The Greatest...

First topic message reminder :

OK.

There was a post from D4 saying that if Khan became a 5-weight world champ he'd be the greatest Briton ever. I agree he'd be up there - but IMO Fitzsimmons, Lewis and Wilde are still ahead of him.

SRR is almost universally accepted to be the greatest fighter of all time. Or Burley. Or Langford. Or Jackson (just for Dave). Or Ali.

Other sports still allow modern fighters to achieve "greatness" - Tendulkar, Federer for example. But can a modern day boxer become accepted to be "the greatest".

2 questions:

1. Could Manny become "the greatest"? Who (ideal world) does he need to beat?

2. We have an undefeated world champion called 606face. 606face has just won a title at 140 - but reckons he can be effective all the way to light middle - he ways 152 on fight night and rehydrates well. Who in the current scene does 606face need to beat to be "the greatest". Even if he beats everyone - could he still become no.1?

azania wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:Older fighters are seen through rose tinted glasses, and because they fought every other week that is seen as a plus.

I would go for quality over quantity.

People say this heavyweight era is week but I can guarantee you that Fitz would not have near the heavyweight title if he fought in this era, even with the 4 belts, but look how highly he is rated.

Wow. I agree with every word.

Which says more about your mind than the validity of the statement.

Fitzsimmons is one of the greatest boxers the world has ever seen. The ultimate p4p fighter. People who sparred with him when he was old were still impressed by his ability. People who saw him still rated him against later greats.

Yet you disagree.

You complain that they were fighting every week - but there were more people to beat. More quality around.

Right. Back to incidence of low back pain. Which is what this debate has given me...

Is there a debate about old timers without my involvement?

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:Older fighters are seen through rose tinted glasses, and because they fought every other week that is seen as a plus.

I would go for quality over quantity.

People say this heavyweight era is week but I can guarantee you that Fitz would not have near the heavyweight title if he fought in this era, even with the 4 belts, but look how highly he is rated.

Wow. I agree with every word.

Which says more about your mind than the validity of the statement.

Fitzsimmons is one of the greatest boxers the world has ever seen. The ultimate p4p fighter. People who sparred with him when he was old were still impressed by his ability. People who saw him still rated him against later greats.

Yet you disagree.

You complain that they were fighting every week - but there were more people to beat. More quality around.

Right. Back to incidence of low back pain. Which is what this debate has given me...

Fitz was good in his era. Who is questioning that? But transport him to today and he would be carrying the buckets. Differet styles, different game altogether. In a H2H against most Midweights and above he loses. In ATG status, he wins hands down.

D1
D2
D3
Azania

prettyboy1304 wrote:D1
D2
D3
Azania

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:D1
D2
D3
Azania

You're not shocked you knew it was coming.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:Older fighters are seen through rose tinted glasses, and because they fought every other week that is seen as a plus.

I would go for quality over quantity.

People say this heavyweight era is week but I can guarantee you that Fitz would not have near the heavyweight title if he fought in this era, even with the 4 belts, but look how highly he is rated.

Wow. I agree with every word.

Which says more about your mind than the validity of the statement.

Fitzsimmons is one of the greatest boxers the world has ever seen. The ultimate p4p fighter. People who sparred with him when he was old were still impressed by his ability. People who saw him still rated him against later greats.

Yet you disagree.

You complain that they were fighting every week - but there were more people to beat. More quality around.

Right. Back to incidence of low back pain. Which is what this debate has given me...

Look at his heavyweight record, is it really that good? and thats why Haye and the Klits make easy work of him and this is a weak era for heavyweights.

I never said he wasn't a great boxer but do you really think he would be world heavyweight champion if he fought now.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:D1
D2
D3
Azania

You're not shocked you knew it was coming.

There's a big difference. My opinions are based on emperical evidence and FACTS. FACT

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:D1
D2
D3
Azania

You're not shocked you knew it was coming.

There's a big difference. My opinions are based on emperical evidence and FACTS. FACT

Az at what point in time do fighters become old timers and not as good. The 50's?

Fighters of yesteryear do get looked upon with rose tinted glasses, this is highlighted by the answers to Oxxy question. If a fighter were to clean out light welter, welter, and light middle, they would still not get into the top 30 of some of you.

prettyboy1304 wrote:Az at what point in time do fighters become old timers and not as good. The 50's?

