FIGHTBEAT #11 IN THE WORLD!

So No Matter WHAT a Guy Does, as Looooooooong as he Acquired the "Linear" Title @ SOME Point, U're Gonna HONOR That??...

So U're Telling REED that UNTIL he Lost to Lennox Lewis, SHANNONfuckingBRIGGS was "The Heavyweight Champion of the World" ?:dunno:

REED Can't Name Another Heavy Champ who Lost his Status Because of his Opposition, but REED can Name Some who GAVE UP or were STRIPPED of their Titles...Michael Spinks is 1 of them...

If Tyson were in Schmeling's Era & Schmeling GAVE UP his Titles, life would Carry On, Wouldn't It???...Just like the "Linear" Argument FOUND a Way to REinvent Itself After Marciano's Death...

Michael Spinks was STRIPPED of his Title...Mike Tyson WON 3 Belts in 3 SEPERATE Fights...He Had ALL of the Heavyweight Belts & he DEFENDED All of them 5-6 Times...

Sonny Liston DID NOT have a Belt UNTIL he Beat Patterson...Patterson Was NOT STRIPPED of his Belt UNTIL Liston KO'ed him...

REED Fails to See how Liston-Patterson is Analogous w/Tyson-Spinks...


REED

 

Liston didn't have a belt because there was only one belt at the time. If the same Liston/Patterson situation played out today, Patterson would have been stripped of at LEAST one of his belts for avoiding Sonny.

It's a good comparison with Tyson/Spinks, because like that situation, Liston was considered the best heavyweight in the world by quite a bit before he finally got Patterson in the ring. Patterson wasn't stripped because he wasn't as good. He kept his title until he lost it in the ring.

Don't you agree that it's not fair to Max Schmeling to use Tyson's fights from Berbick to Spinks when comparing their reigns?

 

The line has been broken twice since Tom Allen beat Mike McCool for the American Heavyweight Championship in 1873:

• Allen lost to Joe Goss on a foul in 1876.
• Goss lost to Paddy Ryan in 87 rounds in 1880.
• Ryan lost to John L. Sullivan in 1883, starting the modern lineage.
• The lineage was broken for the first time when Gene Tunney retired, never to come back, in 1928.
• Max Schmeling beat Jack Sharkey on a foul to claim the title in 1930.
• Jack Sharkey beat Schmeling in 1932 in a crap decision. Then Carnera, Baer, Braddock and Joe Louis, who won the title in 1937.
• Louis retired in 1949, but then defended his title Lineal title against Ezzard Charles in 1950.
• Ezzard Charles lost to Walcott, who lost to Marciano.
• The lineage was broken a second time when Marciano retired, never to come back, in 1956.
• Floyd Patterson and Archie Moore fought over the vacant title later that year.
• The lineage continues until Lennox Lewis. If he does indeed never return to come back to the ring, it will be the third time.

The Bottom Line: Reed can't count to "2."

 

Sorry, but U're QUOTING REED as he Speaks of the "Linear" Argument IRREGARDLESS of Division (U Did REED where REED Noted the Lightheavy Division, Didn't U???)...

Yet U've Posted a HEAVYWEIGHT List, Exclusively????:dunno:

Do U have YOUR OWN ORIGINAL Arguments or R U a COPY & PASTE Specialist???...U're the PETRETG of the General Forum....


REED

 

We were comparing heavyweight champions, you nimrod. The Lineal Heavyweight Championship was very meaningful up until the 1980s. That's why Ring magazine and many other publications recognized Spinks as the champion, and Tyson as simply an illiterate retard with three belts.

You're ignoring how I've refuted EVERY point you've made, and are trying to talk about the light heavyweigh division? That's because you're afraid of sticking to the subject. Sorry, but here's your original post:
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by REEDsART
The "ARGUMENT" Is, there's a Direct "Line" from 1 Champ to the Next, but that "Line" has Been Broken COUNTLESS Times Throughout the Course of Boxing History...
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
You were talking about one line, not all the lines in general. You didn't say "those" lines.
Therefore, you cannot count to "2."

 

WHEN & WHERE did REED Reference ANY PARTICULAR Weight Class in that Quote, RubyHOE???...

w/N that SAME Post that the Quote was taken From, REED Noted BOTH the Lightheavy AND Heavyweight Divisions, did he NOT???...

When REED Said,"That Line has Been Broken COUNTLESS Times", REED was Speaking of ALL the Weight Classes that have Proclaimed Linear Champions AFTER that Line was CLEARLY Broken...

So U Haven't Refuted SHIT:nono: ...ALL U've "Proven" is that U're EXTREMELY RELIANT On PASTING Methods to MASK your LACK of Debate Abilities...

