Wald Pussy fighting this Saturday

No, you are completely wrong. If we were comparing greatness, level of opposition, toughness, heart than there is no comparison. There styles are very similar if you compare their entire career. If you want to argue, Lewis' pussy style was because of his better opposition, I'd never make that excuse for a fighter, but it isn't arguable Lennox, the pussythearted, fought better people.

People forget that wald pussy used to be a man named WLAD. He was a china chinned destroyer after he was 42-2 until Lamon Brewster. He fought no one, but he either stopped them brutally or beat the shit out of him to a decision. He lost once to Sanders and lost to Purrity and beat the shit out of nearly everyone else along the way. He was a vey exciting fighter. Lewis retired at 41-2.

He had better performances sporadically. He beat better fighters. Fight in and fight out from his first to his last fight, he had a pussy blueprint, for every Ruddock or Golota, there is a Tua, a Holyfield(2x), a Mohawk bum, and Akinwande, Mcall, Tucker, Tyson , etc.........

No debate if Wlad is worse and a bigger pussy, but they have had similar careers in terms of excitement.Wlad has just been boring us since 2004. People are also remembering Lewis in far more positive light than they did at the time where he was almost universally reviled.

 

Ruddock doesn't really count, Wlad was also WAY more aggressive before he got KO'd, they both were. They became gradually more and more pussyish after they were both KO'd.

Golota also posed no threat at all, he was drugged up and I think Lewis could tell, and just jumped on him.

 

Um, thanks Captain Assclown. Any more waste of time crap you want to post? I can tell you are TRYING to be clever, but failing yet again. Oh, yes...another frustration for me are stupid folks like you and your boyfriend Jaws1216.

As you were....a waste of time.

 

Yet, you are still obsessed with me. Stop making stupid points. Honestly, that was one of the dumbest thing ever written here. wald fights like a pussy, anymore gems from the Sugarists era? I wasn't trying to be clever. I was pointing out what an obvious moron you are. What next?

"Bullets to the brain cause brain injury."

-Broadway Joe Einstein

 

How does Ruddock not count? Lewis was the underdog and Ruddock is a more formidable heavyweight than any guy Wlad has ever FOUGHT, never mind beaten.

Golota was a big a fight and many people thought Golota would give him hell. Until Golota claimed after the fact that Lidocaine had impaired his vision and made him dizzy, no one said a thing and no one said anything while the fight was going ("something's wrong with Golota", "Golota looks dizzy", etc.) ... I highly doubt Lewis had any inclination that Golota had anything wrong with him... he went after him from the start.

Listen, I'm not saying Lewis wasn't negative and boring sometimes, but he's not really comparable to wald pussy, who treats every bum he's in with like the most threatening fighter ever.

 

This bullshit gets on my last nerve.

You never have anything good to say about anyone currently fighting. You talk endlessly about how bad the average skill set of pro fighters has declined. All of the guys you seem to have anything positive to say about fought in the 1970s and 1980s. Yet, anyone else with similar viewpoints is labeled a "Sugarist"

Going by the definition of that idiotic little word as it seems to be used here, you are among the biggest "Sugarists" on this whole site.

 

Ruddock counts as a counter example. Wlad used to be exciting. I think if you compare their respective careers both are easily and rightly characterized as boring , pussy fighters. I am not even concerned with the who is worse..or a bigger pussy. Both had pussy styles and if you hate one, you ought to hate both.TAo me, wald is easily a bigger pussy, but so was Lennox. It is only a matter of degree.

 

Don't get me wrong, Ruddock was a good fighter and Lewis didn't fight like a pussy, but it doesn't count for one reason, at that stage in wald pussy's career, he was also not a pussy.

It's only later on in both their careers they became hideous, tedious, mind numbingly boring lennox pussy and wald pussy.

 

that's fair

Lennox seems like a decent guy, I was never a huge fan, but he had some performances here and there which were fun. And they were against guys who were threats. wald's exciting wins were against bums. Lennox had some choice performances even after he had been KOd... wald pussy hasn't had any, and he's faced inferior comp generally

 

If you want to see the dumbest things ever written, just look at your body of "work" here. You have never been remotely insightful, but there was a time when you were somewhat funny. And now you are just a negative jerk-off who repeats the same tired things like "sugarists" over and over whether it makes an ounce of sense or not.

