Micheal Sprott vs Henry Cooper, who you got?

Oh, yeah, re: David Haye. ****ing **** fighter.

 

Again you resort to circular logic, who said i dont like your opinions? I agreed on some aspects in other posts of yours, like fighters dont have that tough schedule they once did...i agree with you on that.

I think out of anyone on here, you like to play the 'historian' of boxing history as if its fact that what ever you verbal assault you spill, especially in regard to any 'newcomers' on the board....yeah Primo Carnera is deffo top 5 now...then you add in from what ive seen on tape...as you know i made a mockery of your view on Sullivan as if you would know how John L would perform when you have never seen him fight.

I tried to be fair to the very latter greats by saying its unfair to compare...and then you come out with but but the old guys are far better. Any chance you get you will disparage any fighter of today as of they are lucky and just plain crap. Its very obvious but again whatever if you want to kid yourself and tell me Rocky Mariciano or Tommy Burns were better boxers then yeah ok sure .

G. Foreman, Frazier and Ali were not technical wizards, you coudlnt exactly go and tell a raw amateur who didnt have blinding speed and reflexes (ali), incredible maximal strength and raw punching power (foreman) or the heart and will of Frazier and say hey ho go and do that in the gym. Are you really honestly going to sit there and tell me the 3 greats i mentioned are technically better than any fighter now? Those guys became great with other intangible qualites, Foreman boxes like an oaf...if any other man in the world tried copy his style he would get knocked out, George has one of the best chins and power ever...but again anything to dismiss today era of fighters.

Walcott, Holmes, Liston are far better suited if you want to go on about technical details.

The fact you said you cant change your mind shows the stubbornness you have, come on where your top ten list? Combing both years 64 and 011...I have a feeling if you could really do a list without anyone looking you would have all of the 1964 guys and not one guy from now. Your on a forum, where you have mates....who you have met in person and some people know you far better so of course you feel big if someone comes on to protect you or back you up. How come you never want to talk about the valid points in a normal discussion, why do you feel the need to bring our characters rather than merit the point?

Watch I bet you dont answer.


Again...this era is not as bad as people think, it has happend throughtout boxing history in regard to the heavyweights, people always say it was better before.

 

Thats mature Flea, '****'?


Of course your jumping on him now as he let himself down with a lacklustre performance against the champion, but calling Haye **** is a stretch. Haye is a good fighter, who regressed technically as he moved up in weight, lucky win over Valuev and disappointing match ups didnt help.

**** nah, good fighter just met a great on on the night.


What next are you going to call B. Hopkins **** becuase he isnt as good as Hagler or Monzon?

Or are we gonna hear that some 16th century fighter was better than them all.

 

[yt]?v=0poOZLGfl9s[/yt]

 

List of the 60 fighters most would be cruiserweight or could get down to cruiser at 200lb