You guys agree with this his 20 P4P list??????

[DaxxKahn]

DaxxKahn

Please read the first paragraph and you will see why I left out the 'old timers."

17.09.06 - By Ted Sares: It's time to start stir up things on ESB so here my first top twenty pound-for-pound best fighter list. But what makes this list different is that I have actually witnessed each boxer fight at one time or another, and I don't mean by video. Of course, I carefully analyzed their records, ko percentages, skill-sets, the era in which they fought, entire body of work, quality of opposition and other important criteria as well.









I did read it...You contradict yourself......You ask if this is a top 20 P4P list we agree with but then you say it is a list of fighters you have actually seen and done comparisons on and this is how you list those fighters.....That is not a list of top 20 P4P all time fighters.....That should be reworded to " The top 20 P4P fighters I have seen"...Not everyone was around to see Robinson or Louis....so how can they agree or dis agree with something they did not nor will they ever be able to judge on....No offense but you asked the forums opinion on your list yet seem to be insulted that not everyone agrees??

[tedsares]

DaxxKahn
"No offense but you asked the forums opinion on your list yet seem to be insulted that not everyone agrees??"

No offense taken. I have thick skin.

I never sent this to the Forum. Someone else did. That said, I am not insulted at all. Unlike many other writers, I like to engage intelligent posters. I'll go head to head if I feel a clarification is in order. I had this on another site and got 600 posts and had a lot of fun with it as I knew many of the posters, but I'll never do one like it again. However, I don't think I contradicted myself as much as I should have made the entry qualification more prominent. There is no way Langford, Amstrong or other old timers get on my list because they track prior to 1946. It's not an all time list; that's the key.

I have, however, done one regarding who I think are the 10 most exciting fighters and I'll be glad to sahre it if you give me your email and after it is posted elsewhere.

Thank you for your post.

[X]

Unlike many other writers, I like to engage intelligent posters.

Well you've come to the wrong place then.

You may not feel insulted, or may not mean to give offense.......but I am very offended you only want to engage intelligent poster. What about gibbering, drooling idiots like me.

That's discriminatory against low-life plankton posters such as I.

T'choh, it's one rule for one and another rule for others on this forum!!

[tedsares]

Yeah, your are right. Sorry. x

[DaxxKahn]

DaxxKahn
"No offense but you asked the forums opinion on your list yet seem to be insulted that not everyone agrees??"

No offense taken. I have thick skin.

I never sent this to the Forum. Someone else did. That said, I am not insulted at all. Unlike many other writers, I like to engage intelligent posters. I'll go head to head if I feel a clarification is in order. I had this on another site and got 600 posts and had a lot of fun with it as I knew many of the posters, but I'll never do one like it again. However, I don't think I contradicted myself as much as I should have made the entry qualification more prominent. There is no way Langford, Amstrong or other old timers get on my list because they track prior to 1946. It's not an all time list; that's the key.

I have, however, done one regarding who I think are the 10 most exciting fighters and I'll be glad to sahre it if you give me your email and after it is posted elsewhere.

Thank you for your post.

Yes Ted you are right someone else did that is true...But you also chose to engage within the topic even after Saddo asked if you would like it taken off....IMO it doesnt matter if they fought before 1946 or not if they are in the gloved era with sanctioning bodies that still exist EG WBA today they are in the modern era....If you want to be that precise about things then Joe Louis should not be on your list seeing how most of his career took place before 1946 ( or at least the part worth mentioning) so you could not count the time after 1946 as an all time because he was a shell of his former self...Also you can say the word more prominent rather than contradict if you want but truth of the matter is that does not change the fact that it is a list based on fighters you have seen..Like I said before not everyone here was around to see many on your list...Yet you expect them to just take your word for it just because you have seen them in person and if they don't agree with your picks or if they havent seen them then you use word play to disqualify their arguements....With that said..

