, so why don't you practice what you preach?
Your opinions have been addressed plenty of times by others and been disproven with links to back them up. Yet you claimed you would then admit to being wrong, yet somehow never have.
I'm right and I have annihilated you are last ditch efforts of someone who knows he's been beat. Like a guy who gets beat down in a street fight and then, when his opponent walks away says he would've won because he was recovering and getting his second wind. Forgotten more about boxing than anyone here? More like forgotten everything, if you ever knew anything in the first place. But now you'll just take that one previous statement and say I'm resorting to name calling or "rubbishing" and not arguing your points. Well, let's look at those points then, shall we?
You say Tyson failed pre and post fight drug tests vs. Lewis. Actually, he only ever tested positive after the Andrew Golota fight:
The reason why the fight couldn't be held in Vegas, was because of sexual assault charges he was facing at the time: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/mike-tyson-rap-sheet-1.308253
Scroll down to 2002.
Lewis avoiding every fighter who held a version of the heavyweight title from 1993-99. That was already disproven in another thread by the guy with the Joe Frazier avatar, so feel free to refer to those links. I'm sure he'd be happy to repost them here as well. He fought Holyfield twice to unify the title though, so that alone disproves that statement.
Lewis stripped of every major championship. No, he was only stripped of the WBA belt when he didn't immediately fight the chosen contenders, Henry Akinwande, who had hepatitis B and cirrhosis of the liver and John Ruiz. John Ruiz was number one contender by the WBA, but how? He held a minor title belt, which unfairly shot him up the rankings after losing the WBC belt in 1 round to David Tua. The only major opponent he beat after that was a shot to s#&t Tony Tucker who was pushing 40 and only fought once more professionally after that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_T..._boxing_record
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Boxing...LT.-a061765009
The WBA sanctioned the Grant fight, but Lewis was stripped after Don King demanded it. Lewis was never stripped of the WBC, lineal or Ring championship belts, which he still held at the time of his retirement:
So, as you've previously stated, Now that evidence had been presented, I await your admission/retraction.
The only thing you are correct with is Lewis was not stripped of the Ring Magazine & Lineal belts LOL.. but what are those belts?... who presents those belts?... Did Joe Louis & Muhammad Ali ever fight for those two belts???
The WBC belt.. Lewis announced his retirement 24hrs before he was to be stripped of his last remaining belt (WBC) for refusing to fight their No1 contender. After he had promised the entire boxing world he would face him in a rematch...After boasting "One brother for breakfast, the other brother for Tea"...
The bottom line is Lewis was stripped of every belt. wether 24hrs is a saving grace, that's up to the reader.
But you are like so many Lewis fanboys. Who are quick to label Rid**** Bowe as "Afraid" to fight Lewis, but wont accept Lewis actions were worse.Comment
-
McCallum vs Hagler thread..... And here we are discussing Lennox Lewis vs Mike Tyson LOL
At every opportunity you and Lewis fanboys turn it into a Lewis thread and personal ridicule towards me...LOL
You cannot debate boxing, your only interest on this forum is personal attack.. if not me, you will wait for your next victim to log-on to the site. LOL you sad little creep.
Your cry of, "Sonny, stop saying you have forgotton more blah blah blah.." Well i say it as reference towards you and your victimisation of posters. Why dont you go back and take a look at your last 20/30 posts on the forum.. see how many of them are debating boxing and how many are personal attacks.
The answer is: Every single one is nothing whatsoever to do with debating boxing.. Just like 95% of the other posters on this website. But i enjoy it, i enjoy your antics, they make for fun and laughter. i can see that i get under your skin LOL
Keep it up rimmer
Comment
-
Actually, yes. Yes Louis and Ali did fight for and won that belt, as they were both recognized heavyweight champions both lineal and by Ring magazine, back when they were still the authority on boxing. That doesn't change the fact that he was THE heavyweight champion still at the end of his career. He "beat the guy that beat the guy". He beat Shannon Briggs, who won the title from Foreman, who had won it from Moorer. And Ali was a 3 time lineal heavyweight champion, beating Liston, then Foreman, then later Leon Spinks to be lineal champion and World Heavyweight Champion recognized by The Ring.
How are those not genuine? If they're not true, show me some other credible ones that refute them.
And he may have retired before being stripped, but that means he wasn't stripped of the belt then. Just like Vitali Klitschko retired before being stripped of his WBC belt, so Stiverne and Wilder could fight for the vacant belt. He had the only belt that really mattered, not the ones from the corrupt governing bodies. You really think Lewis was ducking Ruiz? Even after he said he would fight him after fighting Grant. And of course he didn't want to speak to King. He's a lying, pernicious, manipulative, corrupt bag of jizz.
If you really are right, then find me someone credible who shares those same viewpoints as you. Lewis is consistently ranked top 10 or 15, maybe 20 for all time heavyweights. And I didn't say anything about Bowe.
You're acting like I'm saying he's the best heavyweight ever or top 2 or 3, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying he's better than you claim.
Once again, you have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. But that's fine, continue to live in your own little bubble, believing whatever zombie lies you want to believe.
Oh yeah and you claimed that there was a mention on the program for Lewis vs. McCall 1 of a future fight with Sanders. So why not scan in a picture of the program proving that? Since you're so big on proof, why don't you provide some? Show me where it says that. What was he ranked at the time to deserve a title shot. How did he earn it? By beating Bert Cooper?
This reminds me of the classic Bill Maher quote when he says that the left and right don't get along not because of a difference of opinion, but because we can't even agree on what the FACTS are.
So your criticisms of Lewis and Hagler are they never fought anybody at the top of their game or top ranked? Hagler cleaned out 160 in his career and only lost the belt when he was past his prime in a cherry pick fight with Leonard. So who else should he have fought? Wins over Duran, Hearns, previous champ Antuofermo, title holder Minter, and being undisputed champ are not good enough for you? Geez, you have unbelievably high standards. Who should Hagler have fought then?
The fact that Hearns broke his hand is not Hagler's fault and that's not why he lost. Hearns lost because he tried to slug with Hagler. And you're saying if Lewis beat who, Sanders and Ruiz, he'd then be an all-time great heavyweight in your eyes? If not, then who should else should he have fought and why? What were they ranked that they deserved a shot at Lewis? Names and links, let's see them.Last edited by Anthony342; 07-25-2015, 01:10 AM.Comment
Comment