Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by emallini, Mar 12, 2019.
Plus Leroy Haynes .
Of course you are!
Admitting is the first step to Improvement...
Ellis was a good right hand puncher. Charles was a solid banger ,Holyfield was a decent puncher.
I've never seen a post of yours that was worth a cup of ****.Your farcical overating of Euro level boxers is a case in point and taken to absurd lengths.
In short you don't know WTF you are looking at .
None and I literally mean nobody is as awful and ignorant of boxing on this forum as yourself .
The sad thing is ,despite being continually corrected ,and educated , you've learnt nothing since you have been here, because you lack the capacity to admit you are ever wrong.
It's actually eerily spooky because you have yet to be ****ing right!
Charles had less than 50% knockoutrate at Heavyweight, he was clearly less puncher in this division than most other champions, apart of Byrd. Holyfield was also rather an average puncher in Heavyweight. Ellis had less power than Ruiz and Ibraghimov.
You are just hyping all American and British bums, because of nationalism. As many here are surfacing, ignoring everything which comes from out of your culture are/ geographical reach or pretending it is the "Empire of Evil" there never comes anything good from somewhere else. This is just a very arrogant and self-satisfied attitude!
This is typical British and partly American, as you feel like to be superior to everone else and are allowed to take command for others.
Now you geh hopefully the payback (bill) with the Brexit, when you poor men bag for more time, which won't change anything or bring you help.
Listen nobody like you People, you can ask French, Russians or Chinese, nobody!
Ali was certainly in there ..
He hit Mildenberger hard enough for him to turn a backward somersault. Anyone who ko's Bonavena can hit a bit I wouldn't call him a poor puncher,certainly he hit harder than Carnera.
Ali hurt Frazier and floored Foreman who said he can still feel Ali`s right hands today! He knocked Foley and Williams out.
Holy started punching hard from the second Bowe fight because he put on the weight, he overpowered Tyson and Moorer.
Your post says more about you than I ever could!
I never mentioned an English fighter,though I am English myself.
Holyfield,Ellis,Charles are bums? Yeah sure.
Charles was essentially finished after the two fights with Marciano, he had a further 23 fights losing13 of them,but pre-Marciano he stopped Satterfield,Reynolds,Layne,Barone,Valentino,Ray,Baksi,Harrison,Oma,and
Fighting long after he was finished and incurring losses against men he would have handled easily a few years earlier,makes his record look rather ordinary,but most of us know what a fighter he was.Not you of course ,you are as ignorant as a box of rocks!
Holyfield stopped Tyson,Dokes,Thomas,Tllis,Cooper,Stewart,Botha,Douglas.
He dropped Mercer,Bowe &Tyson
He could hit!
Keep mugging yourself,you sub normal twat!
Moorer had always a questionable chin, got up after each knockdown and was the first time down once too. Tyson was rather exhausted and was headbutted, but also reckless (careless).
You might be too dumb to understand... I never claimed they were bums, this are just your own words! But you hype someone as McFarland, who would be now known for his padded record, or Ross who had 5 notable opponent out of 80. Pretending Langford was the best ever, but in reality had one of the most poor techniques of all world class boxers, even Botha had better basics than him.
And as far as I know, are Satterfield and the other bim who lost against Savold (Woodcock) British.
These opponents would have stopped some, if not most, world Champions in the Heavyweight too.
He had clearly less power than Patterson, who wasn't one of the hardest hitters too, just as is Parker a better puncher than him. Maybe was he like Adamek.
Most of these Holyfield verdicts were past their best or out of shape.
Punching down doesn't count. He went over 12 rounds with Bean, pensioner Foreman and Holmes (which were each stopped by others).
You are so superficial and self-satisfied/ self-righteous, that I understand why many people here hate you.
Yeah McFarland,Ross and Langford weren't great fighters.
McFarland only beat;
Ross only beat;
Langford only beat;
Flynn,Wills,Jeannette,McVey,Godfrey,Clark,Haynes,Ross,Ferguson,Holly,Jackson,Hague,O Brien,Smith,Bell ,Dixie Kid.
I've just realized how your input can be put to some use,all anyone reading it has to do is take the opposite opinion as gospel.
It's official , you are a MORON!
So in other words McFarland has one against a great boxer in Gibbons, if it is that Gibbons (while I rate Tommy ahead of Mike), out of over seventy bouts.
Ross has 3 - 4 wins over world class boxers, but more loses.
While Langford won against four all time greats, but Wills won against him more often and he has many defeats by lower opponent (Maybe 20 - 30).
Though we know you are the forums-fool and you prove permanent, as you defended your title as it many times, but know can anyone here see, you are not able to read!
I clearly wrote about the technical skills of Langford and not about his achievement, as it is for everybody obvious...
Also have you proven, Papp, Carrasco (compared to McFarland) and Scholz had better records than most of these guys/ your favourites!