I would say around the 1950s where techniques were perfected. But with better facilities and better science focussing around sports medicine etc it is still improving. Some people seem to be under the impression that all other sports have seen improvements in performance aided by science, except for boxing. That simply is impossible imo.

D4thincarnation wrote:Fighters of yesteryear do get looked upon with rose tinted glasses, this is highlighted by the answers to Oxxy question. If a fighter were to clean out light welter, welter, and light middle, they would still not get into the top 30 of some of you.

I agree about the rose tinted glasses stuff to a point it happens in every sport. As for top 30 stuff I have Manny and Floyd in my top 25.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:Fighters of yesteryear do get looked upon with rose tinted glasses, this is highlighted by the answers to Oxxy question. If a fighter were to clean out light welter, welter, and light middle, they would still not get into the top 30 of some of you.

I agree about the rose tinted glasses stuff to a point it happens in every sport. As for top 30 stuff I have Manny and Floyd in my top 25.

Yes but as Oxxy pointed out, other sports have Federer/Nadal, Woods, Bolt, Messi, O'Sullivan, Taylor, Schumacher and Tendulkar, who are consider one of the greatest if not the greatest in there sports, while boxing circles seem to think boxing had its prime in the 1940s and it has been going downhill ever since.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:Fighters of yesteryear do get looked upon with rose tinted glasses, this is highlighted by the answers to Oxxy question. If a fighter were to clean out light welter, welter, and light middle, they would still not get into the top 30 of some of you.

I agree about the rose tinted glasses stuff to a point it happens in every sport. As for top 30 stuff I have Manny and Floyd in my top 25.

I'd have floyd in my top 30 and Paq top 60.

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:Fighters of yesteryear do get looked upon with rose tinted glasses, this is highlighted by the answers to Oxxy question. If a fighter were to clean out light welter, welter, and light middle, they would still not get into the top 30 of some of you.

I agree about the rose tinted glasses stuff to a point it happens in every sport. As for top 30 stuff I have Manny and Floyd in my top 25.

Yes but as Oxxy pointed out, other sports have Federer/Nadal, Woods, Bolt, Messi, O'Sullivan, Taylor, Schumacher and Tendulkar, who are consider one of the greatest if not the greatest in there sports, while boxing circles seem to think boxing had its prime in the 1940s and it has been going downhill ever since.

Tennis is down to winning the same tournaments as the old guys the same goes for golf, darts, snooker and F!. Bolt is considered the best because he is the fastest. Messi gets it held against him that he doesn't do it for Argentina. I hate cricket so know nothing about it. Boxing has had it's peak the politics and money grabbing in the game just now is killing it.

D4thincarnation wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:Older fighters are seen through rose tinted glasses, and because they fought every other week that is seen as a plus.

I would go for quality over quantity.

People say this heavyweight era is week but I can guarantee you that Fitz would not have near the heavyweight title if he fought in this era, even with the 4 belts, but look how highly he is rated.

Wow. I agree with every word.

Which says more about your mind than the validity of the statement.

Fitzsimmons is one of the greatest boxers the world has ever seen. The ultimate p4p fighter. People who sparred with him when he was old were still impressed by his ability. People who saw him still rated him against later greats.

Yet you disagree.

You complain that they were fighting every week - but there were more people to beat. More quality around.

Right. Back to incidence of low back pain. Which is what this debate has given me...

Look at his heavyweight record, is it really that good? and thats why Haye and the Klits make easy work of him and this is a weak era for heavyweights.

I never said he wasn't a great boxer but do you really think he would be world heavyweight champion if he fought now.

You need to get your facts straight.

Fitzsimmons is rarely rated at heavyweight. Fleischer, in 1958, rated him highly, but most historians don't place him at heavyweight, preferring to assess him in p4p terms. IBRO have him at 20 among its heavyweights, and I dare say that when the Sun sets on Vitali Klitschko's career they might place him in a top twenty, thus nudging Fitz out.

Following your ' logic ( ?? ) ' would Manny Pacquiao be a trinket holder at lightmiddle if McCallum, Hearns or Griffith were around now ?