Do the forum a favor and disappear along with your bun-boy Jaws1216. You will be thanked for that.

 

No a sugarist is someone who thinks Marciano or Louis were good fighters. It's my word and its my definition. It isn't my fault I fart more creativity than any 10 posters. I am 70's-90's type of guy, for sure. Bert Sugar would always praise people before the 70's, but it's my word so I use it as I see fit.

 

"2 +2 equals 4"

Genius BroadwayJoe.

It would take some very heavy drug abuse or blunt force trauma to my head to lower myself to your level of insight which seems to be limited to such controversial topics as "Wlad is a pussy." Wow, what insight!

 

FreeTROLL is hard at work yet again...making the forum much more stupid one half-assed post at a time.

No matter what, you just post whatever retarded thought (word used loosely) that pops into that tiny, tiny brain of yours.

I feel bad for you and your desperate need for attention...even the negative type.

 

I have honestly made more positive predictions about fighters than any other person here. I am what MikE wishes he was. There have been several times where I stood against 90% of the board and was proven right. That is exactly why I am not a troll and when I leave, people pm me and beg me to come back. So just sit at the kiddies table and shut the fuck up while the man is typing and pray I get bored slapping you silly know-nothing ass around.

Tiny brain: you had better be bringing it if you think that is true.

If I need your "insight" I will wait for such gems as

"The sun is hot."

-Broadway Joe


Another retarded thing is why are Jaws and I even compared? We are complete opposites in every way. We are not similar at all in any aspect.

 

You are the biggest current Troll on the board. Your entire schtick is based on saying outrageous things hoping to get a rise out of folks...much like your boyfriend Jaws.

You're nothing but a punk with a crappy attitude and the stamina to repeat similar tired lines over and over. You suck in every possible way.

And before you deny being a troll again...remember it was your retarded self that picked this argument. Which is all you are good for, anyway.

 

from 1937-1947, how many fighters were better than Joe Louis?

The 60s had a ridiculous assortment of awesome fighters, I fail to see how that somehow gets called "sugar" era

I fail to see any argument that, I don't know, Ezzard Charles wouldn't whup just as much ass in the 1970s as he did in the 1940s... He looks brilliant

If you were talking about 1923, I'd agree

But the 1940s was a modern era... Heavyweights are harder to figure because they were generally a lot smaller, but in other weight classes, skill sets were well developed by that time. Willie Pep really could box his ass off, it's not a myth.

Jack Johnson being able to box well is a myth, a legend. For that time, sure, he was a great boxer. But his style was obsolete and antiquated by 1930, never mind the 40s.

If 1948 was filmed using 1978 camera equipment, nobody would cling to this bullshit revisionism.

Bert Sugar was a clown who based everything off of hyperbole. He thought Rocky Graziano was a great fighter. Equating someone who makes the correct observation that "Archie Moore was a hell of a fighter" with someone who tells tall tales about Stanley Ketchel is ridiculous.

As for Marciano, I think serious doubts could be raised about his greatness across eras as a Heavyweight, but that doesn't mean he wasn't good. He was a beast at 190 pounds or so. Do you think he would be easy pickings for any of the Cruiserweight champions? I don't. I'm basing it off of watching him fight as a Cruiserweight (which in modern terms, he was) ... He was a relentless banger, he was strong, he was very mean and he had a lot of stamina. I don't think he'd do a whole lot against any of the good Heavyweights in the 60s and beyond, but as a cruiserweight-sized fighter against other similarly sized men, it's hard to make an argument that he ISN'T a handful for any of them.

Same for Louis. I don't know why you think he couldn't fight. He was a beautiful puncher, for sure. He had some of the weaknesses Arguello had, somewhat slow-footed, difficulty with movers and speed... but he was a damaging, vicious puncher and a great finisher. Louis is probably too small to deal with a lot of the later heavyweights. Make him a cruiserweight ( he was seldom much bigger than 200 pounds) and he's a tall order for anyone.

