Marciano 49-0 vs. Mayweather 49-0.

[Anthony342]

Well any elite, ATG should consider themselves the best.

Well I agree his resume could have been better but same goes for loads of fighters again.

Agreed. Damn, you make some good points and are challenging, which is a good thing. If you were a teacher, I don't imagine you'd give out an A easily.

[Anthony342]

Is that sarcasm? Because I can't tell.

I never said Toney "was never that good". He is good, he's very good. He's a first ballot HOF'er but he is not great.

NOOOO man. That was seriously a good point. I'm not trying to be a ****, I think I just didn't word my original post on this the right way is all. In fact, if I'm able, I'll try to send out, what's it called here? Good karma, green K, I think?

[Anthony342]

No Louis didn't but which ATG did Floyd miss? I only see Pacquaio and why that fight didn't happen is VERY debatable.

Marciano didn't beat any prime ATG's either. No he didn't miss anyone. (Arguably Patterson but not really) but he still didn't beat any.

Yeah, I can't disagree with that. I mean, obviously, by my avatar one can tell Marciano's my favorite, but I won't BS myself into thinking he has some kind of awesome resume or anything. I see him more as a guy who did a lot, despite his limitations, both physically, having the shortest reach and not being that fast, plus starting the sport kind of late. And yes, only Pacquiao with Mayweather. And I'll never deny his talent and reflexes. Plus being smart for getting out now. I think I read a quote where his dad even said that if a fighter sticks around long enough, someone is going to get you or beat him or something. I don't know how some of these guys stick around and last so long. I wonder what the record is for oldest age for an ATG boxer's final fight. I believe Larry Holmes was 52, but he fought Butterbean in his only ever 10 round fight. Butterbean was known mostly for 4 rounders, but fought past that a couple of other times, but never even 10 any other time. Duran and Hopkins were 50 or I believe Hopkins was just shy of 50 with his last hurrah. Holyfield was a few months shy of 50 with his last fight being in 2011. I remember telling a guy in person that nobody from the 1984 Olympic Boxing Team should have still been fighting in the 2010s.

I actually have a question about this, not sure if I asked this before. Why was there a demand made for Olympic Style Testing? Was Pacquiao suspected of taking PEDs because of how many weight classes he moved up to compared to when he started or possibly based on Manny's build or did Floyd just generally want this stricter style of testing in all future fights, since at some point, I believe it started with the Mosley fight in 2010, all future opponents were required to agree to it in order for a fight with Floyd to happen?

I've heard that from a lot of fighters too, that they have to have a huge ego to compete on that level, but I don't necessarily think you definitely have to, since there are guys in every sport that have taken both the boastful and humble approaches and have done quite well for themselves in terms of becoming a legend in their sport and being set for life financially. But I see how it can be a requirement for some. I remember hearing a saying somewhere and I forgot who from, but it went something like you have to shoot for the moon and believe you can make it, so you can at least reach the stars. Which I guess would be if you try to score say, 100 points in whatever game, you'll probably at least reach 50-75 and then eventually that goal of 100. I also think that kind of ego though is what makes these guys stick around way too long, not just the money, but the spotlight and them believing they can still do it. I mean, Roy Jones should not still be fighting and I hope James Toney sticks with his retirement, at least that's what I read on his Wikipedia page.

[Anthony342]

I think the heavyweights have to be evaluated differently. You have a much smaller division, so the chances of two ATG's at a time is warped... The exception to this, ironickly, is when the heavy weight division is weak and very talented guys come up to grab low hanging fruit.

I do think competition for the heavyweights is a factor, but ATG x 2 is a bit much to ask for one division. So for example, guys like Schmelling and Conn were tough guys, also Bauer... that was great comp to beat. Tyson has it tougher because he lost to guys who were great fighters consistantly.

Guys like Monzon, Jofre, etc are average sized, and can even fight up and down... the chance that they run into a fellow great is expanded considerably.

Eh maybe, but I don't think they can be looked at too differently. As long as you go for the best and "come to get it" as Rid**** Bowe said about Evander Holyfield when they fought, you should still be ranked pretty highly. Bowe, for instance, the knocks on him were that the Lewis fight didn't happen, which hurt his legacy and that he didn't stay healthy, focused and disciplined. Imagine if the Bowe for Holyfield 1 showed up for every fight? Although, there were rumors about a disagreement over pay, but that publicity stunt with him throwing the WBC belt in the garbage really looked bad.