Fitz was at best a natural middle or by todays multi divisions would have been able to make super middle with what I imagine would be relative ease. He weighed in at 151 when winning the middle title. the fact that he could even consider mixing with the heavies and go on to do so with some decent results speaks volumes of his talents and powers.

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:Older fighters are seen through rose tinted glasses, and because they fought every other week that is seen as a plus.

I would go for quality over quantity.

People say this heavyweight era is week but I can guarantee you that Fitz would not have near the heavyweight title if he fought in this era, even with the 4 belts, but look how highly he is rated.

Wow. I agree with every word.

Which says more about your mind than the validity of the statement.

Fitzsimmons is one of the greatest boxers the world has ever seen. The ultimate p4p fighter. People who sparred with him when he was old were still impressed by his ability. People who saw him still rated him against later greats.

Yet you disagree.

You complain that they were fighting every week - but there were more people to beat. More quality around.

Right. Back to incidence of low back pain. Which is what this debate has given me...

Look at his heavyweight record, is it really that good? and thats why Haye and the Klits make easy work of him and this is a weak era for heavyweights.

I never said he wasn't a great boxer but do you really think he would be world heavyweight champion if he fought now.

You need to get your facts straight.

Fitzsimmons is rarely rated at heavyweight. Fleischer, in 1958, rated him highly, but most historians don't place him at heavyweight, preferring to assess him in p4p terms. IBRO have him at 20 among its heavyweights, and I dare say that when the Sun sets on Vitali Klitschko's career they might place him in a top twenty, thus nudging Fitz out.

Following your ' logic ( ?? ) ' would Manny Pacquiao be a trinket holder at lightmiddle if McCallum, Hearns or Griffith were around now ?

I never said he was rated at heavy, but just looked at with rose tinted specs, this was proved when some posters think he would be Haye and the Klits, even though his heavyweight record is poor.

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:Older fighters are seen through rose tinted glasses, and because they fought every other week that is seen as a plus.

I would go for quality over quantity.

People say this heavyweight era is week but I can guarantee you that Fitz would not have near the heavyweight title if he fought in this era, even with the 4 belts, but look how highly he is rated.

Wow. I agree with every word.

Which says more about your mind than the validity of the statement.

Fitzsimmons is one of the greatest boxers the world has ever seen. The ultimate p4p fighter. People who sparred with him when he was old were still impressed by his ability. People who saw him still rated him against later greats.

Yet you disagree.

You complain that they were fighting every week - but there were more people to beat. More quality around.

Right. Back to incidence of low back pain. Which is what this debate has given me...

Look at his heavyweight record, is it really that good? and thats why Haye and the Klits make easy work of him and this is a weak era for heavyweights.

I never said he wasn't a great boxer but do you really think he would be world heavyweight champion if he fought now.

You need to get your facts straight.

Fitzsimmons is rarely rated at heavyweight. Fleischer, in 1958, rated him highly, but most historians don't place him at heavyweight, preferring to assess him in p4p terms. IBRO have him at 20 among its heavyweights, and I dare say that when the Sun sets on Vitali Klitschko's career they might place him in a top twenty, thus nudging Fitz out.

Following your ' logic ( ?? ) ' would Manny Pacquiao be a trinket holder at lightmiddle if McCallum, Hearns or Griffith were around now ?

I never said he was rated at heavy, but just looked at with rose tinted specs, this was proved when some posters think he would be Haye and the Klits, even though his heavyweight record is poor.

You mean, like some believe Pacquiao would beat McCallum, Hearns or Griffith ?

D4 if you're basing that arguement on record then Haye has proved nothing at HW.

If anyone seriously thinks Fitz can beat Haye they need to see a shrink pdq. He wouldn't even get past Martinez. Floyd would give him a boxing lesson. He KO's Pac though.

azania wrote:If anyone seriously thinks Fitz can beat Haye they need to see a shrink pdq. He wouldn't even get past Martinez. Floyd would give him a boxing lesson. He KO's Pac though.

Wouldn't get past Martinez ?

I see.

azania wrote:If anyone seriously thinks Fitz can beat Haye they need to see a shrink pdq. He wouldn't even get past Martinez. Floyd would give him a boxing lesson. He KO's Pac though.

