Donald Curry

...actually, that at least sometimes gets you somewhere... :!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekZiFrMUyiY

 

That's not the point at all. The posters who are accusing Dubblechin of having an agenda against Curry ( he hasn't, he is just giving an objective an alysis of his career, and achievements ) are the ones complaining about Curry being overlooked thus far.

 

Ahem.

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?p=17025206#post17025206

(just before you go throwing your weight & credibility behind DC's cause...)

 

Thank you.

 

Exactly.

 

Here's essentially a recap of the discussion thus far...

Dubblechin: Turquoise isn't really blue!

IB: Turquoise is definitely a kind of blue.

Dubblechin: PROVE IT! Prove turquoise is violet.

IB: I didn't say turquoise was violet. I said it was blue.

Dubblechin: See? You have NO PROOF that turquoise is violet.

IB: No, I don't. That isn't even...

Dubblechin: TURQUOISE ISN'T VIOLET!

 

No, it's more like:

IntentionalButt: Donald Curry not being elected to the Hall of Fame is a "horrific" omission. Everyone agrees with me.

Dubblechin: Well why do you think he should be elected to the Hall of Fame? Why do you think he was great?

IntentionalButt: I don't understand the question. People who suck get in, so Curry should.

Dubblechin: But why do you think it's horrific that he's not in the boxing Hall of Fame? Why do you think he was a great fighter?

IntetionalButt: Are you gay? Because Donald Curry was gay.

Dubblechin: Ali fans can explain why he's great. Greb fans can explain why he was great. Why do you believe Curry was great?

IntentionalButt: You're trying to trick me.

Dubblechin: I think Curry was a very good fighter. I just don't think he was a great fighter. Can't you just tell me why you think he was great or why it's horrific he's not in the Hall of Fame?

IntentionalButt: Dubblechin doesn't know his colors.

 

You wrote.

Neither is American, but that was nowhere even close to being the FOTY in that year.

So you obviously disagree with this, and believe it to be a " bungle "


Then came his defense against former world champion Gabriel Ruelas, which was also named "Fight of the Year" by Ring Magazine.

As opposed to this.

His title defense, at Madison Square Garden against Dominican Wilson Rodriguez was the first of three Gatti fights in a row to be named a candidate for "Fight of the Year" by Ring Magazine.

For which you believe you deserve an apology?

Dream on.

If I were you I wouldn't set my sights on becoming an English teacher any time soon.:yep

 

The original post you quoted was about Gatti vs. Ruelas, you realize that, right? :blood What are you even mentioning Gatti vs. Rodriguez for? I never did. Nobody did.

Your confusion stemmed from apparently believing I thought Gatti was American, with you somehow misreading that in my original statement of "So they still bungle this one even with Americans excluded, eh?".

With me so far?

Gatti vs. Ruelas is on the Ring Mag FOTY even if you prune out every match-up involving Americans.

Gatti (Canadian) vs. Ruelas (Mexican) wasn't really the best fight in 1997, or even close to it. Sirimongkol (Thai) vs. Tatsuyoshi (Japanese) was light years beyond it.

So the original theory O's Exile was playing around with, that redacting every match-up involving Americans from the Ring Mag FOTY list would somehow improve the overall quality of the selections, was flawed, which I was pointing out. Their selection of Gatti vs. Ruelas for the FOTY in '97 was as much a bungle on their part as was any of the other FOTY selections involving Americans that some may feel were less deserving than many lesser known international bouts.

I'm not sure how much clearer this can be made.

 

When push comes to shove all you are saying is that you don't agree that Gatti / Ruelas was FOTY in 97, and you are arrogant enough to call that a bungle on the part of RING.

The problem appears to be solely yours.

 

a) It took you that long to figure that out? Seriously? Even with me saying exactly that, never wavering, in plain English, from the very start?

b) You realize the very thread in which you and I started that conversation was made by someone "arrogant enough" to be 2nd-guessing the Ring Mag several times over by essentially implying they have a pro-American bias and that a more objective FOTY list could perhaps be attained by eliminating & replacing all the match-ups involving Americans. You did get that exactly that was the point of that particular thread, right? Actually, no, from what I've learned of your comprehension abilities, I'd wager no, you didn't get that.

 

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=281267

 

Is English even your first language?

Or are you claiming you were being ironic when you wrote.

" Neither is American, but that was nowhere even close to being the FOTY in that year."

Any list of fights having NON American participants in which the FOTY between Gatti, and Ruelas is mentioned can not be a " bungle " by definition.

Some might fall for the ironic excuse if that is what you are claiming, but I'd say it was back tracking.

As I said don't take up teaching English ( particularly the written word ) any time soon.

Perhaps you would like to ask another English guy to explain what you are trying to write for me, because it is all incoherent mumbo jumbo as far as I can see.

 

Sadly, I think it has become a popularity contest. I think the Hall is thinking more popular fighters will bring in more money. It does not seem to be about real achievement. The voters are supposed to be experts but some of the recent choices make me question their expertise. The cynical side of me thinks they have the knowledge, but are taking other considerations into account with their voting.

 

Yes, I think they were all very good.
Some of those men I'd give a very good chance - at their peaks - of troubling the glorified welterweights Leonard, Hearns, Duran and Benitez.
If you want to talk about media hype, talk about that crop.