Jabs, hooks, uppercuts, combinations, head movement were around long before 1970

 

"You're a sugarist" (because I can't think of anything useful to say)

- Free Ike

 

Joe Louis couldn't fight a lick. I can't even see a counter argument. I have seen every bit of tape on him and he just couldn't fight. For some reason, I am always compared to Jaws. It makes no sense to me. I think Ezzard Charles was a great fighter based on the tape. I think Ray Robinson was the best fighter ever. I don't think all pre-70's fighters sucked. I just don't think they are all good like most sugarists do. I have read people say Marciano would beat Tyson in their primes. If you think Rocky would go more than 2 rounds against Tyson, you are a Sugarist. That is Ring Magazine and Bert Sugar talking. That isn't reason talking. What fucking bullshit. Louis was slow and chinny and fought no one and beat no one. It is no surprise to me that he dominated in an era where most fit young men were fighting in wars. I wasn't there. All I have is tapes, magazines and books. Jaws thinks literally all fighters until the 70's suck including Robinson suck. I dare you to find a post where I have even implied that, except for heavyweights
. What I have said is Joe Louis shouldn't be ranked anywhere near the top 10 of best heavyweights ever.

There is no rational argument to argue that. His reign was called the "bum of the month club" those are from contemporary sources.

Joe Louis was the best of a bad lot like wald pussy. He was the best of his era and that means his era was shit because he couldn't fight for shit.

I am not Jaws no matter how much a fuckwit like Broadway Joe , Reed or you want to say I am . If you dislike they way Jaws compares you to Bert Sugar than take it up with him.

 

Wait a minute, during the war years, Joe Louis was in the army fighting exhibitions, so the "fit young men were at war" argument doesn't work. Jaws is one of the dumbest people I have ever encountered when it comes to boxing. I apologize for comparing you as it is a horrible insult, like being compared looks-wise to Rocky Dennis. Jaws not being here is good for the site. His opinions on boxing are meaningless.

You really don't see Louis as being a fantastic puncher? He appears to throw everything near-perfect, like a textbook. Like Alexis did. Like any heavyweight champ, he had his share of bums, but they weren't all bums. Walcott was no bum, Conn was not a bum, Simon, Schmeling, Pastor, Baer on the way up, those guys were all solid. Not fabulous (though Walcott, as erratic and inconsistent as he was, was a pretty amazing technician) but solid. There were definitely some shit fighters there, but you could say that of any heavyweight champ. I won't disagree that its tough to envision Louis doing real well against bigger heavyweights from the 60s-90s, but against guys closer to that Cruiserweight size, he looks formidable.

As for this "Marciano KO Tyson" stuff, who says that shit? What guy on here, for example, has ever said anything that nuts? I think a lot of this is a reaction to actual people Sugar or that mongoloid Tracy Callis which is then blanketed upon anyone who says anything positive about a Louis or a Marciano, etc. No one here, least of all BWJ (who is a 70s fanatic, btw, and has been as long as I have been talking with him) would ever pick Rocky Marciano to defeat Mike Tyson. I wouldn't pick Marciano over any good 1960s contender with the possible exceptions of small guys like Ingemar and Patterson or highly skilled but chinny guys like Zora Folley.

 

How can you look at Louis and think he couldn't fight?

He had some of the best punching technique of all time, for starters.

 

Louis was a gorgeous puncher. It's glaringly obvious. The film doesn't lie.

 

Louis punched slow, his technique was good albeit slow. He'd be a good fight for Jerry Quarry level fighter in the 70's.Louis never beat anyone good ever. That is just a fact. In spite of fighting in one of the worst eras ever, he still lost, got destroyed by Max Schmelling.

 

And for finishers. Chinny, slow of hand and foot, yeah is technique was good because the bums he was fighting couldn't get out of his way.Same with Tito, where do you rank him?

 

Joe Louis probably had the best pure punching technique in the history of the sport. :dunno:

 

Arguello was a vastly better puncher in terms of technique and faster than slow as shit Joe Louis. None of this detacts from my central point, he reigned over a bad era.

 

I don't think Louis had slow hands at all

 

Better probably but i don't know about "vastly".

Arguello has vastly better competition than Louis.

 

Arguello did it versus live guys. Louis didn't.

 

Damn, "No Spine" McCline is the best I've heard yet. Even better than Jameel McCryin.

 

Yup...not at all. Slow feet...but very fast hands.