What has Haye proved at HW. Valuev was big slow and absoultely awful. Ruiz was just awful and Fraudley was Fraudley hardly a great record. You can't base you're Haye beat Fitz at HW arguement on records because neither has an impressive won at HW.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:If anyone seriously thinks Fitz can beat Haye they need to see a shrink pdq. He wouldn't even get past Martinez. Floyd would give him a boxing lesson. He KO's Pac though.

Wouldn't get past Martinez ?

I see.

Fitz was a middleweight at best. A better blacksmith than boxer. His skill set was poor at best. Yes he was an innovator. His solar plexus punch was a killer. But back then did doctors even know what the solar plexus was? You cant compare then and now. Two different sports. The old style of Fitz will not wash in today's game.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:If anyone seriously thinks Fitz can beat Haye they need to see a shrink pdq. He wouldn't even get past Martinez. Floyd would give him a boxing lesson. He KO's Pac though.

What has Haye proved at HW. Valuev was big slow and absoultely awful. Ruiz was just awful and Fraudley was Fraudley hardly a great record. You can't base you're Haye beat Fitz at HW arguement on records because neither has an impressive won at HW.

Haye has proved nothing at HW. But do you seriously belioeve that any boxer with the skillset of Fitz would pose a threat to Haye?

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:If anyone seriously thinks Fitz can beat Haye they need to see a shrink pdq. He wouldn't even get past Martinez. Floyd would give him a boxing lesson. He KO's Pac though.

What has Haye proved at HW. Valuev was big slow and absoultely awful. Ruiz was just awful and Fraudley was Fraudley hardly a great record. You can't base you're Haye beat Fitz at HW arguement on records because neither has an impressive won at HW.

Haye has proved nothing at HW. But do you seriously belioeve that any boxer with the skillset of Fitz would pose a threat to Haye?

Yeah he just became champion at his 3rd fight at the weight and beat an ex world champion, but that is nothing in some peoples eyes.

Do you really think a guy like Fitz weight around 170lbs is going to take Haye's shots?

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:If anyone seriously thinks Fitz can beat Haye they need to see a shrink pdq. He wouldn't even get past Martinez. Floyd would give him a boxing lesson. He KO's Pac though.

Wouldn't get past Martinez ?

I see.

Fitz was a middleweight at best. A better blacksmith than boxer. His skill set was poor at best. Yes he was an innovator. His solar plexus punch was a killer. But back then did doctors even know what the solar plexus was? You cant compare then and now. Two different sports. The old style of Fitz will not wash in today's game.

How would you know ?

Do you know ANYTHING about him ? Seen his fights ? Read the newspaper accounts ? Read the opinions of those who saw him and lived into the Louis years ?

Your opinions of the old timers has ZERO to do with boxing and EVERYTHING to do with a prejudicial and unsubstantiated theory that all old timers were rubbish.

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:If anyone seriously thinks Fitz can beat Haye they need to see a shrink pdq. He wouldn't even get past Martinez. Floyd would give him a boxing lesson. He KO's Pac though.

What has Haye proved at HW. Valuev was big slow and absoultely awful. Ruiz was just awful and Fraudley was Fraudley hardly a great record. You can't base you're Haye beat Fitz at HW arguement on records because neither has an impressive won at HW.

Haye has proved nothing at HW. But do you seriously belioeve that any boxer with the skillset of Fitz would pose a threat to Haye?

Yeah he just became champion at his 3rd fight at the weight and beat an ex world champion, but that is nothing in some peoples eyes.

Do you really think a guy like Fitz weight around 170lbs is going to take Haye's shots?

Again, nobody in his right mind assesses Fitz at heavyweight, just as nobody in his right mind would assess Pacquiao at lightmiddle.

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:If anyone seriously thinks Fitz can beat Haye they need to see a shrink pdq. He wouldn't even get past Martinez. Floyd would give him a boxing lesson. He KO's Pac though.

What has Haye proved at HW. Valuev was big slow and absoultely awful. Ruiz was just awful and Fraudley was Fraudley hardly a great record. You can't base you're Haye beat Fitz at HW arguement on records because neither has an impressive won at HW.

