Wlad is not a top 20 HW, he has never beaten anyone of significance

Indians may have dark skin but they are NOT indigenous to the African continent. Ancient Egpytians, OTOH, ARE.

All indigenous Africans are Black.

And whether or not Indians are or are not considered to be Black IS OF NO RELEVENCE TO THE IDENTITY OF AFRICAN PEOPLE.

All indigenous Africans are Black.

 

Probably another white fighter...

Come on, everyone is thinking it.

I hate the "weak" "strong" era generatlizations, as they tend to overlook specific situations.

You can cry "weak era" all you want, but when you really break it down by details on a fight by fight basis, Archie Moore had one of the hardest roads to a title shot of any challenger I can think of. Than your forced to ask yourself, was the era really that weak if he had to do all that to get his ranking? I used to think the 50s was weak too until I did more research on the crowded title scene and more footage started coming out of these contenders.

 

WTF are YOU talking about? What does Brian Nielson and Andrew Golata have to do with the price of tea in China or the topic of discussion at hand?

And BTW, Tyson was 100 times the HW than ANYONE on Marciano's resume...

 

1. Tropically adapted.

2. The indegnous people of North Africa are tropically adapted, have ALWAYS been tropically adpated and have ALWAYS considered themselves to be Black.

3. The Arabs who occupy Libya are NOT INDIGENOUS AFRICANS. They are ARABS. Arabs come from ARABIA. 1 + 1 = 2

 

"I see now why you recycle cliches..you have no clue who any of these men are."

Well geez, I would say if we are going to compare eras, the people who fought them are relevant.

Does anybody still want to try to talk boxing with this guy?

 

You haven't answered the question, Genius...

 

Its quoted in your post, GENIUS...OOOOH

"Well geez, I would say if we are going to compare eras, the people who fought them are relevant. "

 

Oh I see, so Brian Nielson and Andrew Golata define the state of the HW division in the early 21st century.

Thank you for sharing that with us.

We are all now dumber for having read your worthless droolings...

 

So you concede that in a supposed weaker era, Archie Moore beat better fighters to get his ranking and title shot against Rocky Marciano?

If so, you might want to reconsider your opinion as to which era was stronger.

Just a thought. You know for the sake of consistency and all.

 

Also, as bizarre as it might sound, I like the Egyptians. A lot. They're my favorite ancient people, if only because they're so civilized compared to their neighbors. This has nothing to do with technology. The ancient Egyptians have this very humane, relaxed, respectful outlook on life that you can see throughout their wisdom literature.

Sure, the ancient Egyptians were just as ethnocentric as the Romans or Greeks or Sumerians, but the Egyptians have this absolute certainty about it that the others don't. The Romans and Greeks always needed to prove themselves superior to their neighbors, and brutalized other peoples in the process. With the Sumerians and Babylonians, you get the feeling that half of their snobbery comes from insecurity about being conquered so many times. The Egyptians just knew it.

They kept the same culture for three millennia. They didn't care that the Sumerians or Babylonians or Assyrians or Kushites did stuff differently. They were Egyptians, and their way of doing things was therefore right. Q.E.D.

So you see these ancient, ancient formulas on tomb paintings: the same words that the dead guy's ancestors wrote on their tombs a thousand years earlier. "Fads" had lifespans measured in centuries. Everything had its rhythm, like the Nile: you obey your social superiors, do right by your family, drink good beer, marry a beautiful woman (they had love poetry), and build up an estate to give to your children. Not to worry, since you'll go to a pretty nice afterlife.

The Egyptians' lack of technological wizardry comes from the same source. That's what bothers me about Afrocentric conspiracy theories: they completely ignore the Egyptians' actual culture to make their points. Black Athena-style "histories" portray the Egyptians as these Uber-TechnoHellene-Demigods. They weren't. They were a very stable, very livable, very civilized culture with impressive military achievements and a conservative streak wider than anybody's but China...maybe. Beautiful art, beautiful literature; yes. A good army? Most of the time. They didn't care much about conquest until the New Kingdom, because they believed that everything valuable already existed in Egypt. Sophisticated science? No. Why innovate when you can believe the same TRUE stuff your ancestors believed since forever?

If the Afrocentric conspiracy theorists asked the Egyptians what they thought about the Pan-African ideologies and "race", the Egyptians would probably respond like this:

"White"? "Black"? Who cares? You people are all just foreigners to me.

It doesn't matter if the Egyptians were "black" by modern standards. Frankly, I don't care much. Neither did they.

The Ancient Egyptians would consider modern "white" people barbarians, and they would consider modern "black" people barbarians. They were Egyptians, and you weren't, and it was that simple. As far as they were concerned, your skin color was just one of many, many factors that made you inferior to them.

 

I will concede that Lewis fought and beat the better opposition.

Tyson getting an underserved title shot does not negate this simple fact.

Of all of Lewis' title defenses, why is it that you choose to pull the Tyson fight out of your ass? Why not the Klitschko fight or the Holyfield fight? Those two trump ANYTHING on Marciano's resume...

 

Please cite your evidence to back these assertions.