Worse than that,U're JUXTAPOSING REED's Quote for YOUR Purposes...

Again, REED CLEARLY DID NOT Reference ANY Particular Weight Class in the Quote U Took...THEN, REED Noted TWO DIFFERENT Weight Classes in the Same Post...So How EXACTLY was this STRICTLY an Argument about the Linear HEAVYWEIGHT Title???...

& Please, Try to Post YOUR Thoughts & Not Ring Magazines this Time...


REED:dunno:

 

But REED HASN'T Done that, Steve...

REED is Counting Tyson's Defenses from when he Accumulated All 3 Belts, INCLUDING the 1 Spinks VACATED...

It's Also NOT FAIR to Tyson to EXCLUDE his Defenses AFTER Tucker & PRIOR to Spinks...After All, he was the Undisputed Heavyweight Champ during this Time...


REED

 

NO HE WASN'T! :: :doh:

 

So AFTER Tyson WON the WBC from Berbick, the WBA from Bonecrusher & the IBF from Tucker, What was he, Steve???


REED:dunno:

 

The WBC, WBA and IBF Heavyweight champion of the World. :dunno:

 

:doh:

Arguing w/YOU is like Arguing w/Mrs. REED...If U were in REED's Crib, he'd Hand Over his Wallet & Tell U to Shut Up...


REED::

 

YOU HIJACKED MY THREAD.

FIGHTBEAT IS #11 :cheer::cheer: ::

 

ttu

 

:: I feel the same way.

 

Ah, so it was a language error on your part. You don't know the difference between "that" and "those." That doesn't speak well of your intelligence.

No one cares about the Lineal Light Heavyweight Championship.

But no one cares about the Lineal titles in other weight classes. Fighters generall get bigger as they get older, and they can't make weight, so they move to another division.

I've copied and pasted virtually nothing, besides quote=REEDsART and /quote, and a couple of lists.
Basically, of every argument you've made during this post that you haven't abandoned is the one that "Oh, I certainly can count to two! Let's talk about the light heavyweight division, because I'm getting owned so badly talking about the heavyweight."

So what?

Right. It was a language error on your part, being unable to differentiate "that" from "those." I get it. Now let's get onto more serious issues.

:doh: Dumbass. I'm not agreeing with Ring magazine. You were saying that no one recognized Spinks as the champion. Ring magazine did, and you were wrong. You said that no one ranks Schmeling anywhere near each other. I posted the opinions of a dozen different authorities, most of which disagreed with you.

Really, you're making stupid points like, "No one thought Spinks was the champion," and, "No one besides you ranks Schmeling anywhere near Tyson." Both of those points were completely false, and I copied and pasted the rankings of Ring magazine, and typed out the opinions of 10 trainers.

I mean, can you understand what's going on? You say that no one thought Spinks was the champion, and that no one besides I would rank Schmeling reasonably close to Tyson. I gave proof by noting that ranking Schmeling five or six places behind Tyson isn't idiosyncratic to me. You also said that in Schmeling's era, an inactive fighter would be stripped. This is patently wrong, since Jack Dempsey went over three years without a pro fight around the same time Schmeling started boxing.

That right there ^^^^^^^ proves that you were totally full of shit in three of your points. Are you unable to address them? That seems pretty logical, since you're trying to change the subject, like the pussy you are.

Do you even know what "undisputed" means? That means that there's no one else who had a claim to the title. Spinks could, and that's why he made $13 million to fight Tyson.

Also, if Spinks wasn't the champion, why did Michael Buffer announce that many people still recognized him as the champion.

 

There was NEVER any "Language Error"...REED made an OPENING Statement about "The Linear ARGUMENT" as a WHOLE...REED Then Noted Heavyweight AND Lightheavyweight Examples...

YOU Took it Upon YOURSELF to CLING to the Heavyweight Example...

As it Pertains to Spinks REED Said that his Claim to the Heavyweight Title was FLIMSY @ Best...Since U COULDN'T Talk a Hooker Out of her Panties, Let Alone DEBATE w/REED, you PASTED a Ring Ranking...NEVERMIND that Ring's Rankings have Gone to the HIGHEST BIDDER for about as Looooooooong as the Magazine's Been in Existence...

U Posted a List of Trainers, the VAST MAJORITY of Which had Tyson SEVERAL NOTCHES AHEAD of Max Schmeling...If Tyson's Ranked 5 or 6 Slots HIGHER than Schmeling HOW is that "Close"???...

As for your Dempsey Era Point, here's REED's Words VERBATIM...

