This is a test

[DonTaseMeBrah]

How can you be taken seriously when its obvious you have only used the numbers provided by boxrec as your research? If you want to discredit somebody at least present all the facts. It like you talking about those losses Conn had. When in his career did they happen? Was he injured? Had he eaten that day? When was his last fight? How many amature fights did he have before turning pro? You leave out so much but expect to have your word taken as gospel. Do some research and than come back and argue. Don't just bring that "How can I take a guy serious with losses to guys with such and such a record" crap.

I have no need for anyone to take my word as "gospel." You on the other hand, ive read plenty of your posts, & you front yourself as some kind of boxingscene bert sugar along with poet. Im not knocking you, you know your stuff. But lets not start the labeling. Even your question reeks of "gospel" Taking my word for gospel? i do no such thing, im not the one that started the thread. Im just commenting on it.


I shouldnt have said take seriously, because all those guys had to work hard & i want to respect them & what they did. But when you start downgrading modern fighters, & when we look up records of oldschool fighters because they have no footage that exists you have a problem with it?

WE ARE SUPPOSE TO TAKE ANALYSIS OF BOXING HISTORIANS LIKE BERT SUGAR & YOURSELF AS GOSPEL? What like the bible?

People forget the corruption of boxing back in the days how black fighters got shafted decision after decision to white fighters, how they had a awful hard time getting title shots, how the mob regularly fixed fights.

That's what you call golden era?

Forgive me for not agreeing with you when i see old school greats have wins vs guys that have 20, 30, some even as high as 40 losses.

Almost every single sport the greatest athletes have come in modern times;

otto graham, bart starr, johhny unitas to montana,elway,manning, brady.

mikan,cousy,russell,jerry west, wilt to oscar robertson, dr j, gerving to bird, magic, to hakeem, shaq, jordan,kobe, lebron.

jesse owens to carl lewis to usain bolt.

rod laver to jimmy connors, bjorn borg to agassi to sampras to federer.

But boxing somehow is different?

[JAB5239]

Only seen the one Conn fight against Louis. I accept that he gave Joe all he could handle but I wasn't overly impressed with what I saw to be honest. I consider Pacquiao to be an exceptionally special fighter with a fantastic resume and great skills and accomplishments.

Good enough?

Also, I often just browse in here and vote in the polls nowadays without posting as I am just pretty much over the ridiculous ******ity of these boards, so I apologise for not initially responding with a post.

Dan, we all good. I've always respected your opinions even if I haven't always agreed.

[JAB5239]

Thanks. And it was a good point you were making, and you did expose some ignorance, with people saying "how can i take Conn seriously when he lost to so and so" The circumstances mean everything in boxing, you can have a guy losing to journeyman, but then you can look at the circumstances and see he was really still a good fighter.

Thanks man, thats all I was trying to get at. Be looking forward to more of your posts.

[JAB5239]

I have no need for anyone to take my word as "gospel." You on the other hand, ive read plenty of your posts, & you front yourself as some kind of boxingscene bert sugar along with poet. Im not knocking you, you know your stuff. But lets not start the labeling. Even your question reeks of "gospel" Taking my word for gospel? i do no such thing, im not the one that started the thread. Im just commenting on it.

You also commented that this was a bait thread and that I've said old school fighters are invincible. Neither which is true by the way.

I shouldnt have said take seriously, because all those guys had to work hard & i want to respect them & what they did. But when you start downgrading modern fighters, & when we look up records of oldschool fighters because they have no footage that exists you have a problem with it?

SHOW me where I down graded any modern fighter in this thread or flat out stop lying! and my problem isn't with you looking up records, its with you commenting on them without having all the facts.

WE ARE SUPPOSE TO TAKE ANALYSIS OF BOXING HISTORIANS LIKE BERT SUGAR & YOURSELF AS GOSPEL? What like the bible?

People forget the corruption of boxing back in the days how black fighters got shafted decision after decision to white fighters, how they had a awful hard time getting title shots, how the mob regularly fixed fights.

That's what you call golden era?

Unless you can prove any of Conns fights were fixed, what does any of this have to do with who he fought and how good they were?

