History's most disgraceful fighter [Archive]

PowerPuncher

10-04-2007, 06:05 AM

PowerPuncher

10-04-2007, 06:08 AM

ChrisPontius

10-04-2007, 06:15 AM

What about fighters who used loaded gloves? Surely thats worse

I agree here. Luo Resto and Bob Fitzsimmons, pathetic.

Riddick Bowe is also worth mentioning

Outside of the ring, nearly every boxer was a wife beater for some reasons. The list is endless.

mcvey

10-04-2007, 06:33 AM

Muhammad Ali, for being an American world heavyweight champion who refused to serve his country in the war against communism.

In terms of fouling in the ring, Andrew Golota and Mike Tyson are good candidates.
How many other black pro boxers in the top ten did you see go to Vietnam?
Do you hold the same brief for Dempsey and Willard ? who didnt serve in WW1,neither did Moran ,the results of the Vietnam conflict have vindicated Ali I think,but had he gone ,he was assured an easy time boosting troop morale,instead of which he refused and had his passport and living taken away for over three years while he awaited his appeal,ps John Wayne dodged the draft in WW2 ,and there,s a statue to him calling him a great American,still he did hate the "commies".
George Cochan a polish fighter hated blacks and spat in a black fighters face in the ring,fred Russell a contender from way back was as dirty a fighter as Zivic,who by the way was never dsqd,I found Hameds posturing over a fallen opponent sickening,I find him sickening to tell the truth,Galento was very dirty
Dear old Gentleman JimCorbett engaged in 2 fixed fightsthe one against Kid McCoy resulted in No decisio fights because of the aroma from it,he also spat in Fitz,s face prior to their fight ,and in common with Sharkey, Jeffries ,Hart,and Burns was an unabashed racist.Ray Robinson ,thep4p greatest,imo, beat his wife regularly,Johnson hit several of his women,the list is unending Lamotta raped a womanAre we judging fighters in the ring or out of it?

TBooze

10-04-2007, 07:46 AM

Muhammad Ali, for being an American world heavyweight champion who refused to serve his country in the war against communism.

What is wrong with the Communist Manifesto? Marx had a great theory, the fact it has yet to work is more a damning inditement of us as people, than a flaw in the theory.

One day we will be mature enough for us all to be communists.

Ali had many flaws, but not wanting to go to war over economic idealogy was not one of them IMO.

The Kurgan

10-04-2007, 08:09 AM

How many other black pro boxers in the top ten did you see go to Vietnam?

How many others were drafted?

Do you hold the same brief for Dempsey and Willard ? who didnt serve in WW1,neither did Moran ,the results of the Vietnam conflict have vindicated Ali I think,but had he gone ,he was assured an easy time boosting troop morale,instead of which he refused and had his passport and living taken away for over three years while he awaited his appeal,ps John Wayne dodged the draft in WW2 ,and there,s a statue to him calling him a great American,still he did hate the "commies".

Some good points: Dempsey ties with Ali for dodging the draft (I'm not sure Willard was drafted, although I'm open to being enlightened). John Wayne was not a pro boxer and is therefore outside of the scope of the discussion.

I don't think one can justify exploiting a generation of young men (which Ali basically did) on the basis that the war failed. Might (or lack of it) does not make right: the fact that America failed the Vietnamese people does not vindicate those who failed America in its hour of need.

The Kurgan

10-04-2007, 08:12 AM

What is wrong with the Communist Manifesto? Marx had a great theory, the fact it has yet to work is more a damning inditement of us as people, than a flaw in the theory.

While I won't go into detail, since this isn't a political forum, I will say that the "communism is a great idea that doesn't work in practice" is bullshit. For instance: a central point of communism is that a proletariat only needs to work about four hours to surivive; the rest of his/her hours is spent working for the profit of the capitalists. This is false, because the extra hours we work go towards our own luxury as well as the luxury of the managerial workers: this is why we're able to have these nice computers to chat over.

One day we will be mature enough for us all to be communists.

I don't go in for prophecy, but given the history of communism, I think that's unlikely.

Ali had many flaws, but not wanting to go to war over economic idealogy was not one of them IMO.

It's a good thing that enough men didn't have that attitude, otherwise we CERTAINLY wouldn't be having this discussion.

The Kurgan

10-04-2007, 08:15 AM

Rapists, Murderers, Wife Beaters......

Offenders only against a few people. Ali metaphorically took the American flag and the flags of free people everywhere, and the souls of all those suffering under scientific socialism, and pissed on them. To fail to recompense one's social contract with soldiers (that you'd be willing to do the same thing if necessary) is the ultimate offense to the armed forces.

mr. magoo

10-04-2007, 08:46 AM

PowerPuncher

10-04-2007, 08:50 AM

I agree here. Luo Resto and Bob Fitzsimmons, pathetic.

Riddick Bowe is also worth mentioning

Outside of the ring, nearly every boxer was a wife beater for some reasons. The list is endless.

Did Fitz really load his gloves? I havent heard that 1.

Actually I dont come down too hard on wife beaters. Yes its shitty but its sometiems a mans last resort dysfunctional relationships. Possibly focusing on Rapists and murderers

TBooze

10-04-2007, 08:51 AM

.
It's a good thing that enough men didn't have that attitude, otherwise we CERTAINLY wouldn't be having this discussion.

Eutopia is on the cards if we follow the Communist manifesto, that is not going to happen when we are driven by greed, and the need to be thought of better in the eyes of our peers.;)

PowerPuncher

10-04-2007, 08:53 AM

Offenders only against a few people. Ali metaphorically took the American flag and the flags of free people everywhere, and the souls of all those suffering under scientific socialism, and pissed on them. To fail to recompense one's social contract with soldiers (that you'd be willing to do the same thing if necessary) is the ultimate offense to the armed forces.

So you'd feel better against him if he killed a few 100 Vietkong in a pointless war that achieved nothing?

What did Ali say 'No Vietkongs tried to lynch me'? :lol: And after winning his Gold medal, he went in a cafe and had a white gang chase him and a friend and lynch them. They also wanted the Olympic Gold medal apparently.

Honestly if someone told me to go and fight in Iraq I'd try and get out of it too.

Lets not forget the other famous Vietnam draft dodger:

George W Bush - have the same opinion on him

What about Dempsey and the other draft dodgers discussed in this thread?

PowerPuncher

10-04-2007, 08:56 AM

does not vindicate those who failed America in its hour of need.

How exactly was America in need? Aren't you Scot anyway?

ChrisPontius

10-04-2007, 09:14 AM

Did Fitz really load his gloves? I havent heard that 1.

Well, it's not a certainty. He cut up Jeffries very bad in a short amount of time (despite Jeffries having improved his defense&skill). Jeffries hinted to it by his own words and Fitzsimmons threw his gloves away right after the fight.
Gloves were tiny in the first place back then though, but you can never know. Resto is a certainty though.

The Kurgan

10-04-2007, 09:28 AM

Eutopia is on the cards if we follow the Communist manifesto, that is not going to happen when we are driven by greed, and the need to be thought of better in the eyes of our peers.;)

How suitiable, therefore, that utopia literally means "no place". ;)

TBooze

10-04-2007, 09:34 AM

How suitiable, therefore, that utopia literally means "no place". ;)

Yes; if you look on the down side; if you are positive it may answer your dreams:thumbsup.

It is to a point an oxymoron;)

The Kurgan

10-04-2007, 09:35 AM

So you'd feel better against him if he killed a few 100 Vietkong in a pointless war that achieved nothing?

It wasn't so pointless for the millions of south-east Asians who died as a result of the domino affect. The Vietnamese, Cambodians and Lao are still suffering as a result of America's failure to practice what it preached.

What did Ali say 'No Vietkongs tried to lynch me'? :lol: And after winning his Gold medal, he went in a cafe and had a white gang chase him and a friend and lynch them. They also wanted the Olympic Gold medal apparently.

I can't say I've ever heard that story. I do know that it wasn't white men who screwed Ali out of the fortune he made.

Honestly if someone told me to go and fight in Iraq I'd try and get out of it too.

Well, asking the modern American youth to be conscripted for war would be in itself highly immoral. The youth of the 1960s was too soft and unpatriotic to do the job quietly, as their parents had in WWII. Considering the levels of American obsesity, there'd be hundreds of heart attacks in just basic training.

Plus, the nature of war has changed: modern armies are hi-tech and expensive per soldier, so what's needed is (relatively) small numbers of proficient elite troops. The only reason the draft keeps on coming up in modern times is a scare tactic to try and get people to vote Democrat.

Lets not forget the other famous Vietnam draft dodger:

George W Bush - have the same opinion on him

I do, although I think of Ali as a better person because he had some redeeming features (such as his charitable nature and work to improve black self-confidence).

What about Dempsey and the other draft dodgers discussed in this thread?

As I said, I forgot about Dempsey, whose draft-dodging was no less contemptible.

The Kurgan

10-04-2007, 09:35 AM

Yeah but Carlos Monzon who killed his wife deserves a pat on the back right?