What is it the kids say these days on internet forums TLDR? As in long story short, as long as they go for the best contenders they have, you can't fault them too much. I know a lot of people criticize Tyson, but he seemed to be a guy that wanted to take on every heavyweight. Only one I ever heard about him maybe not wanting to fight was maybe Foreman? Guys like Tyson, Holyfield and I believe Lewis seemed to want to unify and even be lineal, is possible, which they all were at one point in their careers. And it's good to know at least a few guys in boxing these days still want to do that, like Golovkin or Kovalev. Probably a few others.

TLDR as long as they can make the fights happen against the best in their weight class and beat a least most of them, that's all that really matters. And just like some top fights happening aren't always one fighter's fault, neither is a weak era in their weight class, but still will count against them to some extent.

[Anthony342]

I think the heavyweights have to be evaluated differently. You have a much smaller division, so the chances of two ATG's at a time is warped... The exception to this, ironickly, is when the heavy weight division is weak and very talented guys come up to grab low hanging fruit.

I do think competition for the heavyweights is a factor, but ATG x 2 is a bit much to ask for one division. So for example, guys like Schmelling and Conn were tough guys, also Bauer... that was great comp to beat. Tyson has it tougher because he lost to guys who were great fighters consistantly.

Guys like Monzon, Jofre, etc are average sized, and can even fight up and down... the chance that they run into a fellow great is expanded considerably.

Oh yeah and more thing, as old Lt. Columbo used to say. Isn't Carlos Monzon considered the best middleweight of all time? I believe I've read it's either him or Hagler, with others putting Robinson at the top. Even though Robinson in the GOAT, but it's more often been the first two, since SRR's prime was at welter, but some damn fine past prime wins at middle. Or like one or two no? Lamotta, Turpin, Basilio perhaps?

[billeau2]

Oh yeah and more thing, as old Lt. Columbo used to say. Isn't Carlos Monzon considered the best middleweight of all time? I believe I've read it's either him or Hagler, with others putting Robinson at the top. Even though Robinson in the GOAT, but it's more often been the first two, since SRR's prime was at welter, but some damn fine past prime wins at middle. Or like one or two no? Lamotta, Turpin, Basilio perhaps?

On that account though to say Monzon lacked that victory is a solid point. Monzon is one of a short list of guys in that stratosphere, not the only one. Monzon fought a lot of solid competition and the next step is to look at specifics regarding this competition.

[billeau2]

It's not that I don't think it's possible. It's that there is no definitive proof. The only conditions Randi ever set were to eliminate any possibility or trickery or cheating. Plus he has offered a million dollar reward that psychics have either not been able to collect or, like in the case of Sylvia Browne and I'm sure others, have later backed out of the challenge entirely. So I pretty much have an "I'll believe it when I see it proven" philosophy. And isn't that what science is all about? Having a belief, or what they call a hypothesis or theory, and then proving it to be right or wrong? How come by now no psychic has been able to pick the right lotto numbers every time or who will win the next fight or Super Bowl, guessing exact scores? These have to be explored and answered as well. Like some past posters on here that are thankfully no longer around, I won't go in with an agenda and gladly admit the truth if I'm proven wrong. If it is proven to be a real thing, then maybe it can be a skill one can learn while others could be born with it, like athletic ability.

I believe Uri Geller he exposed on an old Johnny Carson show, but did you ever see where he destroyed James Hydrick. Not only was he proven wrong, but he turned out to be a child diddling creep.

But what I'm saying is, psychic ability, as we understand it, could be a learned skill, using science, which I think is pretty cool. You ever watch the shows The Mentalist or Scorpion? Both shows have characters that are behavioral experts that are great helps in solving crimes.

Anthony

Quote my post next time lol, I just saw this and would have given you a more timely response. The first bolded part is what Randi tends to want people to believe. There have been people who investigated and found that he is not quite as transparent as he claims. He also mocks things he does not understand like Homeopathy.

