How could Sam Langford fight when he was nearly blind?

Racists talk about race as its what they think about, the only poster in East side boxing who is overtly a racist is this guy.

 

Hamburg....You beleve you are an intrepid truth teller. But you see things as comically black & white, pardon the pun, as the Bert Sugar older is better reflex monkeys.

Those guys were not "washed up". Excellent fighters past their very peak, but Charles fought a great fight & only way his age may have effeted things is tiring late, but due largely to Rocky's pressure. All had done vert well before fighting Rocky, Ezzard was only 33, a little older than Rocky. Moore did very well at all weights.

Louis was relatively washed up, still won 8 straight fights against largely top contenders in his comeback. Loius could be put down, but briefl flash Knock downs, only when complacent against Schmelling after a prolonged beating KOs years back when very young. Champion ~ 12 years. That is no glass chin.

Rocky put folks lights out with single shots, almost killed Vingo. You do not need to believe he hit as hard as the hadest big guys to say he could really slug, & non-stop with both hands.

Many DO favor men due to their skin color. It is errible to be racist. And there is unconscious & milder bias that is hard to avoid totally. But it is very wrong to ACCUSE people of racism without decent evidence.

How on earth can you leap to the conclusion that Janitor is racist because a black fighter is his choise for best ever? atsch How is this at all fair or rational? There are numerous reasons anyone can like a guy as #1, favor certain styles or old timers...IF he believed the media naively-which you have not at all established-how would this suggest he has any racial bias?

It is not reasonable to demand video evidence for all events. According to your there is no historical knowledge before the last century since only you will only accept what your eyes see? Are you AWARE of what types of sources, documentation, & confirmation are widely accepted as decent or excellent proof? Anything COULD be wrong-& video & photographs can be deceptive or fake. You are a reactionary like some you critique & assume this about, & project this on others.

Rocky beat guys at varying sizes, most often what is considered CW today. The standard changed. But the dfference means less above a certain size-though admittedly is still a factor often. Lois beat large & even SHW decent fighters-the Baers, Abe Simon, Carnero, Galento (in weight). They were not tomato cans, even if not ATGs. But almost nobody can face man of these, sometimes NONE, in any era.

You are right about Foreman his lack of stamina was overstated at least.

You make a logical mistake. Sometimes fans like a guy due to racal pride & identification, especially with a specific story, & do not show racism, though granted there is still a lot of that. But if all do not agree with you that Tyson was a ******-& I think there is NO good way to establish this (& am white), that means they must be racist because they do not AGREE with your exact interpretation of unknowable events? :-?:-?:-?:-?

You are married to certain inflexible ideas that are mired in some embitterment man. But know what would be impressive, unusual & show big cojones?

Admit, if only to yourself, that you have a long way to go/grow to arrive at an unbiased truth. Especially given your unusually harsh negative conclusions about many for no good reason but your personal dissapointments.

 

I find it impossible to fathom that Hamburger is really this dumb, therefore, he must be a troll.

 

Also, where is the rebuttal from Hamburger to the claim that if nothing is on film it never existed. So much for anything that happened on earth pre 1890. Ever heard of newspapers halfwit?

 

Janitor, you put far too much of your valuable time into responding to that guy.

 

I know.

A sign of having too much time on your hands!

 

The DNA of the human being hasn't changed substantially in thousands of years. Fighters back then had two hands and two feet just like today, tougher times also make tougher people. The roughest and most skilled from past eras could definately mix it with the roughest of post eras & vice versa. The pre-war men were also winners, of the sub 600 fighters with 100 fights or more from this period over half won more contests than they lost.

 

This was meant in response to Hamburgers lunacy. & it was over 500 not over half of the sub 600 '100 club' pre war fighters won more contests than they lost excuse me.

 

Agreed his posts are lunacy, just about the worst I've seen here in a decade of hundreds of posters.