Even N Schmeling's Era, REED Thinks Fans/Writers,etc. Would have had a BIG Problem w/Referring to Michael Spinks as "The Champion" when he WASN'T Facing Championship Caliber Fighters...

WHEN & WHERE did REED say SHIT about an Inactive Fighter Being STRIPPED???...

This Back & Forth btwn Us has Proven what REED KNEW All Along...

1. U're INCAPABLE of DISCUSSING Boxing...All U're Good for is REGURGITATING &/or PASTING BULLSHIT Links & LISTS...U're a Fucking BOOKWORM Masquerading as a Boxing Fan...

2. U're a TROLL
3. U're BITTER Cause U're a CRIPPLED Piece of Shit...

& if U DARED to Call REED a Pussy to his Face, he'd Push YOU AND YOUR WHEELCHAIR Down a Flight of Stairs...


REED

 

Hmmmm.... If Spinks did have a claim to the title, wouldn't this go against your idea that Mike Tyson was the "undisputed" champion?

Really, the only time Ring magazine's rankings were bought and sold before the Golden Boy Era was in the 1970s. In the 1980s, when Bert Sugar owned the magazine, that simply didn't happen.

That's what I've maintained all along. Originally, I said that Mike Tyson wasn't that much better than Max Schmeling. Tyson was clearly better, but it's not like we were comparing Joe Louis to Hasim Rahman. In my own list, I had Schmeling about five spaces behind Tyson, which has been my point all along.

I thank you for finally agreeing with me.

Well, then how come none of the writers and fans of Schmeling's and Dempsey's era (the 1920s) start saying that Dempsey wasn't the champion when he stopped taking on top fighters?

Ah, physical threats. The last resort of a man who has been badly, badly owned on the internet. Only a pussy would threaten violence against someone who lives hundreds or thousands of miles away. (Boxers calling each other out and the like excepted, of course.)

 

::

So when YOU Called REED a "Pussy", that WASN'T Indicative of YOU Getting Badly,BADLY Owned, yet when REED REPLIES to YOU Calling him a "Pussy", it IS???:: ...

The FACT is, REED MADE his Points, SUPPORTED them & ALL U Could Counter w/was "like the Pussy you Are"...

What's THAT a Sign of, RubyHOE???...

It's Been a PLEASURE DISMANTLING your Piss POOR Arguments & EXPOSING YOU for the BITTER, TROLLING, Copy & Paste Artist that YOU Really Are...


REED

 

You're not a pussy because you called me a pussy. You're a pussy because you keep trying to change the subject, and because when you got angry, you threatened to push me down a flight of stairs, from the safety of your computer screen. Anyway, let's get back to boxing.

• Fact: What started this whole exchange was me saying that Tyson wasn't that much better than Schmeling. (See Xplosive's sig)
• Fact: I expanded by stating that Mike Tyson was better, but not by a huge margin. (See this post)
• Fact: You said that Tyson was ranked considerably higher on all "HeavyGREATS" lists. (See this post)
• Fact: I further expanded on this by explaining that I rank Tyson only four or five spots above Schmeling. (See this post)
• Fact: You later said that most people ranked Tyson five or six spots ahead of Schmeling. (See this post and this post)
• Fact: This statement inherently agrees with my initial claim, unless you wish to argue that there's a "huge" difference between four or five and five or six.

 

REED Hasn't Changed the Subject @ All AND, REED Addressed EVERY Point U CLAIMED he was Avoiding (in the Post where YOU Called REED a "Pussy" from the Safety of YOUR Computer Screen:: )...

MORESO, U have YET to EVER Broach the Head-to-Head Matchup, which REED did SEVERAL Posts Ago...

N REED's Opinion 5-6 Spots ISN'T Close (Especially if U're Doing a Top 10 or 12 List; that would Make Tyson TWICE as Good by Estimation) & a Head-to-Head would REALLY Seperate the 2...Like REED Said, it'd B Louis-Schmeling II ALL OVER AGAIN...

Does your Pill Popping Ass DISagree w/That???...

Being Serious, REED Apologizes for Saying he'd "Push YOU AND your Wheelchair Down a Flight of Stairs"...

What REED SHOULD have Said was, he'd Lift YOU Out of the Wheelchair & HURL your Paraplegic Ass Down a Flight of Stairs...

All Forgiven???

REED

 

So, you're saying that five spots is "considerably higher"? If so, you're retarded.

 

Congrats Carlos

I always liked fightbeat even when it was fightworld.us

Now most of those other sites have those pop:bears: :bears: :bears: :bears: :bears: :bears: up ads and other crap like spyware that can ruin you computer . Thank you Carlos for keeping that crap off your site