I personally take offense to the statement where you mention that "Unlike many other writers I like to engage intelligent posters" What is it you are trying to hint at?...What other writers do you speak of?..Out of respect for Saddo...The site and the fact that I not only write for this site but am an assistant editor I won't out right insult you in a vulgar manner but I do find you to be a bit pompus and arrogant...I see you are quoted as being a historian but this does not make you more intelligent that everyone here...I have been involved in boxing for 20 years and have not only had a decent amatuer career but have worked with many pro's including world champions on some level...If I can carry a debate with Burt Sugar, Ralph Willey, Steve Bunce, Bob Mee, Angelo Dundee and Floyd Patterson I am sure you are not the exception....Plus the posters on here are hard to get anything past..Guy's like Wacko, Killersheep,Lyle, Adam,Cutmemick,bilbo,britkid, and a slew of others ( no offense to the guys I left out ) Could also give you more than a run....So please do not insult my fellow board members because I would not only match them up against anyone in a debate but I would put money on most of them. When you say things like On other forums I have had intelligent debates or I only debate things intelligently. You hint around that we yes I say we because I include myself as part of this group can not debate intelligently...The style of many here may be a bit ruff but thats because. 1. They are hardcore fans of the sport and 2. Are used to debating amoung each other and we all know how the others personality is. Everything is not meant to be an insult or put down it is just good fun...With that being said I for one enjoy your articles, And hope to keep reading them. I hope you stay around a while because you would be a welcome addition to the boards. I would like to apologize that we got off on the wrong foot and hope there is no harm or foul kept harbored.

And for the record Guys like Saddo said lets be a little more polite to new members and wait til they get to know how we are before we start blasting them...Myself included

[TheBESTP4P]

DaxxKahn
"No offense but you asked the forums opinion on your list yet seem to be insulted that not everyone agrees??"

No offense taken. I have thick skin.

I never sent this to the Forum. Someone else did. That said, I am not insulted at all. Unlike many other writers, I like to engage intelligent posters. I'll go head to head if I feel a clarification is in order. I had this on another site and got 600 posts and had a lot of fun with it as I knew many of the posters, but I'll never do one like it again. However, I don't think I contradicted myself as much as I should have made the entry qualification more prominent. There is no way Langford, Amstrong or other old timers get on my list because they track prior to 1946. It's not an all time list; that's the key.

I have, however, done one regarding who I think are the 10 most exciting fighters and I'll be glad to sahre it if you give me your email and after it is posted elsewhere.

Thank you for your post.

Yes Ted you are right someone else did that is true...But you also chose to engage within the topic even after Saddo asked if you would like it taken off....IMO it doesnt matter if they fought before 1946 or not if they are in the gloved era with sanctioning bodies that still exist EG WBA today they are in the modern era....If you want to be that precise about things then Joe Louis should not be on your list seeing how most of his career took place before 1946 ( or at least the part worth mentioning) so you could not count the time after 1946 as an all time because he was a shell of his former self...Also you can say the word more prominent rather than contradict if you want but truth of the matter is that does not change the fact that it is a list based on fighters you have seen..Like I said before not everyone here was around to see many on your list...Yet you expect them to just take your word for it just because you have seen them in person and if they don't agree with your picks or if they havent seen them then you use word play to disqualify their arguements....With that said..

I personally take offense to the statement where you mention that "Unlike many other writers I like to engage intelligent posters" What is it you are trying to hint at?...What other writers do you speak of?..Out of respect for Saddo...The site and the fact that I not only write for this site but am an assistant editor I won't out right insult you in a vulgar manner but I do find you to be a bit pompus and arrogant...I see you are quoted as being a historian but this does not make you more intelligent that everyone here...I have been involved in boxing for 20 years and have not only had a decent amatuer career but have worked with many pro's including world champions on some level...If I can carry a debate with Burt Sugar, Ralph Willey, Steve Bunce, Bob Mee, Angelo Dundee and Floyd Patterson I am sure you are not the exception....Plus the posters on here are hard to get anything past..Guy's like Wacko, Killersheep,Lyle, Adam,Cutmemick,bilbo,britkid, and a slew of others ( no offense to the guys I left out ) Could also give you more than a run....So please do not insult my fellow board members because I would not only match them up against anyone in a debate but I would put money on most of them. When you say things like On other forums I have had intelligent debates or I only debate things intelligently. You hint around that we yes I say we because I include myself as part of this group can not debate intelligently...The style of many here may be a bit ruff but thats because. 1. They are hardcore fans of the sport and 2. Are used to debating amoung each other and we all know how the others personality is. Everything is not meant to be an insult or put down it is just good fun...With that being said I for one enjoy your articles, And hope to keep reading them. I hope you stay around a while because you would be a welcome addition to the boards. I would like to apologize that we got off on the wrong foot and hope there is no harm or foul kept harbored.