Forgive me for not agreeing with you when i see old school greats have wins vs guys that have 20, 30, some even as high as 40 losses.

Like I said, maybe you should do some research before commenting if you want your post to be acknowledged as one that contains all the facts. As of now they dont.

Almost every single sport the greatest athletes have come in modern times;

otto graham, bart starr, johhny unitas to montana,elway,manning, brady.

mikan,cousy,russell,jerry west, wilt to oscar robertson, dr j, gerving to bird, magic, to hakeem, shaq, jordan,kobe, lebron.

jesse owens to carl lewis to usain bolt.

rod laver to jimmy connors, bjorn borg to agassi to sampras to federer.

But boxing somehow is different?

I've already destroyed this sorry opinion so many times in the last two weeks I can't even be bothered to reply to it. Go thru my post history and dig up the post where I've aleady answered this rubbish and than get back to me.

And no, I don't think Im some kind of Bert Sugar or what ever you said. I do know I know a whole helluva lot more than you on this particular subject though. Maybe you should just leave it at that before telling me what I front myself as or bringing color up again.

[DonTaseMeBrah]

I've already destroyed this sorry opinion so many times in the last two weeks I can't even be bothered to reply to it. Go thru my post history and dig up the post where I've aleady answered this rubbish and than get back to me.

And no, I don't think Im some kind of Bert Sugar or what ever you said. I do know I know a whole helluva lot more than you on this particular subject though. Maybe you should just leave it at that before telling me what I front myself as or bringing color up again.

Old school guys have fought other boxers that have 20,30,40 losses. Even sugar ray robinson had a lot of wins like this. Im not saying they are not great fighters. All im saying lets take the oldschool guys analysis up to task just as much as the modern guys get slagged for theirs. You are probably much older than me, Im not saying i know more than you, i told you how old i am, what i am, who i like, & when i started watching boxing.

Just dont accuse me of gospel when you are the one starting a thread with a question like this. Admit it you are a old school guy with a old school bias just by reading a lot of your posts.

[JAB5239]

Old school guys have fought other boxers that have 20,30,40 losses. Even sugar ray robinson had a lot of wins like this. Im not saying they are not great fighters. All im saying lets take the oldschool guys analysis up to task just as much as the modern guys get slagged for theirs. You are probably much older than me, Im not saying i know more than you, i told you how old i am, what i am, who i like, & when i started watching boxing.

Look, I've always liked and respected you on here, so when I tell you that you don't know what you're talking about, don't take it as an insult. Im not a boxing expert nor historian, but I do a lot of research on fighters and fights that interest me. I've done enough of it over the years to know that fighters with multiple losses can be very deceiving. You're looking at the numbers not the circumstances. If you want to take this to PM and talk about it I'd be more than happy to. Im not trying to flame with you or embarrass you, but you are wrong about many things in this instance.

Just dont accuse me of gospel when you are the one starting a thread with a question like this. Admit it you are a old school guy with a old school bias just by reading a lot of your posts.

If this is what you read into it because I am adamant about defending boxing history against ignorance you would be wrong again. I look at everything from more than just one angle. I've taken the time to learn about more than just today. Till about 8 years ago I thought just like you.

[RightCross94]

Thanks man, thats all I was trying to get at. Be looking forward to more of your posts.

Thanks, you too

[DonTaseMeBrah]

If this is what you read into it because I am adamant about defending boxing history against ignorance you would be wrong again. I look at everything from more than just one angle. I've taken the time to learn about more than just today. Till about 8 years ago I thought just like you.

Defending boxing history or defending oldschool fighters? So your 8 years older than me?

Just my opinion 70s,80s,90s, & 00s > 20s,30s,40s,50s,60s.

All arguments aside, e-peace brah. e-peace.

[JAB5239]

Defending boxing history or defending oldschool fighters? So your 8 years older than me?

Just my opinion 70s,80s,90s, & 00s > 20s,30s,40s,50s,60s.

All arguments aside, e-peace brah. e-peace.

Im actually 12 years older than you. But until I stopped fighting myself, I thought the modern guys were better without having all the facts. Having an opinion is fine, but that doesn't necessarily make it a fact. Peace.