Lee Oma vs. 2017 heavyweights

Lol but mcvey

Since when does being a party animal equate to losing 30 times? Tyson Fury is a party animal and never lost.

I don't know if my point is clear or not, but modern fighters simply don't lose as much as old school fighters did, despite any excuse of diet, lifestyle, etc.

It just doesn't happen.

 

Lol. The actual thread is 10x worse that my description here was. Thanks for posting it and making my point clearer.

Why the hell would I post punches leading up to a KO as some kind of prerequisite for making a gif? That's random and idiotic to be frank my friend.

Maybe you shouldn't base your posts on "correctives" because you lose the plot, and it makes you sound like a bozo.

 

I swear to god, if anyone posts another KO without showing each punch that lead up to it Kevin's gonna post some correctives for your cherry pickin ass

 

How many losses do you think Malik Scott has in those matchmaking conditions?

 

Mcvey, point out where exactly I said you or anybody is "ignorant dummies". Guilty conscience? There is Exactly how many posts in the last thread did we have to make before you saw the right hand or even admitted to it. And how many posts to see Louis did fight decent guys on his comeback. And even the famed right cross that was missing in the Marciano fight and others, the answer was there but I guess it was easier to say Louis fought basically one hand, and had no power, just a little boxing knowledge would have given you the answer, but you instead choose to concentrate on their losses. Oma, was highly rated eventhough he had all those losses, why not leave it there, nope, not possible here, You have to point out the obvious, but here is the obvious, he must've done something to get rated so highly. Forget before and after he had some good wins along the way and some bad losses.
Like you like to point that we should focus on what the thread is asking, "Lee Oma vs 2017 HW's", I dont see where it says how many losses he had or what kind of fighter he was. First he would fit as a cruiser today not a SHW. In fact most of the HW's of that era and before, the ranked one's and world champions, would be cruisers, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano all cruisers in wt. Lee Oma, Lee Savold, Joe Baksi, Lem Franklin, Harry Bobo, Jimmy Bivins, Melio Bettina, Hatchetman Shepard, Bob Pastor, Tommy Farr. Why are you and others seem to be focused on how many losses they had and the bums they lost to instead of their accomplishments which made them contenders. Ever hear, "you cant see the forest for the tree's", with you, the gosh darn tree's are in the way.

 

Please post whatever good, bad or indifferent, love them all

 

For the record, Malk Scott's best win is a hard fought decision over a 44 year old trial horse, who has never been a great fighter and has not really been recognized as even a solid contender in 5 years.

 

mcvey,Grits , possum,and black-eyed peas.
Kinda racist statement,
Just some thoughts, I attended a bunch of Malik Scott's fights and I can tell you first hand in every single fight he was booed without exception. He was or is a safety first jabber.

Satterfield, like Oma was a party hound plus he was essentially a light heavy competing with heavyweights and he wasn't very durable . Walcott took fights at short notice without the benefit of proper training,diet, or a decent manager.What's Oma's excuse?

The same excuse you mentioned for JJW. if JJW wasnt eating right looked pretty healthy to me and he fought well to an advanced age on this bad diet. What is the problem with Oma? He took fights on short notice, he was a party animal, being in shape wasnt Oma's first priority. He fought everybody, in shape, out of shape and still won approx. 2/3 of his fights, against the best of his era, he fought everybody black or white. He was at one time highly rated why not look at his accomplishments instead of his losses, the guy was a party animal who liked the women, and didnt train as well as he should've, despite that he was considered a contender. Why is everything here so heavily sided in the negative's instead of the positives?

The Kentucky Cobra, Scott is not a very good fighter at all.

exactly, Scott was booed big time in every fight, that I had the displeasure of watching, he was a safety first jabber, grab and hold specialist which endeared him to the boobirds.

mrkoolkevin, Shows occasional caginess in the Charles fight but overall looked very unexceptional. Charles threw a wild haymaker and stumbled accordingly. Sequence has absolutely no bearing on whether Oma could close the distance against someone like Scott. Not eating a lunging hook from a small 185-lb ATG (light heavyweight) is impressive and all but there are still some dots that need to be connected if we want to turn that into an argument about him beating Scott.

Malik Scott is the most boring fighter ever, the only good thing fan's had to look forward to when he was "fighting" was the end of the fight. Why are we even discussing one of the most boring fighters ever, he was a bored fan's coup de grace.

 

Except you just said the opposite.

"like when you put up short clips of Marciano knocking someone down or out in isolation, without showing the dozens of punches that he used to wear them down over multiple rounds"

 

Malik Scott is horrible if there is a top ten most boring fighters ever, Malik would a "strong" contender. Malik has scored more knock outs then anybody, if you count the audience members he put to sleep by watching his sleep inducing "performances. If you needed to go to the bathroom, get a beer and a hotdog, or just take a break, Malik's "fight's" was the time.

 

Lee Oma fought in a rough era, blacks fought whites on a regular basis, that he lost to guys with bad records, doesnt mean as much as you may think. First, there are guys with bad records that are rough customers, some guys with bad records can and do beat unbeaten guys. Second, if you know a guy is a playboy or that is he is not diligent in his training and preparing for a fight, can easliy explain some of the losses, which Oma was known to do. Oma, was probably in no shape, when he lost some of those fights. Guys who have a bunch losses another loss is not as serious offense as it is now. You have to understand it was a different time.
Oma not only survived but thrived for a while. Sorry you boxrec warriors, but he was highly rated and was one of the "names" of the era. Someone who doesnt know boxing makes a bigger deal about the losses then the actual fighter himself. The article hero, say the darn tree's are in the flooping way. BTW, Oma was a crafty experienced fighter who at times showed he belonged, somebody who knew boxing would know Oma was a cutie, relying on the tricks of the trade that he learned in all those fights.

 

And this has to do with the topic what?

 

You need to explain that to Reznik ,and I know it was a different time I was around in the late 40's!I see we are back to your premise that covers all your arguments the others know f8ck all because if they did they would agree with you! I'm pretty tired of this arrogant sh8t so I'll disengage now.