Totally. That's EXACTLY what I said. In fact, I think Monzon deserves a medal and should be sanctified by the Pope.

The Kurgan

10-04-2007, 09:38 AM

How exactly was America in need?

It was in need of troops to defend the South Vietnamese from Soviet-supported invasion. Ali, as America's alpha male (as the heavyweight champion of the world then was) would have been a big boost to troop morale. As a Muslim and a black, he'd have helped to present a united front against communism: that, whatever their differences, Americans all wanted a world that was more free and more prosperous.

Aren't you Scot anyway?

*Looks at groin* Good god! You're right!

janitor

10-04-2007, 09:41 AM

I agree here. Luo Resto and Bob Fitzsimmons, pathetic.

To be fair the loaded gloves alegation was never proven against Fitzsimmons.

janitor

10-04-2007, 09:44 AM

It was in need of troops to defend the South Vietnamese from Soviet-supported invasion. Ali, as America's alpha male (as the heavyweight champion of the world then was) would have been a big boost to troop morale. As a Muslim and a black, he'd have helped to present a united front against communism: that, whatever their differences, Americans all wanted a world that was more free and more prosperous.

I have some sympathy for Alis refusal to fight.

The draft boards were notorious for drafting young black men involved in the civil rights movment and Ali might have smelled a rat.

The outcome of the war rather vindicates anybody who refused to get involved because they thought it was pointless.

The Kurgan

10-04-2007, 09:46 AM

I have some sympathy for Alis refusal to fight.

The draft boards were notorious for drafting young black men involved in the civil rights movment and Ali might have smelled a rat.

Then he should have complained about that, rather than attempt to undermine the rationale for the war.

The outcome of the war rather vindicates anybody who refused to get involved because they thought it was pointless.

So if the USA had never gotten involved in WWII and Hitler had dominated Europe, would it have been "pointless" for Britain to have made a stand? Does a war have to be victorious to be right?

TBooze

10-04-2007, 09:50 AM

So if the USA had never gotten involved in WWII and Hitler had dominated Europe, would it have been "pointless" for Britain to have made a stand? Does a war have to be victorious to be right?

From a selfish point of view, yes, I am 6' 4" and of the blood the Nazi's were looking for, certainly myself and my family would of been no worse off if the Nazi's had conquered Europe, indeed I would not of lost a Grandad, and a Great Grandad it what was (in a selfish way) a pointless war.

janitor

10-04-2007, 09:58 AM

[quote=The Kurgan]Then he should have complained about that, rather than attempt to undermine the rationale for the war.

I think he complained biterly about it.

So if the USA had never gotten involved in WWII and Hitler had dominated Europe, would it have been "pointless" for Britain to have made a stand? Does a war have to be victorious to be right?

It has to be either indispensible or have an overwhelming prospect of sucess.

janitor

10-04-2007, 09:59 AM

From a selfish point of view, yes, I am 6' 4" and of the blood the Nazi's were looking for, certainly myself and my family would of been no worse off if the Nazi's had conquored Europe, indeed I would not of lost a Grandad, and a Great Grandad it what was (in a selfish way) a pointless war.

Yes but the GNP of the ocupied countries fell to a 10th of its pre war level. Living in these countries in 1955 would not have been fun.

TBooze

10-04-2007, 10:04 AM

Yes but the GNP of the ocupied countries fell to a 10th of its pre war level. Living in these countries in 1955 would not have been fun.

I am looking it form a purely selfish point of view, do not get me wrong, the Nazi's revile me, and putting some thought into it, I do have a couple of friends who are Jewish, so my life would be poorer.

PowerPuncher

10-04-2007, 10:10 AM

1. It wasn't so pointless for the millions of south-east Asians who died as a result of the domino affect. The Vietnamese, Cambodians and Lao are still suffering as a result of America's failure to practice what it preached.

2. I can't say I've ever heard that story. I do know that it wasn't white men who screwed Ali out of the fortune he made.

3. Well, asking the modern American youth to be conscripted for war would be in itself highly immoral. The youth of the 1960s was too soft and unpatriotic to do the job quietly, as their parents had in WWII. Considering the levels of American obsesity, there'd be hundreds of heart attacks in just basic training.

Plus, the nature of war has changed: modern armies are hi-tech and expensive per soldier, so what's needed is (relatively) small numbers of proficient elite troops. The only reason the draft keeps on coming up in modern times is a scare tactic to try and get people to vote Democrat.

4. I do, although I think of Ali as a better person because he had some redeeming features (such as his charitable nature and work to improve black self-confidence).

As I said, I forgot about Dempsey, whose draft-dodging was no less contemptible.

1. I see your points but think your being quite harsh. I think your also ignoring the fact that American leaders start wars without thinking them through first. In retrospect the Vietnam war achieved nothing other than millions dead. Iraq has cost over a million lives. Was it worthwhile? Will it cause the problem of having a foundamentist Iraqi power structure lead by religous extremists? Quite possibly. Hence I want nothing to do with it - if it was for the greater good I may want to. An I am no fan of dictatorships or communism, Im anti-both of them

2. This is a true point Ali was screwed over by some leeching blacks but Im sure if he had more white freinds some of them would have leeched from him too :lol: The story is in 1 of Alis biographies, I think it is the first 1 of his biographies, very interesting as it has the trascript of him talking to Joe Frazier as friends about possible 'exhibition or sparing bouts' if Ali couldnt get his licence back.

3. World War 2 had a clear purpose. Vietnam did not.

4. Fair enough at least your balanced. I think Alis a good person and even if you disagree with 'draft dodging' it needs to be put into perspective of someones greater existance and the fact not going to war doesn't hurt any 1 person

PowerPuncher

10-04-2007, 10:12 AM

I have some sympathy for Alis refusal to fight.

The draft boards were notorious for drafting young black men involved in the civil rights movment and Ali might have smelled a rat.

The outcome of the war rather vindicates anybody who refused to get involved because they thought it was pointless.

Most black political activists were given the draft. I think Ali getting the draft especially after failing initial tests is very fishy

There was no talk about 'Ali will be supporting the troops' He may have just been dumped on the front line to wipe him out. These were the days of Hoover who was looking to wipe out political black figures

rydersonthestorm

10-04-2007, 10:13 AM

Also america only got involved in ww2 after pearl harbour so for them it clearly wasn't pointless, an i don't count fiancial aid as getting involved.

PowerPuncher

10-04-2007, 10:15 AM

So if the USA had never gotten involved in WWII and Hitler had dominated Europe, would it have been "pointless" for Britain to have made a stand? Does a war have to be victorious to be right?

Germany would have lost WW2 if the US had not got involved due to the fact they decided it was a good idea to fight on 2 fronts - Russia and Britain

ron u.k.

10-04-2007, 10:24 AM

in the ring rocky marciano's mauling of poor old don cockel.elbows,head and allegedly the knee in the groin were all the tools used against the game brit.outside of williard i don't think a fighter took a bigger beating in a heavyweight title fight.it was disgusting from the rock.but i still love him!

The Kurgan

10-04-2007, 10:27 AM

It has to be either indispensible or have an overwhelming prospect of sucess.

So ultimately it IS all about winning and not about good/evil?

The Kurgan

10-04-2007, 10:28 AM

Germany would have lost WW2 if the US had not got involved due to the fact they decided it was a good idea to fight on 2 fronts - Russia and Britain

Debatable, but at any rate, the important thing was making a stand. After all, "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

rydersonthestorm

10-04-2007, 10:32 AM

It is widely regarded by historians that the war was already won before america got involved, and as i said they helped with m,oney which was obviously good, but i don't count that as involvement.

TBooze

10-04-2007, 10:32 AM

Debatable, but at any rate, the important thing was making a stand. After all, "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

Good/Evil... is that you Mr Bush?

There is no such thing my friend, in reality good and evil are works of fiction. It is purely personal perception, the Allies were fighting the good fight, but so were the Axis. It is just the victors get to write the story of the war.

mcvey

10-04-2007, 10:34 AM

How many others were drafted?

Some good points: Dempsey ties with Ali for dodging the draft (I'm not sure Willard was drafted, although I'm open to being enlightened). John Wayne was not a pro boxer and is therefore outside of the scope of the discussion.

I don't think one can justify exploiting a generation of young men (which Ali basically did) on the basis that the war failed. Might (or lack of it) does not make right: the fact that America failed the Vietnamese people does not vindicate those who failed America in its hour of need.
Including Bill Clinton who didnt go?

mr. magoo

10-04-2007, 10:37 AM

I don't know if his name has already been mentioned on this thread, but Trevor Berbick was no sweetheart outside the ring.

He did everything from domestic abuse to rape, drugs, and numerous other things. He was killed about this time last year in his home town in Jamaica. He was found dead with multiple head injuries. I don't know how it happened or if they ever found his killer(s), but I'm guessing that his lifestyle and way with people didn't help.

The Kurgan

10-04-2007, 10:39 AM

1. I see your points but think your being quite harsh. I think your also ignoring the fact that American leaders start wars without thinking them through first. In retrospect the Vietnam war achieved nothing other than millions dead. Iraq has cost over a million lives. Was it worthwhile? Will it cause the problem of having a foundamentist Iraqi power structure lead by religous extremists? Quite possibly. Hence I want nothing to do with it - if it was for the greater good I may want to. An I am no fan of dictatorships or communism, Im anti-both of them

I'm not going to try and defend the Iraq war, since I opposed it LONG before doing so became commonplace. As someone who marched the streets in protest against it before it took place, I think I've earnt at least that.

One can't judge actions of people in the past by their consequnce, because that's reading history backwards. Kennedy and Johnson didn't KNOW that the American people would be too weak to keep the war up and that the generals would be too incompetant. They did, however, know that a North Vietnamese victory meant the domino effect taking place.

2. This is a true point Ali was screwed over by some leeching blacks but Im sure if he had more white freinds some of them would have leeched from him too :lol: The story is in 1 of Alis biographies, I think it is the first 1 of his biographies, very interesting as it has the trascript of him talking to Joe Frazier as friends about possible 'exhibition or sparing bouts' if Ali couldnt get his licence back.

I think all we can conclude from this is the somewhat obvious conclusion: some white people are good, some are dicks; some black people are good, some are dicks. :lol:

3. World War 2 had a clear purpose. Vietnam did not.

The Vietnam war DID have a clear purpose, and it's the forgetting of this purpose that I think is the main symptom of "Vietnam guilt". The baby-boomer generation got really guilty after the mid-1970s, when they realised what they'd done to America and the world. The natural reaction was to undermine the war itself, which is why Vietnam movies were so successful: they told the draft-dodgers what they wanted to hear, and told those who answered the call that their failure meant nothing. America as a whole could be absolved of all guilt by claiming the war was pointless anyway.

The war was one of the defense of the South Vietnamese- America's ALLIES- from a communist invasion. There was further justification, ridiculed at the time but proven in hindsight, through the theory of the domino effect. This was justified, because the communist victory DID result in the rise of the Khmer Rouge, the Pathet Lao and the puppet regime in Cambodia after 1979. To this day, the Lao and the Vietnamese live under oppressive and corrupt Marxist dictators. The war also encouraged Soviet imperialism in Angola, Ethiopia and Afghanistan.

Not only did the war in Vietnam have a point, it's point was proven by history. Why is this point forgotten? Vietnam guilt.

4. Fair enough at least your balanced. I think Alis a good person and even if you disagree with 'draft dodging' it needs to be put into perspective of someones greater existance and the fact not going to war doesn't hurt any 1 person

While I don't totally agree with you here, I agree on the most salient point: one has to be consistent and recognise goodness. Ali was, despite his disgraceful actions, a good person overall. I don't think George Bush can lay claim to that title.

ron u.k.

10-04-2007, 10:39 AM

mcvey

10-04-2007, 10:40 AM

As Charlton Heston said in "Will Penny" after his opponent protested he had hit him on the head with a cast iron frying pan "youre the one thats down".:lol:

The Kurgan

10-04-2007, 10:40 AM

Including Bill Clinton who didnt go?

Sure, though I'd be more offended by his widening of the rich-poor gap and generally corporatist time as President if I were an American. The fact that Clinton's time in office is seen as a golden age these days just goes to show how bad things have gotten in the last 7 years for the USA.

mcvey

10-04-2007, 10:42 AM

Debatable, but at any rate, the important thing was making a stand. After all, "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".
Well your on a roll at the moment ,with the footie and the rugby!

The Kurgan

10-04-2007, 10:45 AM

Well your on a roll at the moment ,with the footie and the rugby!

Everyone likes winning. Winning is even more fun if you don't do it often, like us. :lol:

mr. magoo

10-04-2007, 10:55 AM

it was his nephew.he'd buried a machete in his head.

That's pretty damn brutal. Was it ever made known as to what prompted his nephew to do this?

ron u.k.

10-04-2007, 10:57 AM

That's pretty damn brutal. Was it ever made known as to what prompted his nephew to do this?i think it's still ongoing.

Black Eyes To You

10-04-2007, 11:03 AM

Tyson biting off holyfields ear was pretty damn disgraceful.

Thread Stealer

10-04-2007, 11:10 AM

That's pretty damn brutal. Was it ever made known as to what prompted his nephew to do this?

I think it was an argument over land or something.

cross_trainer

10-04-2007, 11:54 AM

The Vietnam war DID have a clear purpose, and it's the forgetting of this purpose that I think is the main symptom of "Vietnam guilt". The baby-boomer generation got really guilty after the mid-1970s, when they realised what they'd done to America and the world. The natural reaction was to undermine the war itself, which is why Vietnam movies were so successful: they told the draft-dodgers what they wanted to hear, and told those who answered the call that their failure meant nothing. America as a whole could be absolved of all guilt by claiming the war was pointless anyway.

The war was one of the defense of the South Vietnamese- America's ALLIES- from a communist invasion. There was further justification, ridiculed at the time but proven in hindsight, through the theory of the domino effect. This was justified, because the communist victory DID result in the rise of the Khmer Rouge, the Pathet Lao and the puppet regime in Cambodia after 1979. To this day, the Lao and the Vietnamese live under oppressive and corrupt Marxist dictators. The war also encouraged Soviet imperialism in Angola, Ethiopia and Afghanistan.

Not only did the war in Vietnam have a point, it's point was proven by history. Why is this point forgotten? Vietnam guilt.
I get the feeling that you're overstating to make for an interesting conversation, but in any event...

The Domino Theory, in general, was correct. But there are certain other factors that play into the matter.

It's not just a question of doing what's right--it's about figuring out the most effective way to do the greatest good. The amount of manpower and materiel that America expended in Vietnam (and the deaths of the Vietnamese during the war) may have been disproportionate to the threat the Soviets were making. It weakened American power to act in the future in the confrontations that it COULD win against the Soviets. Yes, the Vietnam War was justified morally, but not to the point--the amount of effort we spent in Vietnam may not have been justified, because it took away from more productive ways of beating Communism.

Ultimately, when the Soviet system DID try to expand in ever more expensive adventures (Cambodia, Laos, Angola, Ethiopia, and Afghanistan) it wore them down. When combined with the Carter/Reagan buildup, the Soviets had to back down and collapse, thus making the world a relatively cheerier place.

It's a bit like the Holy Roman / Spanish Empire during the 16th century. Sure, they were expending huge amounts of resources in promoting Catholicism, but the actions that they took were disproportionate to their resources--and Europe went Protestant even faster. That's always the trouble with ideology and international relations--you can only do so much at one time.

Your assessment of the Baby Boomers is essentially correct, though. So is your assessment of the unfitness of the current American population, although the same could be said of the UK (rather similar obesity figures) and several other Western European nations.

Marnoff

10-04-2007, 12:11 PM

That's pretty damn brutal. Was it ever made known as to what prompted his nephew to do this?

Land dispute as far as I know.

Duodenum

10-04-2007, 12:48 PM

Jack Dempsey totally redeemed himself for sitting out WW I by participating in combat at Okinawa during WW II, thus becoming the first (and to date, only) heavyweight champion eligible for internment at Arlington National Cemetery without being granted a special exemption (as was required for Joe Louis). As it happens, Jack is not buried at Arlington, but he was ultimately no more of a slacker than Barney Ross.

To me, the most disgraceful fighters are the ones most responsible for boxing's elimination from the cultural mainstream. That would be Tyson and Bowe.

mr. magoo

10-04-2007, 12:53 PM

To me, the most disgraceful fighters are the ones most responsible for boxing's elimination from the cultural mainstream. That would be Tyson and Bowe.

Just out of curiosity, how exactly did Riddick Bowe contribute to the decline of Boxing in the cultural mainstream? Sure, he ducked a mandatory and publicly threw a belt in the trash, but a number of champions have passed up challengers, and some have performed gestures far more offensive. Not to mention, I think that boxing by the 90's was already losing significant popularity and interest from the general populus.

janitor

10-04-2007, 12:56 PM

It is widely regarded by historians that the war was already won before america got involved, and as i said they helped with m,oney which was obviously good, but i don't count that as involvement.

The Russians killed 11 German troops for every one killed by Britain and America put together. They undoubtedly did most of the fighting.

The place where American involvment might have turned the tide is in terms of economic aid to Russia. While the Russians made their own tanks and other military equipment their trucks trains and and other logistic vehicles were mainly of British and American manufacture. whether or not they could have won without this aid is hard to say.

Duodenum

10-04-2007, 01:10 PM

Just out of curiosity, how exactly did Riddick Bowe contribute to the decline of Boxing in the cultural mainstream? Sure, he ducked a mandatory and publicly threw a belt in the trash, but a number of champions have passed up challengers, and some have performed gestures far more offensive. Not to mention, I think that boxing by the 90's was already losing significant popularity and interest from the general populus.True, but if Riddickulous had simply defended the title against Chinnox, he might have staunched the decline for a bit. Leon Spinks did not pitch the WBC belt in such a public gesture of contempt, nor did Holmes in relinquishing it to accept IBF recognition. (In doing so, Larry thus extended the 15 round HW championship tradition. By the way, I think Holmes deserves enormous credit for also choosing to go the 12 round route against Mercer, rather than the proposed ten round limit.)

I consider Bowe's public throwing of the belt in the trash to be tremendouly disrespectful and destructive, and would be curious to know what you consider to exceed that in the way of far more offensive conduct that has been comparably damaging to the welfare of boxing.

As I've previously discussed, I believe the elimination of the championship distance was the single most devastating blow to boxing's popularity, but there are things boxers have done to contribute to that.

mr. magoo

10-04-2007, 01:13 PM

The Russians killed 11 German troops for every one killed by Britain and America put together. They undoubtedly did most of the fighting.

The place where American involvment might have turned the tide is in terms of economic aid to Russia. While the Russians made their own tanks and other military equipment their trucks trains and and other logistic vehicles were mainly of British and American manufacture. whether or not they could have won without this aid is hard to say.

i'm not so sure that I agree with Hotti Killer's claim that the war was already won before America stepped in, nor that financial resources were its only contribution.

Over the past week, I have been watching a recently filmed documentary called " The War". It was a multiple evening series that coverered nearly every aspect of the occurences and conflict of World War II. If you haven't seen it, then I highly recommend trying to either catch a replay of it on television or obtaining copies of it ( if available ).

During the tremendous escalation of the German's invasion throughout Europe, the United States sent batallion after batallian to man and cover the eastern front. There were numerous photos, films and interviews of soldiers who were in the action. At one point, the German forces breached the American front lines in what was later termed as the battle of the bulge. tens of thousands of American soldiers and local civilians were killed by the ferocious and growing influx of German troops, tanks and air rades. What's more, people were starving to death left and right, along with losing limbs to frost bite as a result of having insufficient clothing for the frozen terrain.

I have a hard time believing that the efforts of American militia, was unnecesary, given the high body count of American and German soldiers when it was all over. In short, it was a masacre on both sides. Had the United States not intervened, its quite possible that Hitler could have focussed and concentrated all of his resources defending the Eastern front against the Soviet Union, as well as possibly launching additional air attacks on England. That's not to say that he wouldn't have lost eventually, but as an American who's ancestors fought in some of these conflicts, I'm a bit insulted by those who say that the dying efforts of so many American soldiers were in vein.

mr. magoo

10-04-2007, 01:40 PM

I consider Bowe's public throwing of the belt in the trash to be tremendouly disrespectful and destructive, and would be curious to know what you consider to exceed that in the way of far more offensive conduct that has been comparably damaging to the welfare of boxing.

Well, I don't know if these little tid bits surpass Bowe's "destructive" conduct of dumping a green piece of plastic in a trash can, ( perhaps a recycling bin would have been better accepted ) but let's give it the ol' college try and see what we've got Deen.

1. Carlos Monzon killing his wife

2. Don King corrupting the ratings, robbing fighters, fixing matches and turning the sport into a total circus.

3. Tyson's numerous fiasco's including a rape charge, assault and battery, and of course biting a peice of flesh out of another man's body.

4. Oliver Mccall's breaking down and crying during a world championship match.

5. Holmes claiming that Marciano couldn't carry his jock strap in the prescence of the Rock's relatives, plus his attempting to slap a suited Gerry Cooney at ringside.

6. Numerous fighters testing positive in post fight drug screenings.

7. Ali's dodging the vietnam war.

8. The Disqualification of Andrew Golata for hitting Bowe below the belt after numerous warnings, resulting in an all out riot. Then, picking up where he left off in the rematch by going for his balls again!!

Conclusion: While we can't give any one incident full credit for the public's negative view of pro boxing, we can at least conclude that there were multiple occurences of offensive and even attrocious acts of behavior that shed a bad light on the sport. Bowe's act of throwing the belt in the garbage was unacceptable and disgraceful, but I hardly think that he was a major factor in the sports decline, especially considering that the game was already hurting by 1992.

ajohnfp

10-04-2007, 01:54 PM

Ike Ibeabuchi or Carlos Monzon

TBooze

10-04-2007, 01:54 PM

2. Don King corrupting the ratings, robbing fighters, fixing matches and turning the sport into a total circus.

Because King was the originator of all that; we all know Duva and Arum were Saints... Imagine if Rickard and co had thought up the idea of corrupting ratings, robbing fighters, fixing matches and turning the sport into a circus...:think

mr. magoo

10-04-2007, 01:58 PM

Because King was the originator of all that; we all know Duva and Arum were Saints... Imagine if Rickard and co had thought up the idea of corrupting ratings, robbing fighters, fixing matches and turning the sport into a circus...:think

The history of promotors robbing fighters and corrupting the sport probably goes back longer than we know. The point is, King was just one of many components that contributed to the public's disenchantment with boxing.

The Whaler

10-04-2007, 02:07 PM

In the ring? I guess Golota. The guy self-implodes like no one else.

McCall breaking down and crying in the ring was an embarassing moment for boxing.

Good/Evil... is that you Mr Bush?

There is no such thing my friend, in reality good and evil are works of fiction. It is purely personal perception, the Allies were fighting the good fight, but so were the Axis. It is just the victors get to write the story of the war.

So what? Yeah, good and evil is based on personal values. So what? Systematically slaughtering millions of Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies in order to create a world run by Aryans is douchebaggery of the highest order. Everyone who pulls this "there IS no good and evil" nonsense is usually a pretentious douche as well.

TBooze

10-04-2007, 02:08 PM

The history of promotors robbing fighters and corrupting the sport probably goes back longer than we know. The point is, King was just one of many components that contributed to the public's disenchantment with boxing.

He was a double edge sword though; without him we would not had the last great era of the sport when he work his butt off after Tyson went to jail and gave us those mega bills in the early/mid 90s...

mr. magoo

10-04-2007, 02:11 PM

He was a double edge sword though; without him we would not had the last great era of the sport when he work his butt off after Tyson went to jail and gave us those mega bills in the early/mid 90s...

Which ones?

Holfield Douglas was promoted by Steve Wynn

Holyfield- Foreman was promoted by the Duva's

Holyfield Bowe- The Duvas and Rock Newman

Holyfiled Holmes- Duvas

TBooze

10-04-2007, 02:16 PM

So what? Yeah, good and evil is based on personal values. So what? Systematically slaughtering millions of Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies in order to create a world run by Aryans is douchebaggery of the highest order. Everyone who pulls this "there IS no good and evil" nonsense is usually a pretentious douche as well.

And slaughtering tens of thousands with an atomic bomb or in Dresden or in the stupid Falklands War or Korea or Vietnam or Iraq or indeed Afganistan makes us the good guys?

Sadly us Brits invented the concentration camp and also had a grudge with the Jews long before a Mr and Mrs Hitler had an unforgetable night in the late 19th century. Indeed despite all the hell the Jewish people have been though barely a couple of genrations ago, some have not learnt and invaded an independent country themselves.

The truth is there is no universal definition of good and evil, everybody has a different idealogy with different values that we choose to judge. It is just a little sad that sometimes our names get soiled in things we have no control over, because of unwanted peer pressure.

mcvey

10-04-2007, 02:40 PM

That's pretty damn brutal. Was it ever made known as to what prompted his nephew to do this?
He had a domestic dispute with him ,and wanted to get his point across.

Mendoza

10-04-2007, 02:44 PM

Golota, Tyson, and G. Godfrey ( 1920's and 1930's ) come to mind.

cross_trainer

10-04-2007, 02:48 PM

And slaughtering tens of thousands with an atomic bomb or in Dresden or in the stupid Falklands War or Korea or Vietnam or Iraq or indeed Afganistan makes us the good guys?

No. But you're certainly better than the WWII Germans. Or the Soviets, for that matter. Just like there's a difference between a soldier and a serial killer.

Sadly us Brits invented the concentration camp and also had a grudge with the Jews long before a Mr and Mrs Hitler had an unforgetable night in the late 19th century.

As to British antisemitism, it's a big leap from bigotry to genocide. No comparison, really.

If I don't like capitalists, does that make me as evil as Stalin (who exterminated the "kulaks")?

Indeed despite all the hell the Jewish people have been though barely a couple of genrations ago, some have not learnt and invaded an independent country themselves.

Yeah, every group is rotten sometimes. Which is quite different than "no rotten-ness exists".

The truth is there is no universal definition of good and evil,

Correct.

But there's nothing wrong with applying a universal definition, since as you say good and evil don't exist in an objective sense. Since I happen to believe in such a universal definition, and you don't believe anything is good or evil, it isn't "wrong" by either of our standards to apply that definition on everyone.

TBooze

10-04-2007, 02:51 PM

But there's nothing wrong with applying a universal definition, since as you say good and evil don't exist in an objective sense. Since I happen to believe in such a universal definition, and you don't believe anything is good or evil, it isn't "wrong" by either of our standards to apply that definition on everyone.