And for the record Guys like Saddo said lets be a little more polite to new members and wait til they get to know how we are before we start blasting them...Myself included

[tedsares]

Whew! Sorry if I offended you. Those who know me know tha'ts not my style. But I''ll tell you this, when someone calls me a "homo erotic," I'll not engage him. As for the refernce to other writers, that was meant for another site and was not meant for Saddo. I don't even know who the Saddo writers at this point. Sorry for the misunderstanding, as I have nothing but respect for all other writers on all sites and in all magazines and those on that "other" site know that.Condscending and arraogant is not a part of my DNA; respect is.

[tedsares]

From another of my post: "Hey Violent, I never, ever mind criticim so chill. Unlike many other writers, I frequently (but not always) will engage my posters because I think its cutting art stuff to get instant feedback and instant exchanges......"

[DaxxKahn]

From another of my post: "Hey Violent, I never, ever mind criticim so chill. Unlike many other writers, I frequently (but not always) will engage my posters because I think its cutting art stuff to get instant feedback and instant exchanges......"

Ted have a on me...Thats about the equivelant of a high five arond here....Like I said no harm no foul...Everyone here is a good bunch of guys who are just a little rough around the edges at times...Hang out a while and you will actually learn that the more some guys like ya the more they give you a hard time...Like I said before all in good fun...As you mention other sites we have all had some bad experiences with them and tis why many of us ended up here....( Then again there are some you just have to ignore lol) hope all is forgiven and we can move on to better things....

[TheBESTP4P]

Whew! Sorry if I offended you. Those who know me know tha'ts not my style. But I''ll tell you this, when someone calls me a "homo erotic," I'll not engage him. As for the refernce to other writers, that was meant for another site and was not meant for Saddo. I don't even know who the Saddo writers at this point. Sorry for the misunderstanding, as I have nothing but respect for all other writers on all sites and in all magazines and those on that "other" site know that.Condscending and arraogant is not a part of my DNA; respect is.

hey ted i believe i was one who used the term "homo erotic" and i meant that metaphorically obviously to point out a real obsessed love for a fighter. shiiiit that being said id be "homo erotic" in regards to RJJ. its just slang alot of us use on this site not literally by any means. do i think you and b-hop share homosexual relations? well i would say NOT. but then again if u did that would be pretty cool actually hahaha. im not even homphobic. 1/2 of my neighbors/co-workers/really good friends are homo cuz yes i lived in LA, more so Beverly Hills/Westhollywood for and work in the the entertainment industry for the last several years. im pretty sarcastic at times so just remember that and dont take me or anyone else on here too seriously especially if they are just "talking ishh". but like i said my intentions of posting your article was to give you exposure, publicity, and spark discussion among my friends here on saddo. not to rip on you or anything like that. but again i do agree RJJ higher than B-Hop once again and ill stick by that one!

[tedsares]

Peace! What part of Chicago are you from?

[TheBESTP4P]

Peace! What part of Chicago are you from?

NORTHSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDE. how about yourself my friend?

[tedsares]

Logan Square, Milwaukee, Kimball and Diversey area....long before you were even a twinkle. A very rough and mean area, though I boxed out of Uptown and also out of Great Lakes. North side is nice, especially Rogers Park.

[TheBESTP4P]

Logan Square, Milwaukee, Kimball and Diversey area....long before you were even a twinkle. A very rough and mean area, though I boxed out of Uptown and also out of Great Lakes. North side is nice, especially Rogers Park.

haha so u saying u maaaad old school huh? u saw with your own eyes when the cubs actually went all the way? ahhaa. did they have latin kings, folks, disciples, vice lords in your hay day back then?

[tedsares]

Blackstone Rangers at 35th and Wentworth. Very dangerous group. Also C.O.M.C...Chicago Outlaws Motorcycle Club...which then became one of the earlier chapters of the ANGELS and the first one in the midwest. Many ethnic gangs back then out of Buck Town, South and West Side, Uptown, Austin, Cicero, Stickney and as far south as East Chicago and Cal City. Very tough guys. Boxing refelected this ethniticity. Irish, Italian, Polish, Black, Greeks, Latino (mostly Chicanos from Desplains). The ones you referred to came after I moved (thank God)...............or I would have ended up in Joliet or Pontiac if you get my drift. Fortunately, I got a scholarship and escaped that hell hole. I never looked back.I am one of the few Chicago natives that did no particularly care for growing up in that environment of mean streets and brutal rascism....but I believe it has since been yuppified.