Where is Holyfield on your ATG Heavyweight list?

Okay folks, who can see the hilarity in this statement?

 

He joined in July 2007 but I think he started posting like a year ago. After I saw his first post and HW list I thought the over/under for him to lose all credibility and go bat**** on everyone was 9 months. Who was it that I had that the under bet with?

 

What has SOMEBODY ELSE who was NOT CUCHULAIN telling you to **** Rocky's corpse got to do with your name-calling in response to MY post, a post where I tossed no epithets in your direction ?

No. You can't help being wrong just about all the time, can you ?

I already explained to you that your problem was definitional. Your problem stems from arguing apples and oranges. You have an idea in your head as to what 'greater' means, and its quite at odds with what MOST other fans and experts alike consider the word to mean.

Most fans consider resume as well as head-to-head (real and hypothetical) meetings when determining greatness.

You have flatly stated that resume doesn't count if it runs counter to a head to head meeting.

To illustrate the poverty of such thinking, imagine how you would rank Ali and Norton, if Norton's calamitous car accident had happened the week after Ali-Norton (1), instead of several years later.

By your reasoning, despite Ali's superior resume, Norton would rank higher on account of having beaten him in the ring.

Please point out what part of my first post to you was offensive.

That was post #167, the one where you responded with all the dumbasss stuff.

If you post drivel that defies logic and common sense, and this is pointed out to you by way of response, that may offend you, but its scarcely the same your descent into childishness.

I'm certainly no saint in the 'polite discourse' arena, but I don't start out with epithets, especially one as lame as 'dumbass.'

Again, your reason fails you.

You seem to see the forum as RockySplitNose versus the rest of the world. And anyone who disagrees with any of your points must be 'one of them.' ( See your treatment of TonyCamonte in post #187)

I took issue with your ranking system and pointed out some patent reasoning flaws. That has **** all to do with whatever spats you got into with other posters.

Rage ?

The only one displaying rage in our dialogue is YOU.

Again, you seem to have a persecution complex. Everybody is out to get you.

I directed my point to you as YOU were the one defending the ranking system that I found wanting.

On the Tyson question, the foregoing pretty much tells us all we'll ever need to know regarding your overall judgment of boxing in general.

Tyson's performance against McBride was superior to his performance against Douglas ???

In your words: what planet are you on ?

Now you're arguing against yourself. I believe the folks on here call that self-ownage.

By your reasoning, had there never been a rematch, You would have had to rank Max higher than Joe.

BTW, Schmelling's victory did not come as a result of Joe having an off-night. Max saw a weakness and exploited it. But that's a whole other story.

Exactly ! You don't know.


I'm missing nothing regarding Holyfield Bowe.

I have stated that Bowe was better head-to-head, but that Holyfield was greater when you consider their entire careers. I'm not going to explain all that to you again.

I'm not a fan of Holyfield and in my much earlier post (#26), did not have him in my top ten. But he is, IMO and the opinion of most others, a greater HW than Bowe.

No.

your point all along has been that if a fighter is better head-to-head than another fighter, that settles the question as to which is greater.

That is true ONLY IN YOUR MIND.

The point is crystal clear. To anyone with the slightest modicum reading comprehension skills.

When you compare Demsey and Louis in terms of greatness, BY YOUR METHODS, you are forced to make some kind of speculation as to who would have won.


When you compare their relative greatness using MOST OTHER PEOPLE"S METHODS, you compare what they actually did do within their own lifetimes.

Resume.

The thing you said didn't count for ****.

And that's why I pointed out to you that you couldn't KNOW how they would have fared head-to-head. Without knowing that, your ranking 'system' becomes weak.

No.

Wrong again.

The threadstarter asked, "Where is Holyfield on your ATG Heavyweight list ?"

Again, all you know is how they were head to head. You don't even know what the rest of it means.

Ah..., No.


No back to any Tyson-Douglas thing with you, lad.

You're last foray in that direction clearly renders you completely unqualified to pass any kind of comment on that matter whatsoever.

I can not discuss Tyson Douglas further with someone who feels Tyson gave a better performance against McBride than he did against Douglas.

(Apologies in advance if tou find that offensive.)

 

Continued.../

You really are having a hard time getting some concepts into your head.

I'll try again.

Pre-fight odds just indicate bookie expectations as to the fighter's relative chances of winning.

As I told you before, if they were reliable, then we wouldn't have to have the fights. just check the odds, and you've got your result.

The man is 42-1, why fight.

And as the result of the actual fight showed, odds are irrelevant AFTER the fight. We judge the fight based on what happened, not the prefight odds.

But really, a five-year-old would understand this.

Why can't you ?

Not that it matters, I was born long before Tyson. I watched my first fight (Ali-Liston 2) the year Lewis was born.

And what has that to do with anything ?

That's why we call it an upset.

Completely irrelevant to the question at hand.

Yes, your reasoning is off. And by more than a bit.

And your reading comprehension is not far behind.



My point was that linearity (or lineality, if you prefer) as a direct measure of legitimacy was not too significant, as it did not proceed through the-man-who-beat-the- man type of process that YOU claimed for it.


Here's what I wrote:

Notice the word restarted ?

I posted on this topic a couple of weeks ago.

Click on this link:

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7895727&highlight=linear#post7895727

The reasoning is quite clear.

WTF are you trying to say here, lad ?

Add writing clarity to your list of self-improvement projects.


Accept and settle for ?

That is the status quo, whether you accept it or not. As I've pointed out for you already, unless someone becomes the undisputed champion by taking all of the belts, then there will be claims and counter-claims as to who is 'the man' at any given time.

It's up to the general boxing fan public as to which they opt for. Linearity is certainly not the sole determinant here.

