Does Sonny Liston divide opinion more than any other heavyweight?

The people "harrassing" you are not "agenda warriors" any more than you are, and I mean that literally. To me, there is no more of an "agenda" from Kevin than from you - you seem as radical as what you post to me as he does. Because i'm somewhere between those two opinions, they both seem interesting and flawed to me. This is true of many of the posters you deem to be "agenda warriors."

That is a totally subjective point of view.

It is not my job to "do anything" when your posts, which are often contrary and purposefully defended, are placed under peer review by people who genuinely disagree with you. Nor should it be.

 

He's treatment of these two knockouts is borderline insane.

He's also tried to dismiss them as "lucky" and has said that they don't prove his superiority over Patterson in the same way that winning in five or six would have.

He's taken literally the best result you can get in boxing and tried to turn it into a negative - twice.

It's very odd behaviour. Anyway, he seemed past that, but here comes the strangeness again.

 

Yeah, so you make a subjective judgement. To me, they are often wrong. To others, too, it seems.

In other words, you can't really state definitively who is being honest, any more than someone looking at you can.

Just to be clear for anyone who is reading this, reznick has fixated on the fact that I don't tell off posters for using the word "bum" in conversation any more as some sort of failure of heart, and perhaps more.

This is all this conversation is referring to, nothing more.

 

Yeah, it might be that i'm a celebrity obsessed boxing fan with a light understanding of the sport - I think even the handful of people here who legitimately don't like me would disagree with you, but maybe - but it's also possible that I have a genuine, well informed opinion that is different from yours. You've described yourself as a good judge of character, but seem to me, with the above, to be an extremely bad judge who is trying very hard to make things very personal.

But you're so incredibly sensitive to this stuff. It's like you have no sense of perspective, at all.

This thread was bumped today:

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/chris-byrd-v-primo-carnera.509108/

In the first post responding to it, Unforgiven calls Primo Carnera "mediocre" and "utter crap".

You would lose...your...sh1t...if someone said this too you. And then, yeah, you'd end up in a flame war with "an agenda poster". What i do is ask him what he means and have a detailed conversation with him over his perspective. A page later all is clear.

The way people use language upsets you more than any poster I've seen here. When posters attack your favourites you take it personally. I'd say, at the very least, you are incredibly sensitive to "slants towards the negative" remembering that another way to write that is "people who disagree with your positive opinion". People who are negative about fighters YOU are being (to me, and others) overly positive about. This is in no way agenda driven.

I mean, you've been hinting it at it for a while now so in a sense it is good that you have said it: i'm the ACTUAL reason this forum "craps on highly successful boxers" according to you.

Let me turn, first, to the first part of this statement, that I "eat up dumb drama".

Nothing could be further from the truth. It's literally the opposite of the truth. More and more I try to stay away from the "dumb drama" of heavyweights - which is what you mean by the way; you don't want to talk about it but this is almost exclusively a heavyweight problem - in favour of the lower weights, the lower the better, really. Dumb drama is the literal opposite of what interests me.

The accusation is unpleasant, personal, unfounded and unprovable because it's unfounded.

Now, my responsibility - the literal reason for why "this forum constantly craps on highly successful boxers" - this is paranoid and deluded and totally untrue. I have no idea where you got it from. The Classic Boxing Forum was far, far, far, far, far - far far far - far, far, far more violent and unpleasant before I joined than it is now. Even when I joined, it was like the wild west. Ask any of the old timers. There were flame wars for pages and pages and pages and some of it was really unpleasant. Before I was a moderator and before you joinied there 40 page threads on why Louis or Ali or even Ray Robinson and Harry Greb were all cr@p. Some of the counter posts in this time were wonderful. This was 2007 and 2008.

I claim no credit fro the improvement in tone since I joined, and I claim no credit for the improvement in my time as a moderator. We're just garbage removers here, no more. But it refutes, utterly your boundless and unpleasant accusation.


Now, reznick, you've said some unpleasant things in this post and you've been personal in tone and text throughout this exchange. I haven't been giving you any back because i'm keen to avoid yet another blow out from you here. It's not a good thing. But i'm warning you, here, that if you keep attacking me personally I will give it back to you from this point in. What will happen then is, you will lose your temper and things will get much worse. Think about it. You could continue to engage without making unpleasant personal accusations. You could withdraw. Or of course you can continue as you are. Whatever happens after that, you can't say you weren't warned.

 

well, yes.

I didn't say it was. I made a specific, short list of what was insane and this wasn't on the list.