Haye has proved nothing at HW. But do you seriously belioeve that any boxer with the skillset of Fitz would pose a threat to Haye?

Yeah he just became champion at his 3rd fight at the weight and beat an ex world champion, but that is nothing in some peoples eyes.

Do you really think a guy like Fitz weight around 170lbs is going to take Haye's shots?

I never said Fitz would beat Haye at HW. I said using Hayes record to prove he beats Fitz is ridiculous because he hasn't fought a good HW.

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:If anyone seriously thinks Fitz can beat Haye they need to see a shrink pdq. He wouldn't even get past Martinez. Floyd would give him a boxing lesson. He KO's Pac though.

What has Haye proved at HW. Valuev was big slow and absoultely awful. Ruiz was just awful and Fraudley was Fraudley hardly a great record. You can't base you're Haye beat Fitz at HW arguement on records because neither has an impressive won at HW.

Haye has proved nothing at HW. But do you seriously belioeve that any boxer with the skillset of Fitz would pose a threat to Haye?

Yeah he just became champion at his 3rd fight at the weight and beat an ex world champion, but that is nothing in some peoples eyes.

Do you really think a guy like Fitz weight around 170lbs is going to take Haye's shots?

Again, nobody in his right mind assesses Fitz at heavyweight, just as nobody in his right mind would assess Pacquiao at lightmiddle.

Well there are a few people not in there right mind.

And what is your obsession with Pacquiao

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:If anyone seriously thinks Fitz can beat Haye they need to see a shrink pdq. He wouldn't even get past Martinez. Floyd would give him a boxing lesson. He KO's Pac though.

Wouldn't get past Martinez ?

I see.

Fitz was a middleweight at best. A better blacksmith than boxer. His skill set was poor at best. Yes he was an innovator. His solar plexus punch was a killer. But back then did doctors even know what the solar plexus was? You cant compare then and now. Two different sports. The old style of Fitz will not wash in today's game.

How would you know ?

Do you know ANYTHING about him ? Seen his fights ? Read the newspaper accounts ? Read the opinions of those who saw him and lived into the Louis years ?

Your opinions of the old timers has ZERO to do with boxing and EVERYTHING to do with a prejudicial and unsubstantiated theory that all old timers were rubbish.

I have never said old timers were rubbish. They were good in their time. The skillsets of 100 years ago cannot be compared to today. What he achieved was simply amazing. It will never be repeated regardless of who counts RJJ as a bonafide world champ. His wins at heavy also shows up the lack of talent in boxing at the time compared to later years.

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:If anyone seriously thinks Fitz can beat Haye they need to see a shrink pdq. He wouldn't even get past Martinez. Floyd would give him a boxing lesson. He KO's Pac though.

What has Haye proved at HW. Valuev was big slow and absoultely awful. Ruiz was just awful and Fraudley was Fraudley hardly a great record. You can't base you're Haye beat Fitz at HW arguement on records because neither has an impressive won at HW.

Haye has proved nothing at HW. But do you seriously belioeve that any boxer with the skillset of Fitz would pose a threat to Haye?

Yeah he just became champion at his 3rd fight at the weight and beat an ex world champion, but that is nothing in some peoples eyes.

Do you really think a guy like Fitz weight around 170lbs is going to take Haye's shots?

Again, nobody in his right mind assesses Fitz at heavyweight, just as nobody in his right mind would assess Pacquiao at lightmiddle.

Well there are a few people not in there right mind.

And what is your obsession with Pacquiao

Haha !

When in Rome, mate.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:If anyone seriously thinks Fitz can beat Haye they need to see a shrink pdq. He wouldn't even get past Martinez. Floyd would give him a boxing lesson. He KO's Pac though.

Wouldn't get past Martinez ?

I see.

Fitz was a middleweight at best. A better blacksmith than boxer. His skill set was poor at best. Yes he was an innovator. His solar plexus punch was a killer. But back then did doctors even know what the solar plexus was? You cant compare then and now. Two different sports. The old style of Fitz will not wash in today's game.

How would you know ?

Do you know ANYTHING about him ? Seen his fights ? Read the newspaper accounts ? Read the opinions of those who saw him and lived into the Louis years ?