Science is lot of things. But when we prove something we have to be exact about what we prove. If I want to fry an egg and I am in the snow, it might affect conditions. Psychic phenomena has proven to be very sensative to ambient conditions. Randi proves that under a set of conditions psychic phenomena does not occur. There is a lot of research that shows psychic phenomena as well, and science is often applied under those conditions. Science was really never meant to prove big concepts such as the existence of God, Ghosts, etc. It was meant to test different variables under different conditions to see if they can be falsified.

When has Randi ever gone to a haunted location for example? When has he been to a seance like the ones conducted at Scole? Houdini did go to these things...at least regarding sceances.

Regarding the winning lottery ticket argument, its a similar argument to "why do bad things happen to good people?" It appears as though the spirit world operates under certain rules as well as our world does. This explains why these improvements are not allowed so to speak, to a psychic. The reasearch on the psychic world actually suggests that spirits do not reveal certain things, or say certain things...

Regarding the Johnny Carson show...Actually Carson called Rand, they were old friends, and Randi told him what to do to expose Uri. he told Carson to not let Geller near the props that were to be used on the demonstration. Hydrick was really an easy target. The guy knew how to scam as an idiot savante, but otherwise had the maturity and IQ of a birdbrain.

The last point you bring up is one that is very very complex Anthony. basically if we look at certain old "ways" of thinking in the ancient psychology of China for example, we find the idea of synchronicity. This thinking views all things as relational and a web, Tantric thinking does the same in many ways...and the focus is on the connection between the items, not the items as individual en******. Concurrent with that is the corpus of Russian behaviorism. These two old ways blend seamlessly into a psychic paradigm because they are predictive and a person can indeed master them as skills in telling things about a person.

Do these skills become psychic at some point? Are they simply empirical and all we have, when we think naively that they are psychic? Thats the question I guess. magicians and behavorial experts are indeed excellent at making one believe that these skills are what people think of as psychic. I don't think much of psychics per se, but look at the scole group and one can see proof of psychic phenomena. Have yu seen any info on the scole group?

[DreamFighter]

marciano, sorry. no pick n mix options for him. it was do it, or do not.

[IronDanHamza]

Yeah, I can't disagree with that. I mean, obviously, by my avatar one can tell Marciano's my favorite, but I won't BS myself into thinking he has some kind of awesome resume or anything. I see him more as a guy who did a lot, despite his limitations, both physically, having the shortest reach and not being that fast, plus starting the sport kind of late. And yes, only Pacquiao with Mayweather. And I'll never deny his talent and reflexes. Plus being smart for getting out now. I think I read a quote where his dad even said that if a fighter sticks around long enough, someone is going to get you or beat him or something. I don't know how some of these guys stick around and last so long. I wonder what the record is for oldest age for an ATG boxer's final fight. I believe Larry Holmes was 52, but he fought Butterbean in his only ever 10 round fight. Butterbean was known mostly for 4 rounders, but fought past that a couple of other times, but never even 10 any other time. Duran and Hopkins were 50 or I believe Hopkins was just shy of 50 with his last hurrah. Holyfield was a few months shy of 50 with his last fight being in 2011. I remember telling a guy in person that nobody from the 1984 Olympic Boxing Team should have still been fighting in the 2010s.

I actually have a question about this, not sure if I asked this before. Why was there a demand made for Olympic Style Testing? Was Pacquiao suspected of taking PEDs because of how many weight classes he moved up to compared to when he started or possibly based on Manny's build or did Floyd just generally want this stricter style of testing in all future fights, since at some point, I believe it started with the Mosley fight in 2010, all future opponents were required to agree to it in order for a fight with Floyd to happen?

I've heard that from a lot of fighters too, that they have to have a huge ego to compete on that level, but I don't necessarily think you definitely have to, since there are guys in every sport that have taken both the boastful and humble approaches and have done quite well for themselves in terms of becoming a legend in their sport and being set for life financially. But I see how it can be a requirement for some. I remember hearing a saying somewhere and I forgot who from, but it went something like you have to shoot for the moon and believe you can make it, so you can at least reach the stars. Which I guess would be if you try to score say, 100 points in whatever game, you'll probably at least reach 50-75 and then eventually that goal of 100. I also think that kind of ego though is what makes these guys stick around way too long, not just the money, but the spotlight and them believing they can still do it. I mean, Roy Jones should not still be fighting and I hope James Toney sticks with his retirement, at least that's what I read on his Wikipedia page.