Please point out where i stated that ?





This took nearly thirty minutes, and was probably a waste of time, as you have demonstrated little interest in furthering your education here.

However, if you read it slowly several times, it will at least point you in the direction of some alternate views on the topic of ranking and greatness.

You don't have to adopt any method other than your own, but at least you should try to UNDERSTAND the others before you decide.

 

Can you not read properly?

Also, thinking Tyson performed better against McBride than against Douglas is hilariously ******ed.

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

Tyson was pummelling McBride in the early going and hurt him again and again???? Which fight are you watching - Tyson barely landed an effective punch on Douglas until the 8th round???? PS Troll??? More name calling (I'll refrain from responding with a name call myself on this occassion - because clealr it's OK for you to throw insults around but people get really offended when I call somebody a dumbass)
PS if you really do think Tyson performed better against Douglas then you have absolutely zero credibility with me - that is a joke a flat out joke

 

You already know what I think of you Pete - you are another one who has zero credibility aswell - thats about 5 so far - and funnily enough they've all come on this thread for a name calling contest.....and funnily enough you all seem to be insinuating that I'm the one who has been having a go atsch

 

Cuchulain - i'll come back to you later on your last couple of essays (hehehe I must've really got under your skin) - off out for a bit now but will give you some responses later on your stuff - but for now I will just llet you know that those last 2 posts have a very demeaning and offensive tone to them - please refrain from this in future because people don't like it on here......oh sorry i just checked again you were one of the people that didn't like that sort of thing???? LOL - see you later for some more dissecting of your ridiculous comments haha

 

He was just wrestling with a journeyman in McBride. An actual journeyman. The Tyson of the Douglas fight would have blown him away in a round. Tyson definitely wasn't at his best against Douglas, but ****ing hell it was in no way whatsoever him at his worst.

 

I'll spare you the effort.

Anybody who thinks Tyson performed better against McBride than he did against Douglas is simply too far off the wall in their boxing views to merit serious exchange. This will conclude my exchanges with you in this thread.


Your posts, for the most part, are those of a simpleton. Your feeble attempts at sarcasm, after getting on your high horse, foaming at the mouth with CAPS LOCK, at someone who made a comment (admittedly in poor taste) to you regarding your overblown zeal for Rocky's greatness, only to turn round and toss insults at a perfectly inoffensive post, indicates that you have one set of standards for yourself and and another for the rest of the forum.

So we'll leave sensibilities and such to the side.

Considering your record on this thread, I don't think you're owed much in the way of sensitivity. So we can call a spade a spade, here.

You appear to know very little about the sport, especially in regard to how fighters are generally assessed. At least by those who know the first thing about the sport.

Your semi-literate reading comprehension is on a par with your ability to put down your thoughts in any coherent fashion.

Both of these handicaps are further exacerbated by a near complete lack of reasoning skills.

And these deficiencies would be enough cross for most to bear, but when they're combined with your ill-tempered, petulant manner of dealing with alternate view points, the result is a pitiful ****wit with a persecution complex.

Everybody else is a dumbass and you're a veritable fountain of boxing wisdom and insight.

To put it mildly, you're a sad case.

Your sorry ass was thoroughly mauled by several superior posters before I even responded to you.

Alerted to your thin-skinned and humourless nature, I refrained from personal attack in that response.

But that didn't stop you coming back with more drivel and invective.

I've wasted more than enough time attempting to explain the generally accepted methods of ranking fighters, and the difference between head-to-head and resume.

Your skull is just too thick. It's as others have already concluded.

I can't be of any help to you hear on account of your multitude of shorcomings in the intellectual and personality domain.

You're just too much of a gormless, ****witted, gobshyte to get through to.

And you appear to be pretty much of a **** as well.

Again, apologies, if any of this gives offence.

I'm trying to stick to just the facts.


:hi:

 

Do you fancy me?? Or do you have some kind of obsession with me??? - can't beleive you went to the length and effort you did??? :yikes That is scary man?? So what was that?? I am off the wall, a simpleton, with feeble attempts at sarcasm, I am semi-literate and incoherent, with no reasoning skills, ill tempered, petulent, a pitiful ****wit, a sad case, a sorry ass, thin skinned and humourless, I have a multitude of shorcomings in the intellectual and personality domain, I am too much of a gormless, ****witted, gobshyte and I appear to be pretty much of a **** as well???? But then I am the one with a "persecution complex"??? and I am the one who is ill-tempered, with a petulant manner of dealing with alternate view points???

Let me just put you straight on one thing aswell - a persecution complex is when you falsely beleive people are having a go at you right?? But you are having a go at me?? Thats not a complex that's just recognising people are launching into tirades at you - and may I remind you the only times when I have been ill tempered and reverted to a bit of name calling myself was when other people started it first - proving that the complete reverse of what you said is true so you know - as I've said to the other 5 on this thread who were spitting their dummies out because I think Marciano is the best (and that Bowe is better than Holyfield because he beat him at his best????) - if you take offense to name name calling and trying to be belittling then don't start it :nono come back when you reconnect your brain :good

PS Seriously man - you just spent god knows how long typing that??? - it has took me the best part of 15 minutes just to copy small bits of it down in mine??? I am a bit worried about you?? Are you the one who's been stealing the underwear off my washing line??

 

#4 for me!!

Though he is my all time favorite fighter so I may be a little biased...

 

Borderline top 10 but maybe not so borderline as I include him almost every time

 

atsch:roll: OMG don't get me started on this one again!!? If you want me to I will though :hey

NUMBEEEEERR FOOUUURRR????????!!!!!!!!! :rofl:rofl:rofl You crazy:yep

 

The way this post was worded makes you think for a minute about how damn good of a heavyweight Holy really was.