Complaint Thread

[quote="Marillac" post=305937][quote="Jack Williams" post=305934]Boxing matches ending in a draw.

Matter of fact, any sporting event ending in a draw. It’s the dumbest thing. Where’s Herm Edwards when you need him, you play to win, not tie.[/quote]

Boxing judging is just ridiculous. GGG won both fights by at least 3 rounds. Fury clearly won 9 rounds tonight. Wilder won the second 10-9 and the 9th and 12th 10-8. That's as clear as a boxing match will ever get. 115-111.[/quote]

Just have to give it to Fury after he got up in the final round. That was like it was out of a movie
 
[quote="Jack Williams" post=305939][quote="Marillac" post=305937][quote="Jack Williams" post=305934]Boxing matches ending in a draw.

Matter of fact, any sporting event ending in a draw. It’s the dumbest thing. Where’s Herm Edwards when you need him, you play to win, not tie.[/quote]

Boxing judging is just ridiculous. GGG won both fights by at least 3 rounds. Fury clearly won 9 rounds tonight. Wilder won the second 10-9 and the 9th and 12th 10-8. That's as clear as a boxing match will ever get. 115-111.[/quote]

Just have to give it to Fury after he got up in the final round. That was like it was out of a movie[/quote]

Heavyweight championship fights in my teens was Ali-Frazier. Now we get Wilder-Fury. If Wilder lost to Fury, which most observers believe, then the state of the heavyweight division is at an all time low. There were probably 10 heavyweights from Ali's era that would have destroyed Fury. I think the George Foreman of today, who is 69, could beat him with a few months of training.
 
[quote="Marillac" post=305937][quote="Jack Williams" post=305934]Boxing matches ending in a draw.

Matter of fact, any sporting event ending in a draw. It’s the dumbest thing. Where’s Herm Edwards when you need him, you play to win, not tie.[/quote]

Boxing judging is just ridiculous. GGG won both fights by at least 3 rounds. Fury clearly won 9 rounds tonight. Wilder won the second 10-9 and the 9th and 12th 10-8. That's as clear as a boxing match will ever get. 115-111.[/quote]
Its not only just ridiculous it is an outright fraud. They were calling for a "rematch" 1 minute after the decision. Anyone who pays for that nonsense is a fool. If you want to see it, do it creatively.
 
[quote="sjc88" post=305989][quote="Marillac" post=305937][quote="Jack Williams" post=305934]Boxing matches ending in a draw.

Matter of fact, any sporting event ending in a draw. It’s the dumbest thing. Where’s Herm Edwards when you need him, you play to win, not tie.[/quote]

Boxing judging is just ridiculous. GGG won both fights by at least 3 rounds. Fury clearly won 9 rounds tonight. Wilder won the second 10-9 and the 9th and 12th 10-8. That's as clear as a boxing match will ever get. 115-111.[/quote]
Its not only just ridiculous it is an outright fraud. They were calling for a "rematch" 1 minute after the decision. Anyone who pays for that nonsense is a fool. If you want to see it, do it creatively.[/quote]

My friends and I enjoyed the fight, but I agree, we found some shady stream online and watched it that way. Speaking of paying for stuff, if anyone actually paid for that Tiger/Mickelson golf1v1 is a fool. Wtf was that
 
[quote="Ray Morgan" post=305950][quote="Jack Williams" post=305939][quote="Marillac" post=305937][quote="Jack Williams" post=305934]Boxing matches ending in a draw.

Matter of fact, any sporting event ending in a draw. It’s the dumbest thing. Where’s Herm Edwards when you need him, you play to win, not tie.[/quote]

Boxing judging is just ridiculous. GGG won both fights by at least 3 rounds. Fury clearly won 9 rounds tonight. Wilder won the second 10-9 and the 9th and 12th 10-8. That's as clear as a boxing match will ever get. 115-111.[/quote]

Just have to give it to Fury after he got up in the final round. That was like it was out of a movie[/quote]

Heavyweight championship fights in my teens was Ali-Frazier. Now we get Wilder-Fury. If Wilder lost to Fury, which most observers believe, then the state of the heavyweight division is at an all time low. There were probably 10 heavyweights from Ali's era that would have destroyed Fury. I think the George Foreman of today, who is 69, could beat him with a few months of training.[/quote]

George Foreman said both guys would whoop him. He said he wouldn't have been able to touch Tyson Fury and he would have been in danger all fight with Wilder's right hand.

These guys are enormous and move exceptionally well.
 
[quote="sjc88" post=305989][quote="Marillac" post=305937][quote="Jack Williams" post=305934]Boxing matches ending in a draw.

Matter of fact, any sporting event ending in a draw. It’s the dumbest thing. Where’s Herm Edwards when you need him, you play to win, not tie.[/quote]

Boxing judging is just ridiculous. GGG won both fights by at least 3 rounds. Fury clearly won 9 rounds tonight. Wilder won the second 10-9 and the 9th and 12th 10-8. That's as clear as a boxing match will ever get. 115-111.[/quote]
Its not only just ridiculous it is an outright fraud. They were calling for a "rematch" 1 minute after the decision. Anyone who pays for that nonsense is a fool. If you want to see it, do it creatively.[/quote]

It's pathetic. One fighter was interviewed and said it was 115-111 Fury but he scored it the way he knew the judges would and scored it for Wilder. The corruption in boxing is what almost killed it 20 years ago and it's still here.

Fury boxed his face off in 9 rounds. Wilder outboxed him in the second and then won 10-8 rounds in the 9th and 12th dropping him. I don't think the knockdown in the 9th was that impressive. The knockdown in the 12th was tremendous though! And holy sh*t Fury getting up was crazy!!!! What a savage. What heart to do that. And he gets up puts his hands behind his back and then outboxes Wilder to end the fight. Wow. Great official btw.
 
[quote="Marillac" post=306006][quote="Ray Morgan" post=305950][quote="Jack Williams" post=305939][quote="Marillac" post=305937][quote="Jack Williams" post=305934]Boxing matches ending in a draw.

Matter of fact, any sporting event ending in a draw. It’s the dumbest thing. Where’s Herm Edwards when you need him, you play to win, not tie.[/quote]

Boxing judging is just ridiculous. GGG won both fights by at least 3 rounds. Fury clearly won 9 rounds tonight. Wilder won the second 10-9 and the 9th and 12th 10-8. That's as clear as a boxing match will ever get. 115-111.[/quote]

Just have to give it to Fury after he got up in the final round. That was like it was out of a movie[/quote]

Heavyweight championship fights in my teens was Ali-Frazier. Now we get Wilder-Fury. If Wilder lost to Fury, which most observers believe, then the state of the heavyweight division is at an all time low. There were probably 10 heavyweights from Ali's era that would have destroyed Fury. I think the George Foreman of today, who is 69, could beat him with a few months of training.[/quote]

George Foreman said both guys would whoop him. He said he wouldn't have been able to touch Tyson Fury and he would have been in danger all fight with Wilder's right hand.

These guys are enormous and move exceptionally well.[/quote]

Foreman's humble and good guy nature, which started after finding religion, requires that he says such nonsense. He was so much superior to these guys, it's not even fair. Fury is tall, so was Ernie Terrell, and Ali pounded him senseless. Some of today's boxers are tall, but they aren't very skilled, at least not like previous generations of fighters.
 
Fury clearly "outboxed" Wilder from the technical aspect. That is even though he got dropped twice. The discrepancy of the scorecards is ludicrous. The tie scorecard is unbelievable. I could care less and am certainly no boxing expert but a blind man could see what was going on. It should be investigated.
 
It's always interesting to me when people compare athletes from the 60's or so to the athletes of today. I think some guys would translate to still being great today if they were great in the 60's, however I'd bet that most would lose to lots of athletes today. If you look at the difference in the caliber of athletes today, it's insane save for rare exceptions where past greats would hold up like a Bo Jackson or so. The athletes today are usually much bigger, stronger, faster, and more athletic than athletes decades ago. I never got to see Ali obviously, but I would not be so sure that greats from back then would be able to dominate today when there are far more talented athletes. Just my take...but I just can't picture Babe Ruth hitting a 100 MPH fastball or even Larry Bird dominating the NBA today. Look at pictures of athletes from the NBA/NFL/MLB in the 60's-80's and compare to today. Obviously pure skill can beat athletic ability but past greats would not be nearly as dominant IMO for the most part even if they succeeded.
 
Last edited:
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=306065]It's always interesting to me when people compare athletes from the 60's or so to the athletes of today. I think some guys would translate to still being great today if they were great in the 60's, however I'd bet that most would lose to lots of athletes today. If you look at the difference in the caliber of athletes today, it's insane save for rare exceptions where past greats would hold up like a Bo Jackson or so. The athletes today are usually much bigger, stronger, faster, and more athletic than athletes decades ago. I never got to see Ali obviously, but I would not be so sure that greats from back then would be able to dominate today when there are far more talented athletes. Just my take...but I just can't picture Babe Ruth hitting a 100 MPH fastball or even Larry Bird dominating the NBA today. Look at pictures of athletes from the NBA/NFL/MLB in the 60's-80's and compare to today. Obviously pure skill can beat athletic ability but past greats would not be nearly as dominant IMO for the most part even if they succeeded.[/quote]

but at the same time the athletes of old if they were around today would have different body types also because of advances in technology training etc
 
[quote="mjmaherjr" post=306066][quote="Mike Zaun" post=306065]It's always interesting to me when people compare athletes from the 60's or so to the athletes of today. I think some guys would translate to still being great today if they were great in the 60's, however I'd bet that most would lose to lots of athletes today. If you look at the difference in the caliber of athletes today, it's insane save for rare exceptions where past greats would hold up like a Bo Jackson or so. The athletes today are usually much bigger, stronger, faster, and more athletic than athletes decades ago. I never got to see Ali obviously, but I would not be so sure that greats from back then would be able to dominate today when there are far more talented athletes. Just my take...but I just can't picture Babe Ruth hitting a 100 MPH fastball or even Larry Bird dominating the NBA today. Look at pictures of athletes from the NBA/NFL/MLB in the 60's-80's and compare to today. Obviously pure skill can beat athletic ability but past greats would not be nearly as dominant IMO for the most part even if they succeeded.[/quote]

but at the same time the athletes of old if they were around today would have different body types also because of advances in technology training etc[/quote]

True good point...I remember reading that though Babe Ruth obviously was not very athletic or fit, he was in the 1st percentile nationally when he took some puzzle test that purported to measure processing speed or something along those lines. That would indicate he had an amazing ability to identify pitches and react to the ball theoretically. Really interesting stuff.
 
Babe Ruth rode in buses to games instead of private jets, faced guys throwing spitballs and scuffed balls, was hungover most games, ate hot dogs like they were going out of style, and probably never was in a weight room. Plus, there was no arthroscopic surgeries and no lasik to improve eye sight. Even forgetting steroids, which spiked the stats from many recent superstars, Ruth, with a personal trainer, nutritionist and personal chef would likely be every bit as great as he was then. Just measure him to his contemporaries to see how great he was.

As for boxing, it's a dead sport. No where near the competition the fighters from past eras had, which made them better. The biggest difference from the past to today is football, where lineman on both sides of the ball average 300, with some running mid to upper 4s for the 40.
 