Well orginally I think he definitely suspected Pacquaio was PED's when he requires they both do random blood and urine tests. As did many people.

I don't think he expected him to reject them though. Mind boggling to me to be honest, to reject that and thus have the fight fall through. People seem to want to forget that. But thats another argument all together.

It's funny because at the time it was something never done before but fast forward today so many fights are doing random tests ironically including Pacquaio himself.

From what I'm told the UFC do year round random testing.

So clearly Floyd was on to something in 2010.

[Anthony342]

Anthony

Quote my post next time lol, I just saw this and would have given you a more timely response. The first bolded part is what Randi tends to want people to believe. There have been people who investigated and found that he is not quite as transparent as he claims. He also mocks things he does not understand like Homeopathy.

Science is lot of things. But when we prove something we have to be exact about what we prove. If I want to fry an egg and I am in the snow, it might affect conditions. Psychic phenomena has proven to be very sensative to ambient conditions. Randi proves that under a set of conditions psychic phenomena does not occur. There is a lot of research that shows psychic phenomena as well, and science is often applied under those conditions. Science was really never meant to prove big concepts such as the existence of God, Ghosts, etc. It was meant to test different variables under different conditions to see if they can be falsified.

When has Randi ever gone to a haunted location for example? When has he been to a seance like the ones conducted at Scole? Houdini did go to these things...at least regarding sceances.

Regarding the winning lottery ticket argument, its a similar argument to "why do bad things happen to good people?" It appears as though the spirit world operates under certain rules as well as our world does. This explains why these improvements are not allowed so to speak, to a psychic. The reasearch on the psychic world actually suggests that spirits do not reveal certain things, or say certain things...

Regarding the Johnny Carson show...Actually Carson called Rand, they were old friends, and Randi told him what to do to expose Uri. he told Carson to not let Geller near the props that were to be used on the demonstration. Hydrick was really an easy target. The guy knew how to scam as an idiot savante, but otherwise had the maturity and IQ of a birdbrain.

The last point you bring up is one that is very very complex Anthony. basically if we look at certain old "ways" of thinking in the ancient psychology of China for example, we find the idea of synchronicity. This thinking views all things as relational and a web, Tantric thinking does the same in many ways...and the focus is on the connection between the items, not the items as individual en******. Concurrent with that is the corpus of Russian behaviorism. These two old ways blend seamlessly into a psychic paradigm because they are predictive and a person can indeed master them as skills in telling things about a person.

Do these skills become psychic at some point? Are they simply empirical and all we have, when we think naively that they are psychic? Thats the question I guess. magicians and behavorial experts are indeed excellent at making one believe that these skills are what people think of as psychic. I don't think much of psychics per se, but look at the scole group and one can see proof of psychic phenomena. Have yu seen any info on the scole group?

Well if they don't really reveal those things, then those spirits, if they do exist, are a**holes. No, what, in a nutshell, is the scole group? To quote a recent episode of Young Sheldon then, as you referred to psychics in your post "It's not fact, it's faith", but even with faith, I want to at least know what I have faith in exists, like a person or favorite sports team. I long ago stopped believing in the "invisible man in the sky", as George Carlin called God. Did you hear about the psychic mediums that were easily exposed on a TV show? The producers planted fake facts on their website about a ghost living in this hotel they were invited to and when they claimed to be in contact with it, were told of the ruse. Another show had 10 psychics all get flown to the same spot and try to find their way out of the woods. Only two were able to and that was with a map.

I think making it something supernatural actually takes away from the great human, rather than superhuman, skill involved in being able to tell these things about people. Check out the Mentalist, Scorpion, or the current MacGyver series for examples of such people.

Speaking of Houdini, did you ever hear the story that Harry Houdini gave his wife a password so that when he died, any medium was asked by his widow what the password was and nobody got it. I imagine it must just be a word and not something tricky we use these days for online passwords with numbers and symbols. I remember comedian Jim Norton saying imagine if the password was simply Houdini?

So, until proven otherwise, I consider it excellent observational detective work, sometimes paired with behavioral science aka cold reading. And I think that's even cooler, because it' something we can all learn and not something we can only hope to be born with.