Your opinions of the old timers has ZERO to do with boxing and EVERYTHING to do with a prejudicial and unsubstantiated theory that all old timers were rubbish.

I have never said old timers were rubbish. They were good in their time. The skillsets of 100 years ago cannot be compared to today. What he achieved was simply amazing. It will never be repeated regardless of who counts RJJ as a bonafide world champ. His wins at heavy also shows up the lack of talent in boxing at the time compared to later years.

As I say, you don't know what you're talking about. Joe Gans, acknowledged by just about everybody as a marvellously skilled fighter, spent hour upon hour studying Fitzsimmons' moves and trying to replicate them.

Why don't you stick to what you know instead of making ludicrous statements such as Fitz being a better blacksmith than boxer ?

Expert blacksmith as well, are you ? Did you see Fitz at the anvil ?

Time for your bedtime creatine, methinks.

It was widely agreed and is now universally accepted on here, that Roy Jones jr is the best ever boxer.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:It was widely agreed and is now universally accepted on here, that Roy Jones jr is the best ever boxer.

Your influence is far reaching, Juke.

It makes me laugh, because of a fighter of today does have 100+ fights that they could be held against them when talking about the greatest fighters.

Different times.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:It was widely agreed and is now universally accepted on here, that Roy Jones jr is the best ever boxer.

Guess you never heard of Manny Pacquiao

D4thincarnation wrote:It makes me laugh, because of a fighter of today does have 100+ fights that they could be held against them when talking about the greatest fighters.

Different times.

So why does just about everybody agree that Ali, Leonard and Duran are ATG top twenty, then ?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:It was widely agreed and is now universally accepted on here, that Roy Jones jr is the best ever boxer.

Only because it was proven that Greb was just a hoax, invented by an over imaginative journalist from Pittsburgh.

manos de piedra wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:It was widely agreed and is now universally accepted on here, that Roy Jones jr is the best ever boxer.

Only because it was proven that Greb was just a hoax, invented by an over imaginative journalist from Pittsburgh.

Nice one. Made me chuckle.

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:It makes me laugh, because of a fighter of today does have 100+ fights that they could be held against them when talking about the greatest fighters.

Different times.

So why does just about everybody agree that Ali, Leonard and Duran are ATG top twenty, then ?

They may well do, but how many time you have see the argument, this fighter had 100-200 wins, (mostly against club fighters) and until a modern day fighter can do that they can't be held in the same regard.

Well if you're fighting guys dragged out of a pub and in travelling circuses, you can have 100+ fights.

Call them world champs and ATGs also.

azania wrote:Well if you're fighting guys dragged out of a pub and in travelling circuses, you can have 100+ fights.

Call them world champs and ATGs also.

Somebody should drag you into one.

Every circus could do with an extra clown.

Nowadays boxer spar rather than take these easy fights.

D4thincarnation wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:It was widely agreed and is now universally accepted on here, that Roy Jones jr is the best ever boxer.

Guess you never heard of Manny Pacquiao

Heard of him??? We went to the same rehab.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Well if you're fighting guys dragged out of a pub and in travelling circuses, you can have 100+ fights.

Call them world champs and ATGs also.

Somebody should drag you into one.

Every circus could do with an extra clown.

I should go to the pub really.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Well if you're fighting guys dragged out of a pub and in travelling circuses, you can have 100+ fights.

Call them world champs and ATGs also.

Somebody should drag you into one.

Every circus could do with an extra clown.

Every since the animal rights movement on there crusade circuses have been on the decline.

They were much better in the old days though as I'm sure you could vouch

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Well if you're fighting guys dragged out of a pub and in travelling circuses, you can have 100+ fights.

Call them world champs and ATGs also.

Somebody should drag you into one.

Every circus could do with an extra clown.

I should go to the pub really.

I though you were down there with some of the stuff you have been writing.

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Well if you're fighting guys dragged out of a pub and in travelling circuses, you can have 100+ fights.

Call them world champs and ATGs also.

Somebody should drag you into one.

Every circus could do with an extra clown.

Every since the animal rights movement on there crusade circuses have been on the decline.

They were much better in the old days though as I'm sure you could vouch

Never liked them, D4.

I love animals. Much more sensible than many people.