Jack Johnson:Enlighten me

once again, i ask you the same thing that i asked you in the general.

What does Willie Pep fighting has to do with the evolution of the HW's? i already said that bellow mw the advancement in the las 50 years have been infirm.
We were arguing about HW's getting bigger stronger, fitter and technically better by each era and i gave you as proof some Max Baer, Carnera and Galento fights( fights which you call bad, as in no technique i suppose, which is fair) but yet ironically these guys who look bad, are considered one if not the best opponents in Joe Louis reign.

As a response for that, you came up like here, with some video tapes of Pep as a proof that boxing has not developed since 30's....but Pep had no relevance with the original question, which was about the HW division and it's evolution over the years.
And then you left since things got hairy for you, many more posters started bashing you, and then you came up(think it was you) with the Sharkey was technically ound and better then Holyfield which caused quite a hysteria

 

...and you act as if that was unfair...why?
Dempsey era is part of the past too...same as Jeffries same as Johnson's.

And i used some footage with JJ against Flynn too, it was clear as day that the oponent the champions fought were below mediocre and probably wouldn't even be successful street fighters today, let alone profesional boxers.

 

I don't wish to interrupt your chastisement of this pimply youth Matt ,but I think Sharkey was technically better than Holyfield.:good

 

Well Pimples, if you wish to be pedantic, McVey was 25 days short of his 20th birthday.

ps I dont take any pills ,that's your generation isnt it?

 

Cael doesn't know **** about boxing. Ignore him. He's one of those MMA bitches scared as **** to get in a boxing ring, but will easily roll around with another man, PAYIN him BIG Money, again PAYIN A MAN MONEY TO ROLL AROUND WITH HIM ON THE GROUND LIKE A ******.

I'm mean, do ya'll really need to get worked up over this dude?

 

Who said I was mature?

My claim that johnson beats tyson is just as much a joke as your claim tyson beats johnson.

You do realise the two will never fight right? There is no right and wrong here; there is just a multitude of varying opinions.

Again how can my opinion be important or on the money? The two will never ever fight so your opinion is just as "on the money" as mine is. As a fellow poster your opinion is also just as "important" as mine is.

The reason I don't go into the general as much is that it bores me: klitschko brother this, pacweather that etc.

 

So do I, but I'm a bit of a Sharkey freak, though I champion Holy too.
PS that's Jack and not Tom I presume?

 

Anyone want to tackle this one?