Did Howard have enough skill to derail "The Radar"?
| Home | News | Current Champs | WAIL! | Encyclopedia |
| The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board |
| Home | News | Current Champs | WAIL! | Encyclopedia |
| The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board |
Did Howard have enough skill to derail "The Radar"?
I'll make it short an sweet, NO WAY IN HELL.
Frank B.
At first I thought no way Davis could beat Benitez.And I still think Benitez is way more talented.But styles make fights and Davis's movement would trouble Benitez.And Davis had the speed to match up with Benitez.I would take Davis by ultra close decision.
Aint No Way! Howard Davis, Jr doesn't belong in the same
ring with Wilfred Benitez! Davis was always overrated in my
opinion and though he may have been faster of foot than
Wilfred, he was never more than a watered down version of
Sugar Ray Leonard. Benitez by easy decision.
A Prime Benitez does everything better than a Prime Davis.
Imagine how extraordinary Benitez would have been if he actually trained more than 2 weeks for a fight.
Unparalled defense and an underrated punch.
Once sided decision or KO over Davis
Don't forget, davis out boxed rosario. 2 knockdown cost him the decision but howard says rosario came up to him after the fight and told him he had won.
howard davis never really impressed me. like mark breland. he seemed to have all the tools physically but never seemed to have the mental toughness to crack the greatness level. i still wish tony baltazar had landed one more shot on him.
greg
Managed by the same people, both Howard Davis
and Gerry Cooney were put in with very soft
opposition much of their respective careers.
As a result, Davis and Cooney were put into
the ring with top fighters before getting the
proper seasoning. I am not saying that Davis
and Cooney would have become great fighters
with seasoning, but my feeling that is obvious
that both had talent and their management
should have been given both a proper chance
to reach the top.
- Chuck Johnston
And why do you think that happened? Money, my friend!
Cooney's handlers in particular kept him "protected" on his
way to a $10 million megafight with Holmes. It would have
made no difference in my opinion. Holmes and Cooney were
worlds apart in ability.
In spite of not getting enough seasoning,
Gerry Cooney gave Larry Holmes a very
tough time of it. That is quite an
accomplishment for a heavyweight who
supposedly was far below Holmes in
terms of talent. Just think......Cooney
could've made alot more money if he
was a champion.
In regards to Howard Davis, take a look
at a tape of his bout with Jim Watt. I
believe that Davis had more talent than
Watt, but lacked the seasoning.
- Chuck Johnston
The davis that fought rosario would have beaten watt. I've heard howard asked many time what happened to him in the watt fight. His response is" I didn't want to be there"
i don't know what that exactly means, but thats the answer he gives.
Davis had been constantly saying "Jim Who" when talking about Watt during the run-up.
Watt was enraged and badly intimidated Davis at the weigh-in when the two went face to face.The combination of Watt's bravado, the hostile venue and Howard's inexperience resulted in the performance he gave.
Watt was a seasoned pro and just far tougher mentally than Howard was at that time.
It was a fight that should never have taken place.
The thing I don't get is, why didn't Howard go after Hilmer Kenty for the WBA belt? I know Watt wasn't on his skill level, but still, the damage that one fight did to his career was in some ways, irreversable.
Davis's speed might have made for a good match with Benitez at 140. I don't see the "Benitez by blowout" scenario at all.
If Wilfred were to be that dominating, Davis would elect to dance for many rounds. But, Benitez was not that aggressive. And, Davis was faster.
Neither guy ever excited me but this is a fight I would have liked to see! I think it could have been good.
Forum Flash, your comment that Davis "was never more than a watered down version of Sugar Ray Leonard" makes no sense to me. It implies that Leonard is not a good fighter. Maybe say Davis was a poor imitator of Leonard, which would decry only Davis's abilities and not Ray's.
To those who say Watt was a much better fighter than Davis, their fight shouldn't have occurred, etc . . . ? WHAT? Davis lost by decision to Watt, not KO, and was never in danger of being stopped. There was not much action. Watt was not a great fighter and the biggest surprise to me was that he lasted the distance with the infinitely superior Arguello. Watt DID put ME to sleep, i.e., his style caused me to fall asleep while watching him.
