Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chronology of 90’s Pound For Pound Race

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by Stuart_boxer View Post
    Is that an inside joke?
    - -1989 that launched the 90s with Tyson half in the pen and half oh.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by QueensburyRules View Post
      - -1989 that launched the 90s with Tyson half in the pen and half oh.
      I’m not dis*****g that he wasn’t but it was the “read it and weep” part that confused me.

      Seemed to make sense if you were a lone Tyson fan on the forum.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Stuart_boxer View Post
        I’m not dis*****g that he wasn’t but it was the “read it and weep” part that confused me.

        Seemed to make sense if you were a lone Tyson fan on the forum.
        - -Doth the bell toll for thee?

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Stuart_boxer View Post
          I’m not dis*****g that he wasn’t but it was the “read it and weep” part that confused me.

          Seemed to make sense if you were a lone Tyson fan on the forum.
          Ha!

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by Stuart_boxer View Post
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MqTBsHMGKM&app=desktop

            My video based on the Ring Magazine rankings.

            Let me know what you think.

            For those of you who aren't interested in the video but are interested in the debate the list of the Ring rankings went;

            1990 - Julio Cesar Chavez

            1991 - Julio Cesar Chavez

            1992 - Julio Cesar Chavez

            1993 - Pernell Whittaker

            1994 - Pernell Whittaker

            1995 - Pernell Whittaker

            1996 - Roy Jones

            1997 - Oscar De La Hoya

            1998 - Oscar De La Hoya

            1999 - Roy Jones
            Great work.

            Comment


            • #16
              The delivery is all very lifeless to be honest and that's going to put a lot of people off. Doing voiceover analysis is not as easy as many people assume. It takes great delivery in the way that actors need great delivery. You really need to work on that as to be honest, you come across as having the personality of a loaf of bread. It's something I would be interested in listening to, if you were more engaging and interesting. What's everybody else's thoughts on my points here?

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by cally83 View Post
                The delivery is all very lifeless to be honest and that's going to put a lot of people off. Doing voiceover analysis is not as easy as many people assume. It takes great delivery in the way that actors need great delivery. You really need to work on that as to be honest, you come across as having the personality of a loaf of bread. It's something I would be interested in listening to, if you were more engaging and interesting. What's everybody else's thoughts on my points here?
                I had no problem with the straight forward tone and presentation.

                It was sort of like watching a documentary.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by cally83 View Post
                  The delivery is all very lifeless to be honest and that's going to put a lot of people off. Doing voiceover analysis is not as easy as many people assume. It takes great delivery in the way that actors need great delivery. You really need to work on that as to be honest, you come across as having the personality of a loaf of bread. It's something I would be interested in listening to, if you were more engaging and interesting. What's everybody else's thoughts on my points here?
                  Unless I am watching comedy or perhaps ****, I value content over delivery. in the academy the delivery for most scholars is droll, and most of them can't write. However here is a story for you:

                  We went to a lecture, it was the late Paul Wolf who happened to be a Kantian Moral philosopher who became an anarchist after reading Kant, from a Libertarian. Mr wolf, as the biography written before the lecture said "was born and raised in Brooklyn New York..." And so it was this bifocaled smallish man walked out to the podium and we all got ready for the steady drone that no doubt would follow: He clears his throat and starts:

                  in a word...It was amazing!!! People can boast many things they have experienced in the academy...But you aint lived til youve heard Immanuel Kant quoted in all his glory, with all the terms that one needs to know to read his works and understand his tact, IN A HARD BROOKLYN ACCENT!!!!
                  Nash out Nash out likes this.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Stuart_boxer View Post

                    Im not dis*****g that he wasnt but it was the read it and weep part that confused me.

                    Seemed to make sense if you were a lone Tyson fan on the forum.
                    - - Tyson in his day dominated the internet buzz, even in his long, spiraling painfully recorded downfall until he retired with his reputation in tatters.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP