Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-09-2007, 09:18 PM   #61
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo
OLD FOGEY]On who was rated and who was not--I specifically stated that according to the Boxing Register, Foreman did not defeat any opponent rated when he fought him. That is true. The Boxing Register is the International Boxing Hall of Fame Official Record Book. It mentions if a fighters opponents were Hall of Famers, were ever champions, or were rated at the time the two men fought. How do they decide if someone was rated? Do they use the Ring Magazine ratings? considering them more objective? Do they use a consensus, a fighter must be rated by more than half of the rating bodies? I don't know.
I think the information I am putting is correct or I would not put it forward. Obviously, erroneous information would merely undercut my arguements, a point you are making right now. I do make mistakes, though.
Rodriguez, Savarese, stewart and Certainly Moorer, were rated by the governing bodies when they fought Foreman. This is not an unreasonbale claim.


With all due respect, there are way too many maybe's and probably's to consider this as a valid response. ( not being flipant, only honest )



The fact that Foreman's win over Moorer, and Holmes win over Mercer, rank above Willard's win over Johnson, is a big deal in my opinion. Foreman won the lineal heavyweight championship of the world over an undefeated Moorer, who just defeated an all time great in Evander Holyfield. Holmes beat Ray Mercer, who was an undefeated contender and projected future world champ. I don't know anything about Floyd Johnson, but it doesn't sound like you're making him out to be anything of the sort. What's more, I disagree with your claim that it was unimportant that willard didn't have a slew of wins against second raters. By fighting such profiles, Holmes and Foreman earned their rights to face the better opponents, rather than just sitting back and waiting for an offer. In the mean time, they were staying active, and proving that they at least still had some skills and abilties to get in there and fight. Not to start an entirely different subject, but frankly, I think Foreman's and Holme's title shot(s) were more justified than Jeffries' against Johnson.



Moorer was more than just a " close to top man " He was undefeated in 35 fights, and holding the lineal heavyweight title. And Foreman, won it more than convincingly. Also, I personally feel that Foreman's prescence was just one part of telling the story as to how the 70's were more impressive than the 90's.

A. You had two 40+ foremer champions who breached the top ten, despite extended layoffs, and one of whom managed to win a world title.

B. You had two fighters who began their careers as a lightheavyweight and cruiserweight. Both of became world champions, and one whom was deamed as the best fighter of the decade.

C. You had multiple match-ups that were never made, particularly Lewis vs Bowe which was a huge deficit in the mix of things, given that they were viewed as the best heavyweights in the divison in 1992. It would have been a lot like Ali and Frazier never meeting, or Tyson never fighting Spinks for that matter. Plus you had the would be fight of Holyfield-Tyson in 1990, only these guys didn't meet until 1996, by which time, both men had long lost their ora's of incvincibilty and were well past their primes. The list goes on and on, and in fact, I've given it to you before.

D. You had one of the divisions cheif participants, ( Mike Tyson ) who was abscent for a good chunk of the decade. This example does not compare to Ali's abscence during the turn of the decade between 1967 and 1970, as he was present for the entire decade of the 70's.

E. You had two good fighters, but not great, who managed to pull off monumental upsets over what many considered to be invincible champions. Oliver Mccall Ko'd Lennox Lewis in 1994, and Buster Douglas Ko'd Mike Tyson in 1990. The only comparable incident that happened in the 70's, was Ali losing to Spinks, and that was a result of age, which was not the case in the previously listed examples.


His last fight had been a loss to Morrison 17 months earlier. Johnson obviously got no such break and neither did Willard.
[/quote]

Most of this was addressed in one of the above paragraphs. Willard was not an active fighting former champion as you clearly stated yourself. While Holmes and Foreman fought men who could arguably categorized as club fighters/jourmeyman/trial hoarses and tomato cans, Johnson clearly fought worse. Name one fighter who Holmes or Foreman fought who came in with credentials of 0-0-0. I guarantee that you'll find none, whereas Johnson fought multiple.[/quote]

1. I don't agree that Johnson fought worse opposition. Cowler, Roper, Homer Smith, and Pat Lester were fringe contenders or trial horses. Jack Thompson had impressive wins over men like Langford and George Godfrey, Joe Boykin had an impressive win over Angel Rodriguez and a draw with Erminio Spalla. The record keeping of that era was so spotty that saying someone had no fights is not convincing to me. How many men who had never fought would jump into the ring with Johnson?

2. Willard did defeat a man considered a potential future champion.

3. There were no ratings, but I think Johnson and Willard would also have breached the top ten.

4. In your comparision of the seventies and the nineties, I find it odd that you focus on Holyfield and Moorer starting as lightheavies. Spinks won his gold medal in 1976 as a lightheavy at 23 years of age.

5. No matter how it is spliced and spun, Leon Spinks was a champion back in the seventies and all champions of the nineties were better.

6. I don't see why the upsets by McCall and Douglas prove the division weak. Why don't they show depth of talent?

7. Foreman and Holmes did not defeat Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield, or Tyson, the four best fighters of the era. The fact that many desirable matchups were not made worked to the advantage of the old champions as they could hang around fighting fringe fighters or worse and then use their box-office pull to leverage a title fight without ever fighting the top man, except for Holyfield, who beat them both.

8. Foreman and Holmes earned their shots at Holyfield. Their second title fights, against Moorer and McCall, were not earned.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-10-2007, 08:23 AM   #62
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,417
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
1. I don't agree that Johnson fought worse opposition. Cowler, Roper, Homer Smith, and Pat Lester were fringe contenders or trial horses. Jack Thompson had impressive wins over men like Langford and George Godfrey, Joe Boykin had an impressive win over Angel Rodriguez and a draw with Erminio Spalla. The record keeping of that era was so spotty that saying someone had no fights is not convincing to me. How many men who had never fought would jump into the ring with Johnson?
Johnson's wins over the men you listed were still not comparable to Foreman's win's over Moorer, Stewart, Rodriguez, and some of the others. What's more, it's pure speculation that the men he fought with records of 0-0-0, had more fights.

Quote:
2. Willard did defeat a man considered a potential future champion.
A single guy, Wheras Holmes and Foreman arguably had whole second craeers.

Quote:
3. There were no ratings, but I think Johnson and Willard would also have breached the top ten.
THis is once again speculation, what Holmes and Foreman did was for real.

Quote:
4. In your comparision of the seventies and the nineties, I find it odd that you focus on Holyfield and Moorer starting as lightheavies. Spinks won his gold medal in 1976 as a lightheavy at 23 years of age.
Ah, but here's the big difference. Leon Spinks was not viewed by anyone as being one of the best heavyweights of the period, wheras Holyfield was considered as the best of the 90's ,and Moorer probably one of the top 5 or 6. Leon also turned pro as a heavyweight wheras Holyfield and Moorer fought a good portion of their early careers in lighter divisions, and were highly marketed to be future heavyweight champs. Also, Leon's upset over ALi came at the end of the decade, when most of the era's key players were gone, and Ali past his prime.


Quote:
5. No matter how it is spliced and spun, Leon Spinks was a champion back in the seventies and all champions of the nineties were better.
This has been explained on a multitude of occassions, and I fear probably will have to be again. Please read the above response.

6. I don't see why the upsets by McCall and Douglas prove the division weak. Why don't they show depth of talent?

The best heavyweights of the 70's were Ali Foreman and Frazier. None of whom were upset by fighters, who people considered to be journeyman or fringe contenders. The only possible exception was Leon Spink's upset over Ali, but again this happened when Ali's career was in it's twilight and the decade ending. In 1990, Mike Tyson was in his prime and deemed invincible. He lost to a good fighter, but one whom many considered second rate, and it was a loss that went unavenged. In 1994, Lewis was similarly favored agains MCcall, and lost in similar proportion. Sure he avenged the loss, but did you see that fight that night? I mean Mccall broke down and started crying, and basically quit. The commision, demanded that he not receive his purse for the fight on the basis of unwillingness to compete. Nothing like this happened in the 70's, nor did you have all time record breaking upsets such as you did here.

Quote:
7. Foreman and Holmes did not defeat Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield, or Tyson, the four best fighters of the era. The fact that many desirable matchups were not made worked to the advantage of the old champions as they could hang around fighting fringe fighters or worse and then use their box-office pull to leverage a title fight without ever fighting the top man, except for Holyfield, who beat them both.
Mike Tyson should not be considered as one of the period's best fighters. He lost to Douglas in 1990, and left the sport for 4 years shortly thereafter. Upon his return, he put together a string of wins against maybe 4 fighters, and then lost twice to Holyfield. Tyson's only value in the 1990's was purely his name, and not what he did.

Riddick Bowe- Failed to fight Lennox Lewis and a number of other top rated fighters in the 90's, save Holyfield. What's more, his two horrible performances against Golata followed by a rather early retirment, dimishes his legacy in my opinion.

Lennox Lewis was a great fighter, but he lost to Mccall in the hay day of the 90's, and picked up his best wins against an aging Holyfiled and shot Tyson.

Holyfield was arguably the best of the 90's, and keep in mind, he lost ot Moorer, whom Foreman then beat.

Quote:
8. Foreman and Holmes earned their shots at Holyfield. Their second title fights, against Moorer and McCall, were not earned.
I'll concede that Holmes probably got a free payday, although he was fighting actively still. Foreman on the other hand, requires a bit more explaining. Between his first shot at Holy in 1991, and his second shot at Moorer in 1994, Foreman beat recently ranked contender Pierre Coetzer, Fringe ranked Alex Stewart, unbeaten prospect Jimmy Ellis and lost a decision to Top rater Tommy Morrison. You can make all the criticisms you want about who Foreman fought or didn't fight, but for me personally, I think that facing 4 consecutive ranked fighters, and beating three of them, with losing to only one by decision, is better than what a lot of challengers did in the history of the sport. Christ, Louis gave guys rematches just for going the distance. Did Foreman not go the distance with Holyfield? You see, it works both ways.

Last edited by mr. magoo; 08-10-2007 at 06:35 PM.
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 08:33 AM   #63
JohnThomas1
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,119
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by prime
The fact that Larry Holmes and George Foreman in their geezer versions competed successfully in the 90s is definitely an indicator of the relative abilities of the two decades' best fighters.

We actually saw: Holmes/Holyfield, Holmes/Mercer, Holmes/McCall, and grandpa Larry never got blown away. He held his own. We saw: Foreman/Holyfield, Foreman/Moorer, with doughy George fighting twelve hard rounds against Holy and destroying Moorer with one punch. Foreman was 45! This speaks of the quality experience and technical resourcefulness of these legends, who learned firsthand from facing top competition to successfully exploit their diminishing yet first-class skills.
A man who has told it exactly as it is

JohnThomas1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 08:38 AM   #64
JohnThomas1
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,119
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPontius
The problem in ranking the 80's heavyweights is their consistent inconsistency.
You have Holmes and Tyson at the top. I'd have Witherspoon, Thomas and maybe Spinks in the top5 but after that it gets blurry. Weaver could be included as well.
*Ahem*
JohnThomas1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 11:42 AM   #65
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,643
vCash: 238
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

I must have been really drunk when i typed that... here is what i really meant:


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPontius
The problem in ranking the 80's heavyweights is their consistent inconsistency.
You have Holmes and Tyson at the top. I'd have Witherspoon, Thomas and maybe Spinks in the top5 but after that it gets blurry. Weaver could be included as well.

Of course, all of these contenders fade in comparison to the one contender who stood above all, Super Greg Page. He made Holmes drop his title and is rumored to have a veeeeeerry loyal fanbase in Australia even to this day.
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 03:40 PM   #66
My dinner with Conteh
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,999
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnThomas1
*Ahem*

My dinner with Conteh is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 06:17 PM   #67
JohnThomas1
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,119
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPontius
I must have been really drunk when i typed that... here is what i really meant:
JohnThomas1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 06:29 PM   #68
TIGEREDGE
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erratic Behavior
No, I think it was a case where Foreman was an anomaly in being so good for his age.

There was a thread earlier about weak linear champs in strong eras, and Moorer and Foreman were two of the guys I thought who fit. Moorer was a pretty skilled southpaw but often a lazy fighter, and didn't have the sturdiest of chins. He also ate his way up to heavyweight.

Foreman did amazing things for his age, but he was also very careful in picking his opposition.
SPOT ON STATEMENT.

He would never have become champion if bowe, holyfield or lewis held the belts. he was still a good fighter at 45
TIGEREDGE is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 09:07 PM   #69
AnthonyJ74
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,537
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo
Johnson's wins over the men you listed were still not comparable to Foreman's win's over Moorer, Stewart, Rodriguez, and some of the others. What's more, it's pure speculation that the men he fought with records of 0-0-0, had more fights.



A single guy, Wheras Holmes and Foreman arguably had whole second craeers.



THis is once again speculation, what Holmes and Foreman did was for real.



Ah, but here's the big difference. Leon Spinks was not viewed by anyone as being one of the best heavyweights of the period, wheras Holyfield was considered as the best of the 90's ,and Moorer probably one of the top 5 or 6. Leon also turned pro as a heavyweight wheras Holyfield and Moorer fought a good portion of their early careers in lighter divisions, and were highly marketed to be future heavyweight champs. Also, Leon's upset over ALi came at the end of the decade, when most of the era's key players were gone, and Ali past his prime.




This has been explained on a multitude of occassions, and I fear probably will have to be again. Please read the above response.

6. I don't see why the upsets by McCall and Douglas prove the division weak. Why don't they show depth of talent?

The best heavyweights of the 70's were Ali Foreman and Frazier. None of whom were upset by fighters, who people considered to be journeyman or fringe contenders. The only possible exception was Leon Spink's upset over Ali, but again this happened when Ali's career was in it's twilight and the decade ending. In 1990, Mike Tyson was in his prime and deemed invincible. He lost to a good fighter, but one whom many considered second rate, and it was a loss that went unavenged. In 1994, Lewis was similarly favored agains MCcall, and lost in similar proportion. Sure he avenged the loss, but did you see that fight that night? I mean Mccall broke down and started crying, and basically quit. The commision, demanded that he not receive his purse for the fight on the basis of unwillingness to compete. Nothing like this happened in the 70's, nor did you have all time record breaking upsets such as you did here.



Mike Tyson should not be considered as one of the period's best fighters. He lost to Douglas in 1990, and left the sport for 4 years shortly thereafter. Upon his return, he put together a string of wins against maybe 4 fighters, and then lost twice to Holyfield. Tyson's only value in the 1990's was purely his name, and not what he did.

Riddick Bowe- Failed to fight Lennox Lewis and a number of other top rated fighters in the 90's, save Holyfield. What's more, his two horrible performances against Golata followed by a rather early retirment, dimishes his legacy in my opinion.

Lennox Lewis was a great fighter, but he lost to Mccall in the hay day of the 90's, and picked up his best wins against an aging Holyfiled and shot Tyson.

Holyfield was arguably the best of the 90's, and keep in mind, he lost ot Moorer, whom Foreman then beat.



I'll concede that Holmes probably got a free payday, although he was fighting actively still. Foreman on the other hand, requires a bit more explaining. Between his first shot at Holy in 1991, and his second shot at Moorer in 1994, Foreman beat recently ranked contender Pierre Coetzer, Fringe ranked Alex Stewart, unbeaten prospect Jimmy Ellis and lost a decision to Top rater Tommy Morrison. You can make all the criticisms you want about who Foreman fought or didn't fight, but for me personally, I think that facing 4 consecutive ranked fighters, and beating three of them, with losing to only one by decision, is better than what a lot of challengers did in the history of the sport. Christ, Louis gave guys rematches just for going the distance. Did Foreman not go the distance with Holyfield? You see, it works both ways.
Larry Holmes legitimately earned his first title shot against Evander Holyfield by besting Ray Mercer. For me, George Foreman did not earn his shot against Holyfield; he fought a collection of stiffs and was awarded a title shot based on his popularity. The second title shot George received was a travesty. Losing to Tommy Morrison and then not fighting for over a year shouldn't qualify you for a title shot. Holmes was basically handed his shot against McCall as well.
AnthonyJ74 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 09:15 PM   #70
Bill1234
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,005
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyJ74
Larry Holmes legitimately earned his first title shot against Evander Holyfield by besting Ray Mercer. For me, George Foreman did not earn his shot against Holyfield; he fought a collection of stiffs and was awarded a title shot based on his popularity. The second title shot George received was a travesty. Losing to Tommy Morrison and then not fighting for over a year shouldn't qualify you for a title shot. Holmes was basically handed his shot against McCall as well.
But at least Holmes gave the very game McCall a great fight. Was it the most exciting fight? No. Was it very close? Yes. McCall actually only won by 1 round on 2 of the 3 score cards. So Larry very near became the linear heavyweight champion of the world again, and with out a come from behind punch.
Bill1234 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 09:36 PM   #71
AnthonyJ74
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,537
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill1234
But at least Holmes gave the very game McCall a great fight. Was it the most exciting fight? No. Was it very close? Yes. McCall actually only won by 1 round on 2 of the 3 score cards. So Larry very near became the linear heavyweight champion of the world again, and with out a come from behind punch.
True. Larry looked alot better against McCall than George did against Moorer.
AnthonyJ74 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 06:01 AM   #72
Sonny's jab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill1234
But at least Holmes gave the very game McCall a great fight. Was it the most exciting fight? No. Was it very close? Yes. McCall actually only won by 1 round on 2 of the 3 score cards. So Larry very near became the linear heavyweight champion of the world again, and with out a come from behind punch.
Holmes-McCall wasn't for the linear championship.
It was for some alphabet crap.
 Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 07:19 AM   #73
Sonny's jab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Foreman's success in the 1990s doesn't really say much about the quality of 70s heavyweights.

In the early 90s, Foreman's best day's result was the KO of Moorer, who was champion by any reckoning by narrowly beating an Evander Holyfield having his worst day.
And when Foreman faced Holyfield he resembled a punching bag for the majority of 12 rounds and lost a one-sided fight.

Foreman's best opponents in the early 90s were Moorer, Morrison, Stewart and Holyfield. He lost 2 of those, scraped past Stewart (many say he lost), and didn't exactly have it all his own way with Moorer.

I think Foreman was a remarkable fighter at any age. He's a beast of a man, he had all those guys wary of his power and strength.
But he looked very beatable in his 40s against fighters of the 90s, and not all of those were elite fighters.

Foreman proved that a 40+ man could compete with the best, he was a threat, and his win over Michael Moorer made him the bona fide heavyweight champion of the world at age 45. That's remarkable. But it says more about his professionalism and dedication and belief in his natural talents than about any difference between the 70s and 90s.

Keeping it in perspective, the sum of Foreman's achievements in significant high-level competion in his second career probably falls somewhere around or behind where the likes of Buster Douglas, Michael Moorer, Tommy Morrison and Oliver McCall are placed in the same era, and those guys are often considered "one hit wonders" or strictly second-tier.
 Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 07:37 AM   #74
JohnThomas1
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,119
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
Foreman's success in the 1990s doesn't really say much about the quality of 70s heavyweights.

In the early 90s, Foreman's best day's result was the KO of Moorer, who was champion by any reckoning by narrowly beating an Evander Holyfield having his worst day.
And when Foreman faced Holyfield he resembled a punching bag for the majority of 12 rounds and lost a one-sided fight.
Personally i was amazed a guy of that age (Holmes too) could get thru a good 12 rounds vs the best of the day in Holyfield. Evander wasn't one to let up and was a handful for anyone ever to go 12 with.
JohnThomas1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 09:10 AM   #75
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,417
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnThomas1
Personally i was amazed a guy of that age (Holmes too) could get thru a good 12 rounds vs the best of the day in Holyfield. Evander wasn't one to let up and was a handful for anyone ever to go 12 with.
I disagree with Mr. Jab, That the prescence and success of not one, but two members of previous eras in the 90's doesn't say something about the difference between the 90's and thier perspective periods. If these men were able to accomplish what they did at such an advanced age, and after extended laoffs, then who could help but wonder what they might have done in their primes, and weather their piers may have done similar. This may be over simplifying things a bit, but I don't feel it's to far from the truth either.

What's more, Sonny is grossly misrepresenting Foreman's win over Moorer as being an average feat. Like it or not, Moorer was the lineal champion, and not just a mere alphabet holder. He defeated a slightly declining Holyfield, but one who was coming off of the biggest win of his career against Bowe nonetheless. Moorer was also undefeated in 35 pro fights, and had held world titles at both lightheavyweight and heavyweight. Foreman's win over Moorer was a clear cut success. There are no excusses. There was no controversy, or gift decisions. Foreman kncked out Moorer. Plain and simple. I'm tired of people trying to diminish this impressive piece of boxing history by saying stupid things like " Foreman landed a lucky shot" or " Moorer just got careless " or " Moorer was a lightheavyweight who became a fluke chamion ", and of course my favorite " I'll bet it was fixed ". Ridiculous.

Last edited by mr. magoo; 08-11-2007 at 09:45 AM.
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013