Davis would do better vs. Benitez than would Watt, I feel.
Didn't like how Watt butted and bloodied up O'Grady, either.
imo the fight shouldn't have taken place because Davis was not ready for it.
Davis was more talented than Watt and could have won with more seasoning.It was bad matchmaking.
Not a disaster by any means..just needless.
Almost as needless as constantly swamping the front page with 5 to 10 old threads nearly every single day.
Doing this on the current or old timers forum would be outright spamming.
Maybe it's not so bad on this forum, but unless a new topic is about the fab four they're gone within a day or two now.
Last edited by starlingstomp; 09-04-2007 at 09:51 PM.
"Nearly every single day"??? You are master of the exaggeration, huh, Stomp?Originally Posted by starlingstomp
Hey, I'm comparatively new to the board and saw old threads and wanted to respond. If they're not to be responded to, then why are they left on here?
Since I don't view this as your own personal internet board, and no one else here has moaned about my responding to existing threads, I'll ignore your swipe as just being from another of the losers among this crew that lives for these message boards, and makes their friends and enemies here.
Get a life.
I'm just here to exchange ideas, didn't know they had to be on your time schedule. Ignore them if they are old news to you.
Last edited by Michael Frank; 09-05-2007 at 07:37 PM. Reason: inserted quotes
Mr. Frank,
"I'll ignore your swipe as just being from another of the losers among this crew that lives for these message boards,"
You make yourself quite unwlecome around these parts.
Surely Stomps message was lost on you. And if it was indeed biting or smarted a bit, I'm sure you could have inquired a bit more as to why he raised this point in the first place, without having to call him names.
Bumping old posts for a purpose of engaging in conversation is one thing. Bumping just to bump, is IMO, just as bad as duplication posts.
Regardless. You don't care for the comment Mooch made about the mass bumps......address it with him. You don't need to call him, or anyone for that matter a loser.
StarlingStomp is a pretty respected member on this site. My personal opinion is that he should be treated accordingly.
That said, also understand that Cyberboxingzone, is unique in that it doesn't tolerate this type of disrespect where posters start personal insults and name calling.
I'm quite certain you could have addressed this point with Stomp without having to resort to calling him a loser.
Something to chew on.
Fellow Loser-Hawk
I'll chew on it. But,
I thought I never "bumped just to bump." I've seen you do so recently, Hawk, but I don't write only "bump." I write thoughts about the fights.
If someone says that something I DO is needless, that to me is as insulting as CALLING me needless. Whereas I don't start by saying nasty things to people (luckily just a few) on this board; they, however, start by saying such things to me. Then selective memory is applied and I am viewed, incorrectly, as the aggressor.
I reread my prior post before submitting it and I am quite sure of my facts, based on my experience on this board.
Can we all just submit our boxing-related thoughts and not be subject to criticism for all sorts of irrelevant things, such as paragraphing, or bumping threads that are outdated to some? Then there won't be any offense, hence no need for those of you who throw the stones first to object so mightily when they are returned.
And yes, I admit that Stomp's message was completely lost on me if it was meant without mean-spiritedness and only to factually address a matter. I didn't see it this way at all.
maybe i could have worded it less abrasively, but it was late when i posted it and my patience was running thin.
Any time a new poster in the past has continually bumped up old threads it has tended to to be trolls looking to overly praise or tear down fighters just to get a reaction or push their agenda.The comments on the Monzon and bEnitez threads you bumped did suggest that to me.I was just waiting on the Ali, Qawi and Tyson threads that would have confirmed an alias of an old poster that has been banned a few times already.
If that's not the case, i apologise.All i ask for is some restraint on the amount of threads being bumped.As you said..this is not anyone's personal message board.
But I see a clear difference, in stating that bumping multiple posts is "needless" and outright calling a poster a "loser".
And it seems my point, when I bumped multiple SRL threads was also lost on you Mr. Frank.
I'm quite sure it was not lost on others.