I totally agree with that, you need to apply a standard to yourself and others to get by in life. But it is always going to be a personal thing, because we all have our own prejudices, and redeemable values.

Mohak

10-04-2007, 03:02 PM

And slaughtering tens of thousands with an atomic bomb or in Dresden or in the stupid Falklands War or Korea or Vietnam or Iraq or indeed Afganistan makes us the good guys?

What's so stupid about the Falklands, Korean, Vietnam and Afganistan wars? They were all justified.

TBooze

10-04-2007, 03:05 PM

What's so stupid about the Falklands, Korean, Vietnam and Afganistan wars? They were all justified.

That is my point, that is your opinion, you have a value for right/wrong and good/evil, but it will not be the same as mine. Things like this are not black and white, but often us humans need to make it so, something we are all guilty of over many things.

I brought a shirt for under £30, I know full well that some kid slaved away making it and probably got payed less than 5p and hour. But although that angers me and to a degree makes me feel guilty, I did not seem to concerned whilst getting hammered last Friday night, on the money I saved.

cross_trainer

10-04-2007, 03:12 PM

I totally agree with that, you need to apply a standard to yourself and others to get by in life. But it is always going to be a personal thing, because we all have our own prejudices, and redeemable values.

Okay, but if there's no good or evil, it wouldn't be "wrong" for me to force my views on everyone else, would it?

Mohak

10-04-2007, 03:16 PM

That is my point, that is your opinion, you have a value for right/wrong and good/evil, but it will not be the same as mine, things like this are black and white, but sometimes us humans need to make it so, something we are all guilty of.

Falklands, Korea, and Afganistan seem pretty justified. Only Vietnam is controversial.

Anyway, back to the topic. James Butler.

cross_trainer

10-04-2007, 03:17 PM

Falklands, Korea, and Afganistan seem pretty justified. Only Vietnam is controversial.

Albeit not to the Argentinians, North Koreans, and Afghans, respectively. :yep

PowerPuncher

10-04-2007, 03:22 PM

And slaughtering tens of thousands with an atomic bomb or in Dresden or in the stupid Falklands War or Korea or Vietnam or Iraq or indeed Afganistan makes us the good guys?

Sadly us Brits invented the concentration camp and also had a grudge with the Jews long before a Mr and Mrs Hitler had an unforgetable night in the late 19th century. Indeed despite all the hell the Jewish people have been though barely a couple of genrations ago, some have not learnt and invaded an independent country themselves.

The truth is there is no universal definition of good and evil, everybody has a different idealogy with different values that we choose to judge. It is just a little sad that sometimes our names get soiled in things we have no control over, because of unwanted peer pressure.

The British Concentration Camp was completely different from the Nazi 1s - there wasnt murders happening in the Brit 1s

The Falklands War - protecting a British colony from being invaded by a foreign dictatorship that had no rights to the land

Atomic Bombs are questionable - but dropping the first A-Bomb and having Japan surrender would not cost as many lives as a full blown invasion would.

Seriously saying there is no Evil after watching millions being killed from the Naxi and Communist regimes is a comment only a hippy weed junky with little knowledge of the world would make

TBooze

10-04-2007, 03:23 PM

Okay, but if there's no good or evil, it wouldn't be "wrong" for me to force my views on everyone else, would it?

No of course not that is to a degree what this forum is about, using your peer pressure to get your point across, and in many cases you are very good at doing it, as some people do not mind being manipulated as they have less value or control attached to that aspect of their life.

cross_trainer

10-04-2007, 03:27 PM

No of course not that is to a degree what this forum is about, using your peer pressure to get your point across, and in many cases you are very good at doing it, as some people do not mind being manipulated as they have less value or control attached to that aspect of their life.

I'm not that attached to this forum. :lol:

Rather, I was making a point about everyday life. One cannot be both a moral relativist and decry one group applying its standards to the others.

Mohak

10-04-2007, 03:33 PM

Albeit not to the Argentinians, North Koreans, and Afghans, respectively. :yep

Well the Argies deserved it! Finders keepers. :bart

TBooze

10-04-2007, 03:36 PM

The British Concentration Camp was completely different from the Nazi 1s - there wasnt murders happening in the Brit 1s

I think the Boers may beg to differ

The Falklands War - protecting a British colony from being invaded by a foreign dictatorship that had no rights to the land

But we had little trouble with the USA and Grenada or Smith and Rhodesia...

Atomic Bombs are questionable - but dropping the first A-Bomb and having Japan surrender would not cost as many lives as a full blown invasion would.

That depends on who's spin you listen to. Also it could be argued the USSR was very motivated to expand their nuclear arsenal because they realised that the USA was not afraid to use the weapon, thus that caused the USA to panic more themselves escalating the cold war and thousands that died because of that.

Seriously saying there is no Evil after watching millions being killed from the Naxi and Communist regimes is a comment only a hippy weed junky with little knowledge of the world would make

Million have been killed in wars before, thousands have this year, a lot by my regime in Britain and its Allies; and yet we are good and they are evil? I do not think I am the weed smoking hippy; weed is evil anyway!;)

TBooze

10-04-2007, 03:39 PM

Rather, I was making a point about everyday life. One cannot be both a moral relativist and decry one group applying its standards to the others.

But that is the way it is, it is a flaw of mine.

cross_trainer

10-04-2007, 03:47 PM

I think the Boers may beg to differ

Historians generally agree that the British were not trying to kill the Boers. Rather, it was the poor state of medical knowledge at the time. Britain was not trying to wage a war of extermination, and certainly not in the same manner as the Germans in WWII.

But we had little trouble with the USA and Grenada or Smith and Rhodesia...

At the time, maybe not. Now...

That depends on who's spin you listen to. Also it could be argued the USSR was very motivated to expand their nuclear arsenal because they realised that the USA was not afraid to use the weapon, thus that caused the USA to panic more themselves escalating the cold war and thousands that died because of that.

There was no way the United States was responsible for the Cold War. We have committed several brutalities and blunders in the past, but the Cold War was not one of them.

As late as his death, old Joe Stalin was planning to launch a nuclear war in a few years, calculating that Russia was ready for the price and that it would destroy capitalism. He did not want peace.

Million have been killed in wars before, thousands have this year, a lot by my regime in Britain and its Allies; and yet we are good and they are evil? I do not think I am the weed smoking hippy; weed is evil anyway!;)

Well, the fact that we were killing people to protect ourselves and others rather than conquer and exterminate may not be universally "good", but it certainly coincides with our own moral standards.

TBooze

10-04-2007, 03:53 PM

Well, the fact that we were killing people to protect ourselves and others rather than conquer and exterminate may not be universally "good", but it certainly coincides with our own moral standards.

But that is thing, you are trying to spin that we all have the same moral standards to justify the actions of this year. You are at the very least putting us all in the same camp, when that simply is not true, in Britain and I expect the USA.

PowerPuncher

10-04-2007, 03:54 PM

1. I think the Boers may beg to differ

2. But we had little trouble with the USA and Grenada or Smith and Rhodesia...

3. That depends on who's spin you listen to. Also it could be argued the USSR was very motivated to expand their nuclear arsenal because they realised that the USA was not afraid to use the weapon, thus that caused the USA to panic more themselves escalating the cold war and thousands that died because of that.

4. Million have been killed in wars before, thousands have this year, a lot by my regime in Britain and its Allies; and yet we are good and they are evil? I do not think I am the weed smoking hippy; weed is evil anyway!;)

1. The Boers never had a genocide commited against them. The concentration camps were basically prisoner of war camps and comparing them to the Nazi death camps is a pretty ignorant comparison based on a name sake. When you look at the complete difference its MASSIVE and a poor comparison

2. You can't fight every war. 1 that is a blatant attack on British sovereinty needs stamping out. This wasnt even a war Britain started

3. Lots of things could be argued as reasons for the Cold War. A Communist dictatorship that had NO ONE TO ANSWER TO and litterally wanted to conquer the world is a bigger reason. Diplomacy on both sides was poor however

4. I was anti the war in Iraq from the offset and don't agree with it and dont defend it. The war was not a targeted genocide though, 100,000s died in collateral damage, which is awful. Bare in mind many casualtys are the fault of terrorists (who ordinary Iraqis want nothing to do with).

Iraq in the future may benefit from this war when it has democracy. If this happens in the long term things may get better

The Kurgan

10-04-2007, 03:55 PM

I get the feeling that you're overstating to make for an interesting conversation, but in any event...

The Domino Theory, in general, was correct. But there are certain other factors that play into the matter.

It's not just a question of doing what's right--it's about figuring out the most effective way to do the greatest good. The amount of manpower and materiel that America expended in Vietnam (and the deaths of the Vietnamese during the war) may have been disproportionate to the threat the Soviets were making. It weakened American power to act in the future in the confrontations that it COULD win against the Soviets. Yes, the Vietnam War was justified morally, but not to the point--the amount of effort we spent in Vietnam may not have been justified, because it took away from more productive ways of beating Communism.

Ultimately, when the Soviet system DID try to expand in ever more expensive adventures (Cambodia, Laos, Angola, Ethiopia, and Afghanistan) it wore them down. When combined with the Carter/Reagan buildup, the Soviets had to back down and collapse, thus making the world a relatively cheerier place.

It's a bit like the Holy Roman / Spanish Empire during the 16th century. Sure, they were expending huge amounts of resources in promoting Catholicism, but the actions that they took were disproportionate to their resources--and Europe went Protestant even faster. That's always the trouble with ideology and international relations--you can only do so much at one time.

I think the problem here is that hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to say in 2007 that the expansion of the communist international movement led to its demise; however, that can have no bearing on judging the rights and wrongs of decisions made in the 1960s in my opinion.

Your assessment of the Baby Boomers is essentially correct, though. So is your assessment of the unfitness of the current American population, although the same could be said of the UK (rather similar obesity figures) and several other Western European nations.

Absolutely. I was just highlighting the American youth because they were who was being talked about. A conscript army can be effective if it's a generation brought up in a tough environment, seasoned by manual labour from youth, using relatively cheap and simple equipment, and brought up in a context of strong communities and patriotism.

Hence why the Soviet conscripts were still effective as late as the 1970s and 1980s: many had already been working manual jobs for two years by the time they were conscripted. The Soviet education system also was much more effective in encouraging athletic activity, especially for exceptional athletes.

In the 1940s, "supporting the troops" meant giving up your wages to army relief funds, buying bonds, being willing to sign up for the army etc. etc. Having a bumper sticker would not have been considered sufficient. The standards of patriotism have changed with the increased comfort and safety of the American population, and the consequent rise of the individualist society.

cross_trainer

10-04-2007, 03:58 PM

I think the problem here is that hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to say in 2007 that the expansion of the communist international movement led to its demise; however, that can have no bearing on judging the rights and wrongs of decisions made in the 1960s in my opinion.

Agreed. But by the Tet Offensive, it was clear that further involvement in Vietnam would erode American power to a greater degree than Soviet power, thus making eventual "victory" in the Cold War more difficult.

Absolutely. I was just highlighting the American youth because they were who was being talked about. A conscript army can be effective if it's a generation brought up in a tough environment, seasoned by manual labour from youth, using relatively cheap and simple equipment, and brought up in a context of strong communities and patriotism.

Hence why the Soviet conscripts were still effective as late as the 1970s and 1980s: many had already been working manual jobs for two years by the time they were conscripted. The Soviet education system also was much more effective in encouraging athletic activity, especially for exceptional athletes.

In the 1940s, "supporting the troops" meant giving up your wages to army relief funds, buying bonds, being willing to sign up for the army etc. etc. Having a bumper sticker would not have been considered sufficient. The standards of patriotism have changed with the increased comfort and safety of the American population, and the consequent rise of the individualist society.

Agreed again.

The Kurgan

10-04-2007, 03:59 PM

As late as his death, old Joe Stalin was planning to launch a nuclear war in a few years, calculating that Russia was ready for the price and that it would destroy capitalism. He did not want peace.

Correct. Indeed, Khrushchev was more than willing to consider nuclear war; every left-wing student's fantasy hero, Che Guevara, was keener still, especially on dropping nukes on New York. Say what you like about the bear-like Leonid Brezhnev, but at least he worked out that nuclear war wasn't a sane option.

The Kurgan

10-04-2007, 04:02 PM

Agreed. But by the Tet Offensive, it was clear that further involvement in Vietnam would erode American power to a greater degree than Soviet power, thus making eventual "victory" in the Cold War more difficult.

To be honest, I'm not familiar enough with the history of the war to say. Whatever failures the USA made are on its head, and will continue to be so for as long as a USA exists. It's certainly sad that the Boat People must now live in a country that doesn't even remember what brought them there.

TBooze

10-04-2007, 04:02 PM

1. The Boers never had a genocide commited against them. The concentration camps were basically prisoner of war camps and comparing them to the Nazi death camps is a pretty ignorant comparison based on a name sake. When you look at the complete difference its MASSIVE and a poor comparison

You are suggestings things I did not write, I pointed out the British invented the Concentration camp...

2. You can't fight every war. 1 that is a blatant attack on British sovereinty needs stamping out. This wasnt even a war Britain started

Especially when it turns your fortunes around and you call an election of the back of hundreds of your troops dying for an Island that is thousands of miles away and has more sheep than people. I do not agree with what Argentina did, but I also cannot understand how the Falklands can belong to Britain in this day and age.

Iraq in the future may benefit from this war when it has democracy. If this happens in the long term things may get better

Awful lot of ifs, buts and maybes there. What I do know is that the Muslim extremists have another foot hold in the Middle East because of the actions of my country and its Allies.

cross_trainer

10-04-2007, 04:06 PM

You are suggestings things I did not write, I pointed out the British invented the Concentration camp....

Well, when you say "concentration camp" most people immediately think of the genocide version. Inventing the concept of temporary camps to house large numbers of people is hardly the same thing. And considering that POW camps were common long before this, it's not even against the norms of war. Genocide, on the other hand, is.

Especially when it turns your fortunes around and you call an election of the back of hundreds of your troops dying for an Island that is thousands of miles away and has more sheep than people. I do not agree with what Argentina did, but I also cannot understand how the Falklands can belong to Britain in this day and age.

Well, it was British land. The question is whether Britain should have surrendered to an invasion. If countries do not have the right to self-defense, OK...but you should specify such beforehand.

The Kurgan

10-04-2007, 04:09 PM

Especially when it turns your fortunes around and you call an election of the back of hundreds of your troops dying for an Island that is thousands of miles away and has more sheep than people. I do not agree with what Argentina did, but I also cannot understand how the Falklands can belong to Britain in this day and age.

Self-determination. It is the right of the people of the Falklands Islands to be British if they want; national identity should be a matter of choice. It's no different from people in Wales or Manchester wanting to be British.

Thatcher was helped by the Falklands war, but she was also helped by the fact that her economic policies worked, and by 1983 were beginning to generate an upturn in the UK economy. She saved Britain from the socialist self-destruction that we'd been marching towards for decades, and by 1978 were feeling the consequences of. As far as any non-upper class Scot can like Thatcher, I like Thatcher.

PowerPuncher

10-04-2007, 04:18 PM

1. You are suggestings things I did not write, I pointed out the British invented the Concentration camp...

2. Especially when it turns your fortunes around and you call an election of the back of hundreds of your troops dying for an Island that is thousands of miles away and has more sheep than people. I do not agree with what Argentina did, but I also cannot understand how the Falklands can belong to Britain in this day and age.

3. Awful lot of ifs, buts and maybes there. What I do know is that the Muslim extremists have another foot hold in the Middle East because of the actions of my country and its Allies.

1. Muhammed Ali and John Ruiz are both boxers. In being boxers they are about as comparable as the British and Nazi concentration camps are unto each other

2. Again it was a war Argentina started. We just cant be seen to be getting invaded by Argentina apart from anything. And protecting the people on the island was rightous. No I dont like the fact 1000s of people died.

3. Not happy with this war as mentioned, it was a bad decision, it was wrong. It does not rank on the same level on the EVIL SCALE as Nazi Germanys crimes

cross_trainer

10-04-2007, 04:18 PM

Self-determination. It is the right of the people of the Falklands Islands to be British if they want; national identity should be a matter of choice. It's no different from people in Wales or Manchester wanting to be British.

This I actually disagree with. Self-determination is not very important compared to the character and "virtue" of the regime that people are ruled by. People should not be free to shoot themselves in the foot, in other words. Which, getting back to the Falklands example, was the main problem with the Argentinians taking over. They were far worse than Britain.

Bill1234

10-04-2007, 04:18 PM

Why though?
If you mean the ear biting thing, why so hard upon him? I don't have the film to prove it, but i'm happy to asure you that Zivic and Greb are examples of fighters far far dirtier than Tyson - yet they seem to get a pass because it happened in Ye Olden times, whereas Tyson is harrassed for it.

Tyson was a looney, but most disgraceful fighter ever? I feel you need to explain.

I guess I'll pick Monzon for his conduct outside of the ring.

The ear bite is just one thing. Trying to break Botha's arm is up there. Hitting after the bell, on brake, when the fighter is down, elbowing, hitting low, rabbit punching, hitting after fight is stopped, and head butting. Also his conduct out side of the ring. Beating up old ladies, and Givens (she didn't deserve at the time it happened). Raping the girl in 91, just in December of 06, what he did again. I watched a live interview with him in November, and he kept going on about how he is a changed man now, and he is a good father. No more partying, drinking, whores, or drugs. Sure enough a month later, he is pulled over for driving widly, and he was completely wasted, and when the cop got to his window, Tyson was shoving cocaine into hiding places in his car. He also kicked a guy in the nuts after a car wreck. Biting Lewis's leg at the press conference, all of his quotes (endless). Some of the worst are "I'll fuck you till you love me" or "He's my bitch" or to Lewis "I'll eat your childrens hearts out" stuff like that.

