There is a difference between facts and opinion. I acknowledge the former and may debate the later. For example, it is the fact that Johnson was knocked out by a super middle, floored by another middle, and some say outboxed from a third. Just imagine if anything like this happened to a modern heavyweight champion?! He lost to Marvin Hart in a high stakes match, could not beat Griffin in three fights ( Lost 1, drew 2 ) skirted his best competition as champion, was DQ'd for low blows, fouled by hitting on the break on film, and quit in multiple fights. Anyone who disagrees with the above is wrong! One person here may attempt " excuses " He also beat up his wife and assaulted a 120-pound sickly man, claiming self-defense, and pretty much had trouble everywhere he went in the world. Swell guy. Also facts. Does he deserve to be pardoned? That's an opinion! Now, if you're saying the Ketchel fight was fixed, that is an opinion I don't have to agree with, but I will say if Johnson agreed to a pre-arranged actions, what other fights did he have with similar circumstances?
Only one mistake in this single sentence.Getting better:good By the time you're 60 ,you might be able to write a whole page!:hey
Whats remarkable is that in the same thread Ive been accused of essentially being biased against the old timers and biased against the modern fighters. In reality what it comes down to is that some people cant stand their favorites, whether they are modern or old, being criticized. Its as simple as that. Im a boxing fan plain and simple but Im not a blind sycophant to the sport. Ive given modern fighters their due and/or criticized them when its deserved likewise the old timers. You can go through my posts and see that sometimes I defend a modern fighter over an old timer and vice versa. I think Ive been very consistent in this. I calls em likes I sees em. So maybe those who think I have an agenda against one or the other should look to themselves and grow a thicker skin when their favorites warts are being laid bare.