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=306069][quote="mjmaherjr" post=306066][quote="Mike Zaun" post=306065]It's always interesting to me when people compare athletes from the 60's or so to the athletes of today. I think some guys would translate to still being great today if they were great in the 60's, however I'd bet that most would lose to lots of athletes today. If you look at the difference in the caliber of athletes today, it's insane save for rare exceptions where past greats would hold up like a Bo Jackson or so. The athletes today are usually much bigger, stronger, faster, and more athletic than athletes decades ago. I never got to see Ali obviously, but I would not be so sure that greats from back then would be able to dominate today when there are far more talented athletes. Just my take...but I just can't picture Babe Ruth hitting a 100 MPH fastball or even Larry Bird dominating the NBA today. Look at pictures of athletes from the NBA/NFL/MLB in the 60's-80's and compare to today. Obviously pure skill can beat athletic ability but past greats would not be nearly as dominant IMO for the most part even if they succeeded.[/quote]

but at the same time the athletes of old if they were around today would have different body types also because of advances in technology training etc[/quote]

True good point...I remember reading that though Babe Ruth obviously was not very athletic or fit, he was in the 1st percentile nationally when he took some puzzle test that purported to measure processing speed or something along those lines. That would indicate he had an amazing ability to identify pitches and react to the ball theoretically. Really interesting stuff.[/quote] I didnt know that bout Ruth. Interesting. One of the things I try and think of in a particular time period is how much better was that person than to everyone in their era. So even though obviously I never saw Ruth in person he would be a guy I would think of in that category obviously.

Boxing specific I'm just a casual fan so by no means an expert. In my mind mind I only was around for the tail end of his career but saw a lot of the other matches years later via internet but Ali would be the best in my opinion. Rounding out top 5 I wouldn't even know. I guess you have to put Mayweather in there even though I dont like him. Sugar Ray Leonard and Duran I'd put. Tyson in the beginning was insane IMO not from a boxing perspective he just steamrolled people
 
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=306065]It's always interesting to me when people compare athletes from the 60's or so to the athletes of today. I think some guys would translate to still being great today if they were great in the 60's, however I'd bet that most would lose to lots of athletes today. If you look at the difference in the caliber of athletes today, it's insane save for rare exceptions where past greats would hold up like a Bo Jackson or so. The athletes today are usually much bigger, stronger, faster, and more athletic than athletes decades ago. I never got to see Ali obviously, but I would not be so sure that greats from back then would be able to dominate today when there are far more talented athletes. Just my take...but I just can't picture Babe Ruth hitting a 100 MPH fastball or even Larry Bird dominating the NBA today. Look at pictures of athletes from the NBA/NFL/MLB in the 60's-80's and compare to today. Obviously pure skill can beat athletic ability but past greats would not be nearly as dominant IMO for the most part even if they succeeded.[/quote]
Mike, love your enthusiasm, but as an old-timer (me, not you!), you've touched a nerve. So you (or any of us, for that matter) never saw Babe Ruth swing a bat, yet you're saying he couldn't hit a 100 mph fastball ... which makes zero sense. The guy was a phenomenal athlete, period, regardless of when he played. Also, a mid-1980s team of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Julius Irving, and Michael Jordan would destroy any current array of NBA standouts ... and, going back even further, a late-1960s team of Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor, and Earl Monroe would probably do it as welll. These players lack nothing in terms of size and strength -- no one was stronger than Wilt -- not to mention talent, and just because the game was slower, doesn't mean the players were slower as well. Plus they probably had a better understanding of game and how it should be played.
 
Last edited:
[URL][URL]https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/11/babe-ruth.aspx[/URL][/URL]

There's the article about Ruth taking cognitive tests along with results. Interesting piece and the science on this stuff was still spotty, but it clearly sounds like he had superior ability to process objects and had great hand-eye coordination.

Redken, I think guys like Wilt would still be good today but I don't think it's a guarantee that most from that era who stood out would be better than the top guys today. Guys like LeBron, the Greek Freak, etc. they haven't seen many guys like that in their day if at all. The insane combination of shooting ability, athleticism, skill, speed, size, and strength. I think the shooters would still shoot well from back in the day, however they would have much less time and space to get their shots off with much bigger and quicker players. This is comparing stars in the NBA now to stars in the NBA then as is. Obviously like Maher said, if they had access to today's training and tech then they'd be beasts still. It's not as much a knock on previous decades of athletes as it is a consideration of how insanely athletic athletes have become in modern times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top