Bill1234

10-04-2007, 04:22 PM

Yeah but Carlos Monzon who killed his wife deserves a pat on the back right?

She probably wouldn't shut the hell up about something...

ironchamp

10-04-2007, 04:25 PM

easily Golota.

TBooze

10-04-2007, 04:35 PM

Self-determination. It is the right of the people of the Falklands Islands to be British if they want; national identity should be a matter of choice. It's no different from people in Wales or Manchester wanting to be British.

I do not think with our history we can be to preachy about self determination of nations, at least wait until the generation that remembers our Empire are no more.

Thatcher was helped by the Falklands war, but she was also helped by the fact that her economic policies worked, and by 1983 were beginning to generate an upturn in the UK economy. She saved Britain from the socialist self-destruction that we'd been marching towards for decades, and by 1978 were feeling the consequences of. As far as any non-upper class Scot can like Thatcher, I like Thatcher.

The economy was not working in 82/83; Foot would of got in if it were not for the Falklands IMO, and although a man with a massive flaws in communiaction, he had enough talent in his potential cabinet to give Britain the great Socialist drive it would of benefitted from, a drive that could led to a eutopia that I want.

cross_trainer

10-04-2007, 04:37 PM

The economy was not working in 82/83; Foot would of got in if it were Falkilands IMO, and although a man with a massive flaws in communaction, he had enough talent in his potential cabinet to give Britain the great Socialist drive it would of benefitted from, a drive that could led to a eutopia that I want.

Socialism has never worked in Europe. Even in the Norse countries, it has been considerably limited and based upon capitalism. And why would it lead to Utopia, when the flaws we already discussed are still present in humanity?

TBooze

10-04-2007, 04:41 PM

Socialism has never worked in Europe. Even in the Norse countries, it has been considerably limited and based upon capitalism. And why would it lead to Utopia, when the flaws we already discussed are still present in humanity?

My idea of a eutopia would need a big drive to the left of politics IMO. To make this move first true Marxism has to defeat Free Enterprise and Neo Conservatism, thus Foot would of been a big step;) in the right;) direction compard to Thatcher.

cross_trainer

10-04-2007, 04:53 PM

My idea of a eutopia would need a big drive to the left of politics IMO.

Free trade is as much a leftist idea as socialism, but in any event, why do you believe your socialist utopia would work if people are incapable of behaving in the manner it requires?

Mohak

10-04-2007, 04:56 PM

I do not agree with what Argentina did, but I also cannot understand how the Falklands can belong to Britain in this day and age.

Nomatter how you look at it the Argentine Junta at the time invaded British sovereign territory and British citizens were under occupation. We had to got to war to liberate our citizens and the islands, nomatter the distance from the British Isles. If the population of the Falklands sees itself as British and wants to remain part of the UK then we will defend them. Nomatter what. The Falklands was a ''just'' war.

TBooze

10-04-2007, 05:02 PM

Free trade is as much a leftist idea as socialism, but in any event, why do you believe your socialist utopia would work if people are incapable of behaving in the manner it requires?

It cannot work at the moment, that has been shown, but by progessively moving to the left, perhaps humans can evolve to make it work and in due course have the Eutopia I want.

cross_trainer

10-04-2007, 05:05 PM

It cannot work at the moment, that has been shown, but by progessively moving to the left, perhaps humans can evolve to make it work and in due course have the Eutopia I want.

Do you believe humans are biologically/genetically unable to achieve socialism, or simply socially unable?

TBooze

10-04-2007, 05:07 PM

Nomatter how you look at it the Argentine Junta at the time invaded British sovereign territory and British citizens were under occupation. We had to got to war to liberate our citizens and the islands, nomatter the distance from the British Isles. If the population of the Falklands sees itself as British and wants to remain part of the UK then we will defend them. Nomatter what. The Falklands was a ''just'' war.

We did not have to go to war, Thatcher choose to go, if Foot was in power at the time, I think the odds are we would not of gone to war, even Thatchers goverment had grave concerns, and she was darn lucky to get her win as well, many British sailors were sacrificed to gain that win and many more were scarred for life. All in pursuit of an Island that I suspect at least 50% of adult Britains did not even know where it was in 1982.

Mohak

10-04-2007, 05:28 PM

We did not have to go to war, Thatcher choose to go, if Foot was in power at the time, I think the odds are we would not of gone to war, even Thatchers goverment had grave concerns, and she was darn lucky to get her win as well, many British sailors were sacrificed to gain that win and many more were scarred for life. All in pursuit of an Island that I suspect at least 50% of adult Britains did not even know where it was in 1982.

I bet 50% of the population didn't know where Belgium was in 1914 or Poland was during 1939. Public IQ doesn't determine if a war was just or not. Nomatter how you cut it British territory was invaded and British citizens were under occupation. The Argentine Junta wasn't just going to hand them over without a fight. Geography had nothing to do with it. We had to go to war and IMO Thatcher made the right choice in sending the Task Force.

Mohak

10-04-2007, 05:33 PM

How did this thread get all political?

James Butler.

Drew101

10-04-2007, 05:38 PM

How did this thread get all political?

James Butler.

because Kurgan cited political reasons for choosing Ali for this category.

TBooze

10-04-2007, 05:39 PM

I bet 50% of the population didn't know where Belgium was in 1914 or Poland was during 1939. Public IQ doesn't determine if a war was just or not. Nomatter how you cut it British territory was invaded and British citizens were under occupation. The Argentine Junta wasn't just going to hand them over without a fight. Geography had nothing to do with it. We had to go to war and IMO Thatcher made the right choice in sending the Task Force.

It still was a very tough call for the most right wing post World WarII goverment we have had; hence there was little chance Foot would of taken us to war. There comes a point where IMO you have to let the past go, that would of been an opportunity to do it, take the high road, and show up the Argentine Junta for what it was, the Falkland Islanders who did not want to live under Argentine rule could of come to Britain. It would of saved hundreds of British lives.

rydersonthestorm

10-04-2007, 05:50 PM

In the ring it is without doubt butler, the most disgraceful and cowardly act i have ever witnessed in a boxing ring.

The Kurgan

10-04-2007, 06:01 PM

I do not think with our history we can be to preachy about self determination of nations, at least wait until the generation that remembers our Empire are no more.

So it's because of OUR history that we don't have right to self-determination as Brits?

The economy was not working in 82/83; Foot would of got in if it were not for the Falklands IMO, and although a man with a massive flaws in communiaction, he had enough talent in his potential cabinet to give Britain the great Socialist drive it would of benefitted from, a drive that could led to a eutopia that I want.

"I promise you the joys of a socialist utopia!"

"We need more... More... Energy, and investment!"

The Labour party resembled the old vision of Britain: high inflation, terrible products, controlled by undemocratic unions, and no opportunities for the young. By 1983, Thatcher was turning that story on its head, and by 1984, the empire was back economically as well as militarily.

At any rate, one can hardly say the Falklands war was a design of Thatcher's, considering she cut back on the south sea navy (hospitals and schools came above weapons in Maggie's book). If she was guilty of any crime, it was having the will to defend Britain, which is no crime in my book.

McGrain

10-04-2007, 06:03 PM

This thread is gay.

Someone post that clip of Tyson decking Holmes.

Mohak

10-04-2007, 06:03 PM

It still was a very tough call for the most right wing post World WarII goverment we have had; hence there was little chance Foot would of taken us to war. There comes a point where IMO you have to let the past go, that would of been an opportunity to do it, take the high road, and show up the Argentine Junta for what it was, the Falkland Islanders who did not want to live under Argentine rule could of come to Britain. It would of saved hundreds of British lives.

But the islanders didn't want to leave their home or live under occupation. And why should they be forced to choose between living under dictatorship or being a refugee. They are British citizens, nomatter the geography. One of the key resposibilities of goverment is to ensure the safety and security of it's citizens and territories with lethal force if need be. Our territory was invaded, fact. And our citizens were under occupation, fact. You don't get more ''just'' than fighting a war to free your lands and people from occupation. Thatcher did the right thing sending the Task Force.

Mohak

10-04-2007, 06:04 PM

This thread is gay.

Someone post that clip of Tyson decking Holmes.

Agreed. It's turned into Question Time :patsch

The Kurgan

10-04-2007, 06:08 PM

It still was a very tough call for the most right wing post World WarII goverment we have had; hence there was little chance Foot would of taken us to war. There comes a point where IMO you have to let the past go, that would of been an opportunity to do it, take the high road, and show up the Argentine Junta for what it was, the Falkland Islanders who did not want to live under Argentine rule could of come to Britain. It would of saved hundreds of British lives.

I like how subtely "the past" becomes "the Falkland islanders". I suppose if the PRC had invaded Hong Kong in 1983, if the Soviets took the Shetlands, if the IRA set up a dictatorship in Northern Island, if the French took the Channel islands, if the South Africans took the southern Pacific islands, if the Cubans took Bermuda, that'd be just be giving up the past?

If the Soviets took Western Europe, invaded Scotland, took the north of England, Wales, and all of Britain sans Croydon, that'd just be giving up the past, right? After all, the people who didn't want to live under the above oppressive regimes could just move to Croydon, couldn't they? It's a good thing Thatcher came along, else Britain would have been the Democratic People's Socialist Republic of Britain under Premier Scargill by 1985.

Anyway, didn't Foot support the war? :huh

Mohak

10-04-2007, 06:21 PM

I like how subtely "the past" becomes "the Falkland islanders". I suppose if the PRC had invaded Hong Kong in 1983, if the Soviets took the Shetlands, if the IRA set up a dictatorship in Northern Island, if the French took the Channel islands, if the South Africans took the southern Pacific islands, if the Cubans took Bermuda, that'd be just be giving up the past?

Exactly. That's the whole point of having one of very few militaries in the world to have global force projection capabilities, to protect our citizens and interests anywhere at anytime. Handing the Falklands over to a dictatorship without firing a shot would set a very dangerous precedent during an unstable period.

This thread is going to shite. James Butler.

cuchulain

10-04-2007, 07:37 PM

While I won't go into detail, since this isn't a political forum....

It wasn't a political forum until you, single-handedly, turned it into one.

ron u.k.

10-05-2007, 05:30 AM

i don't suppose we politically could ignore the argentine invasion and the victory did save thatcher.one problem i always have with it though was that we liberated the islanders from the clutches of the evil junta,yet 60,000 british passport holders were living comfortably and without any harrasment in argentina when all this was going on.there was no mass exodus and they stayed there beyond the war and are still living there happilly to this day.incidentally the war was good for the argentine people because as a result of it the junta were toppled.

cross_trainer

10-05-2007, 11:14 AM

This thread is going to shite. James Butler.

An interesting choice. Elaborate. :good

garymcfall

10-05-2007, 12:32 PM

Gerald McLelland

Just because he was tragically injured against Nigel Benn doesnt mean we should ignore the truth.

The man was a fucking cunt outside the ring.

Cachibatches

10-05-2007, 12:53 PM

Golota

amhlilhaus

10-05-2007, 02:57 PM

I submit john morrissey, every one of his fights he was getting his ass royally kicked, and in two of them his gang cronies influenced the end of the fight. in the other, he only survived because his opponent fell ill from an infection.

nick ward also bears mention, he quit numerous times in an era when you were expected to be carried away to die before you quit.

Boro chris

10-05-2007, 03:47 PM

Bill1234

10-05-2007, 04:10 PM

This thread is gay.

Someone post that clip of Tyson decking Holmes.

:huh

cross_trainer

10-05-2007, 04:15 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

McGrain

10-05-2007, 04:17 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

That'll do.

MAN UP.

McGrain

10-05-2007, 04:23 PM

Man, Tyson was far superior to Holmes. I'll make a thread later to discuss this.

I'll post in it agreeing, but less aggressively.

Mohak

10-05-2007, 06:11 PM

An interesting choice. Elaborate. :good

Sucker punching Richard Grant during a 9/11 fundraiser and killing Sam Kellerman slightly influences on my choice. Utter disgrace.

cross_trainer

10-05-2007, 06:15 PM

Sucker punching Richard Grant during a 9/11 fundraiser and killing Sam Kellerman slightly influences on my choice. Utter disgrace.

Agreed, but there are other boxers who have committed murders (one of 'em killed his own wife!). The sucker punching "helps" if you could call it that, but are there any outstandingly brutal things to set him apart?

Zakman

10-05-2007, 07:11 PM

History's most disgraceful fighter?? For disgracing the game IN the ring, which I think should be the critereon - there is NO ONE who did this more often or more consistently than the serial cheater named JOHN RUIZ!

From his unjust rise in the rankings as a result of his connections with a powerful promoter, this glorified New England clubfighter used those connections to get away with illegal tactics in virtually every fight, to win matches he would never have otherwise "won" against world class fighters, because he didn't have the ability to compete with such fighters.

This undermined the legitimacy of the game in ways that the occasional illegal tactic used by other more talented fighters to supplement their legitimate boxing skills never could - because it led to a fighter holding a title entirely based on violating the basic rules of the game.

Essentially, Ruiz's offenses fall into three categories:

Excessive Holding: this was used by Ruiz in virtually every fight after Don King manuevered him into the ratings. Unlike other fighters with actual boxing ability, Ruiz didn't just use holding as an occasional supplement to legitimate boxing - because he no legitimate boxing ability - he used it to make up for the lack of them.

Bogus Decisions: strictly speaking, this wasn't Ruiz's doing, but King's - but Ruiz benefitted from King's influence in getting favorable decisions in fights he clearly didn't deserve the nod. The most egregious examples of this occurred in the third Holyfield fight and the Golota fight.

Faking "Low Blows:" this is easily Ruiz's most disgusting offense against the sport - the shameful overacting when hit with shots anywhere near his trunks was a tactic Ruiz employed in at least three fights, against Jimmy Thunder, Evander Holyfield in their second fight, and repeatedly against Kirk Johnson to force a bogus DQ. In the Thunder fight it helped get him a split decision, and against Holyfield, it enabled him avoid being counted out when knocked down by a body shot.

For the sheer blatantcy and repeated violations of good sportsmanship, there is no fighter who has disgraced the sport through what he did INSIDE the ring more than John Ruiz. Without it, and the connections with King that made it possible, Ruiz would have been lucky to win the regional title belt, let alone a paper "world" title. Now THAT'S disgraceful. :nod

Mohak

10-05-2007, 07:41 PM

Agreed, but there are other boxers who have committed murders (one of 'em killed his own wife!). The sucker punching "helps" if you could call it that, but are there any outstandingly brutal things to set him apart?

Even if you leave out the murder Butler sucker punching Grant as he was about to shake his hand for me puts him above the rest. It was such a cowardly and utterly disgraceful act at a 9/11 fundraiser of all things. There are no excuses for such an act. It was one of the most shocking things I've ever seen in the ring.

Spman20999

10-06-2007, 07:13 AM

Well as much as I would like to vote Cotto for how dirty he fought against Judah; I think I am going to have to go Lenox Lewis for back stabbing Canada. Remember Lewis the last level of hell is for betrayers. I hope your first day there last's 10000 years, and that it is the shortest.

Spman20999

10-06-2007, 07:18 AM

I change my mind from Quitssius Clay to Sven "The faggot" Ottke

I forgot all about Ottke...

Man stays at home and wins some shady decisions and ducks every reasonable threat. Yeah he is a pretty disgraceful fighter when it comes down to it.

TBooze

10-06-2007, 01:19 PM

Most people love him here but I pick Carlos Monzon. Dude tossed his wife off a balcony and to my knowledge never showed any remorse.

Accidentally, he was in prison for manslaughter not murder. Boxing has had tons of not nice people, some of them my heroes in the ring.

But what he did in the ring, I think Bobby Frankham takes the biscuit, but unlike the USA (and Butler) we (The BBB of C) threw him out the sport.

Dempsey1238

10-06-2007, 01:27 PM

RDJ

10-06-2007, 03:58 PM

If Tyson gets mentioned for biting, Evander "Headbutt" Holyfield deserves a mention as well.

RDJ

10-06-2007, 04:04 PM

JohnThomas1

10-06-2007, 04:06 PM

That's the spirit!! Hey listen. I need a house tomorrow, and I kinda like yours. I expect you to be out by the morning, we can save ourself the horrible mess of fighting, and you becoming injured in the process :good

Say hi to the misses, she's still yours for the evening.

I see you're still alive and kicking hey

:lol:

TBooze

10-06-2007, 05:09 PM

ozziebattler

10-06-2007, 09:41 PM

Im not sure exactly which one it is but one of the hilton boys would have to be one of the biggest peices of shit ever.(i think it was davey or mathew)

It had came out that he sexually abused his kids(daughters)and would do so asmuch as everyday.

I feel sick even writing this..

His own young kids for fucks sake..

Spman20999

10-06-2007, 09:55 PM

ozziebattler

10-09-2007, 05:06 AM

It was Davey. You forgot to mention that as soon as he got out of jail he assaulted his wife; top shelf douche bag in my books.

Please tell me is in jail for life now??

Rattler

10-10-2007, 12:13 PM

More than likely, it's some fighter nobody has a name for, who's emotional and psychological weakness allowed for deplorably inhumane acts against society. Generally speaking, in any field of life, to become notable in your field you must possess a certain amount of control, determination and responsibility to your craft to sustain any success.

It would be someone who lacked the ability to see the forest for the trees, as it were, to willingly (or sub-consciously) risk a possible future of fame and money due to an incapability to see the disasterous results of their compulsively wrong nature.

We've never heard of the guy who raped a child and murdered a convenience store clerk or some other assortment of reprehensible actions toward society.