Christ, I had forgotten all about that. That was actually a good debate, I can’t remember all of it, Did I ask if you were also wearing a false moustache and beard? I probably didn’t since I am much too polite. I think you are correct in that it did turn out Floyd did pack a selection of novelty hats, horn rimed glasses and mustachio themed guises but we both agreed it was not the most confident practice for world champions. And we left it there. All along I have said Sonny took care of business. It was one way traffic both times. The fault should never be n with Sonny. Theoretically it is the best, most impressive result in boxing, and only an embarrassment for the loser, but I agree with Angelo Dundee and his theory on blowouts on this matter. He said Floyd got psyched both times. I am with him on this. I am also with Rocky on this. According to what he told Schulberg. Sonny struck early both times and was able to capitalise before Floyd even got started. From his side of things you cannot do better. I agree. Floyd should have got started. He couldn’t. Twice.
It was awful. It was you claiming things to be true, having those things demonstrated as untrue, but writhing for two or three posts each time not to make those admissions. I've been involved in literally hundreds of good debates on this forum in the last dozen years, and that was, literally, the opposite of a good debate. no, it shouldn't.
Yeah, your memory problem is astonishing. It leads you to endlessly repeat things that haven been proven to you as being untrue as fact. What's more, despite radical changes to your perspective made inevitable by this new learning, your core position never shifts. So not only do you find the lengthy debates you engage in forgettable, you also seem to enjoy no new learning through them. It's a crazy situation, really. For me, once I've had the same discussion with someone on the same thing say, three times, I will remember it. I think that's more normal than not.
on occasion hairs are split, I might not so thoroughly research details. Nothing major. what radical changes and new learning are you on about now? The only example I can think of at this moment to do with this subject is that I thought we agreed the moustache kit wasn’t the best example of confidence in a champion. The core position here is that I do not believe anyone can forecast a very early stoppage between prime all time great champions in a fantasy fight. Why should my position change on this when it cannot be proved wrong? I’d love to know how you think it can be.
Well, major enough that you've claimed a 50% connect rate for a jab is low, for example. That's not splitting hairs, thats absurdly and wildly wrong. For a guy who claims an extensive amateur boxing career, a professional boxing career, a more recent background working as a judge, it's kind of insane actually. And arguably not the oddest thing you've said. But that's not what I mean. I mean that when something is demonstrated to you in December of one year, by August the following year you will be behaving as though this demonstration never took place - even in instances where you accept the contents at the time. i've already told you in an earlier post. In order, 1-3, with brief descriptions. Memory troubling you again by the looks . You do not believe that anyone can forecast an early stoppage in a fantasy fight?? You do not BELIEVE that anyone can DO that? And you want to know how you could be proved wrong? ok I think Foreman would knockout ATG heavyweight Joe Frazier early. Prime for prime. That is my prediction in a prime for prime match with these two. You have now seen the thing that you didn't believe anyone could forecast being forecast, before your eyes. Your position could be changed based upon witnessing this, and appropriately engaging your brain.
yeah, you declared stuff from something ages ago that I supposedly “dropped” in your opinion. My recollection was we agreed that Floyd lacked confidence usually befitting of a world champion. And other similar things like my agreeing with Angelo Dundee that somehow proves I learned something from you. Which is all a bit silly. Okay you forecast that. What does that prove? You can pick a fight -that already happened- and with the benefit of hindsight pronounce the exact same thing happens at any point of their careers ... in your opinion. What do you suppose I might learn from that? It’s not what I meant is it. How about one that hasn’t happened already, two guys from different eras?
I've no idea what this means. Yeah, this is probably your problem: you're so dominated by your internal monologue that you find it difficult to make memories that contradict it. You've managed to only remember something you said, and something Angelo Dundee said But i'm talking about a post earlier in this thread. LITERALLY in this thread, that you have replied to, that answers your original question. I don't really know what else to add. Nothing! It's a ****ing fantasy fight. But you seem to be trying to say that it's a) impossible too make such a pick (it's not) and b) that this pick is somehow less meaningful than your pick, because your pick isn't early. You're the only poster on this forum who needs to be told this but: this is not true. Your fantasy made up pretend pick is not more valid than someone who thinks the fight will finish early. Sorry. Just not true. Er, nothing. Except what my opinion is? How about try very hard to absorb the following: It's a fantasy fight. All informed picks are just as valid as another. It's perfectly valid to pick an early stoppage when two very good fighters meet. Where size and style advantages meet there is no reason they shouldn't be considered perfectly plausible.
No you're not wiggling out of this one. Floyd was a prime 2x champ coming off his best win. Liston was the outstanding #1 challenger who demolished most of the divisions best fighters. His only loss he avenged 2x. He had such an aura of power he was favored over the champion. This discussion is over.