Whatever.
The issue at hand has seemingly been addressed. Let's move on.
Hawk
Wow it seems that on this board some make it very very uncomfortable to respond with your views or thoughts. It is unfortunate, because the intelligence level on this board is by far better than any other boxing board. However it is sometimes over matched by the need for some to attack others for their views, or grammer. etc.
Frank I review your post and they are very good, thought provocking and I like the content. This board is privledges to have another intelligent poster join it as you have. I would keep up your post, your views, your thoughts, and be above the childish badgering that some do when they disagree with you. Disagreeing is fine if it is in the content of a debate, but to badger etc....Wow.. I frankly thought this site was for debating different views. and having a running thread is great and allows for those who may not have been in on the original discussion to pick up on it whenever they read it, or form an opnion.
Keep up the great work.
Frank, I wouldn't sweat it with this so called issue. It is ONLY a very very very very small few on the CBZ who seem intent on being rude and disrespectful towards other posters. Censoring and lecturing POSTER'S on what they should and should not POST on...They will eventually COP on. Bare with it Frank. The proof is in the pudding as they say, and the fact that my SRL thread which was started recently is still going strong without interference from anyone, bar 1 poster, says it all really.....
Last edited by walshb; 09-06-2007 at 04:39 AM.
I browse this site quite frequently but post infrequently. This is partly because I'm a busy man (yeah, right!), partly because I dont always have any great insight to offer beyond what has already been said on a thread but it is also partly because I cant be bothered to get involved in the string of pointless spats that are often thrown up. I dont think I'm really getting involved now but offer what I have to say as a means of concilliation.
Here's my take on this:
Starling's post was unneccesarily abrasive as he later admitted - I feel that Michael Frank has proved himself to be a boxing enthusiast rather than a spammer. The abrasiveness could easily be seen as a response to the slightly dismissive post by Frank re: Davis-Watt (slightly dismissive being how I read it rather than how Frank may have written it) and there was some rationale behind it as Starling explained later.
Frank's response was, however, immediately and unneccesarily aggressive. The ad hominem attack was not needed; nor the dig at the wider community.
The whole 'dispute' was then furthered by other posters "taking sides". It's everyone's right to get involved in the discussion as long as they are members and I understand that some posters might reasonably want to defend another poster but perhaps when this happens in future we could leave the posters immediately involved to sort it out among themselves perhaps by PM.
Paulie.
Mooch certainly is a big enough boy to defend himself.
While I was pretty miffed at the "loser" comment, you are correct, my involvement was probably unecessary.
I won't apologize for jumping to Mooch's defense here, but I also realize that my comments probably only fueled things a bit more. I attempted to temper my post to Micheal a bit. And while my initial post to him, I think wasn't too out of bounds, certainly my second one, after Stomp clarified things on his end, was not needed.
Understood. And Thanks.
Hawk
Paulie, your absolutely correct. The main reason I did this, was becasue in the past I have had several memeber pm me telling me that they enjoyed my post and to not give in to some pressuring me to stop posting on a particulare person. I didnt need that because as many know, I post on who I want, when I want, and how many times i want. That is what this board is about. As long as we keep it mature, not degrading to others, and debatable but informationable. I wanted to ensure Frank that there are many out there that enjoy his post and to not give in when he has an opinion on something.
I enjoy his posts and enjoy his forthought, just as I enjoy everyone elses's. I will say this also. Hawk to me is one of the most insightful boxing people I have ever read, should be considered an expert as I woulld put his knowledge up against others. When he post i along with other read it for the content and his opinion. Gordoom the same way, NO knock against others as everyone on here,,,INcluding my starch debate foe Ultimo, knows their stuff...even if it comes from YOu Tube (ultimo...lol).
This board is absolutely the best thing on the internet. Thanks to all of you that post your views, your intelligence and it is you all and the new members that keep many of us interested when we come home to get on here and have friendly debate about 1 of the million topics that are on here, with very very very intelligent people.
Lets keep it up, and continue to thank gordoom and others for this board, but also motivate all members to post maturally about any boxing topic that impactst them, or something that moves them and they have some insight that they would like to share. Even you Ultimo....lol
Peace and I look forward to debating you on al Sugar Ray Leonard in the future...LOL
Was there really any need to post this Walsh?.
i ALREADY clarified why i made the initial comment(and offered apology if needed) and it has nothing to do with any of this you just mentioned
If you have a problem with hawk then deal with it on your own terms and don't bring it into this thread.
To stomp: My apologies for overreacting. It seems from the subsequent posts from yourself and others that this issue is over with, done. So it is to me, too.
To Pink, Walsh, Paulie: Thanks for the encouraging comments and, in Paulie's case, also the insightful analysis of the whole thing. Also in response to Paulie (who assumed correctly) and starlingstomp, I have never been on this board in the past, not before about June, 2007. I'm not a spammer and this is the first boxing board (or ANY message board) I've ever been on.
As an FYI, and I realize this is way off-topic but might be of interest, the ONLY reason I even learned of this board is that one day I did a Google search of my name and was shocked to find it on this board, thankfully in a complimentary way. That poster, to whom I've sent many tapes and DVDs over the years, really liked my studio/network-sourced recordings and those I have taped myself (since 1979). Anyway, looking over this board, I was also referred to elsewhere on CBZ, though not by name, because I had a studio copy of a fight that I sent to a poster here, and he subsequently found trouble when he offered it for sale. Eventually, I found the Fantasy Fights section and the main Forum page and found CBZ quite interesting and enticing; almost addictive.
Anyway, in this roundabout way I found CBZ, and have become glad to exchange ideas with clearly the most knowledgable group of people on boxing that I've ever known at one "gathering." The difference in styles is fascinating (i.e., that some are like me-- recalling fights they saw or anecdotes they read-- and others seem to have incredible details memorized, still others go to the record books to fact-check their posts before submitting; some are young but have read much about the past . . . it's really interesting here.
My one objection to Max Kellerman on TV had been on principle, that he was so young and yet he's telling me about fighters I grew up watching, meeting, and reading about, so "what can I learn from him?" But, he's really done his homework and appears to be a boxing expert . . . maybe even qualified to post with you guys!
By the way, what is the etiquette on responding to old threads (I guess that is "bumping" them to the front page--I never even knew what "bumping" meant)?
Anyway, is the idea to respond primarily to threads already on page 1 (presumably only new ones), and limit the digging up of old threads (that would then jump to page 1)? If so, I'm fine with that, but it sure does a disservice to new members to the board. Members who join CBZ in 5 years will have few "new" old-time fighter threads to join in on.
But, I'll do whatever is considered appropriate.
I'll let the managers chime in on this, but as far as I know, there is no criterion for responding to posted material. Any time you answer an existing thread (or start a new one), it's "bumped" to the top of the board, just behind the semi-permanent "bookmarked" threads, no matter how far back in the pack it is. A few guys will answer "Bump" in a thread that interests them just to keep it upfront and on everyone's mind. I kind of like seeing old stuff pop back up. I'll often laugh at some moronic opinion -- only to discover that I wrote it.
But you'll never get all the way back to the first postings on this site because about two/three years ago someone (don't know who, but I have my suspicions) hacked in and wiped out an entire library of scintillating topics. You should have seen them. That's why you won't find anything older than 2005 or so.
If I had the cash, I'd hire the Blue Moon Detective Agency ("We Solve the Case -- Once In a Blue Moon") to track down the miscreant. PeteLeo.
CBZ Historian
(6/6/05 10:54 am)
Reply
ATTENTION GORDOOM
Steve:
I just noticed that my reply to your attention hap message made it to the thread, though it does not show it on the board. It follows one of Mr. B.'s later posts.
Thanks again
hap
- cyberboxingzone - History of California Boxing - The Cyber Boxing Zone -
Schedule News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia Links Store Home
Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.32
Copyright ©1999-2007 ezboard, Inc.
here is a sample of the old site
Posting Permissions
| News | Current Champs | WAIL! | Encyclopedia | Links | Home |
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks