>>I always thought this, too.
> I'm aghast! And I thought you were the most knowledgable boxing person on this
>newsgroup. My faith has been shaken. My hero has clay feet.
No one has ever accused me of being the most knowledgable boxing person on this group.
I have a fighter's insight and I can evaluate a performance as such, but there are
plenty of better researchers than I. Plus, everyone thinks my boxing picks suck.
> Strange - they are outlawed in most states. If they were similar, close and
>related, wouldn't the State Athletic Commissions embrace them in their area of
>sanctioning and overseeing? Oh - maybe where you are.................
Because the ToughMan circuit is owned by one man. No skimming.
> Hmmmmmm - last I knew, from Morrison's ex-trainer, Tommy came out of the
>amateurs and into the pros. I do know, however, he has had a few fights in
>local bars...............Oh! I get it! In your expertise, the amateurs are the
>toughman circuit. Wonder if USA Boxing is aware of this. You should probably
>write them a letter informing them of their lack of knowledge in this area.
The kid used to fight ToughMan contests in Oklahoma. Was a champion one year.
Started fighting when he was four***. Ask his ex-trainer about it.
> I am also really surprised that you haven't chosen to contest the Guidelines
>with the entire FAQ Group since the Guidelines were not my personal,
>"narrowminded," or "prejudicial" points of view. They are the views of not only
>the FAQ Group but the majority of posters on this newsgroup. Sighhhh - guess
>it's easier to attack a defensless old lady than it is to confront a topic with
>your male peers.
I am really surprised you find it necessary to hide behind your gender concerning this
topic. Surely, as the most visible member of the FAQ group and the obvious spokesperson
for the cabal, you can take these issues back to them and discuss it on your FAQ time.
You are hardly defenseless or old. I won't go near "lady".
> I thought you originally founded this newsgroup for the purpose of posting about
>the sport of boxing - at least that's what you have stated in the past. You did
>not post a Guideline about the content, what is and is not allowed - therefore I
>would say the newsgroup has evolved past your original involvement. If you don't
I would say the newsgroup has not evolved past my involvement. It's here because
of boxing. I don't watch Tough Man contests because my tastes are more refined
at this point, however they wear boxing gloves, fight rounds, and don't use
kicking, so it's relevant material, even if it is sloppy. It isn't blatantly fixed,
it has an appeal to the underdog, and it represents the kind of people who are tough
enough to just do it, training aside.
You want to define boxing? Let's define it somewhere else. Let's not get started on
how piss-poor modern boxing is, how awful the judges are and how well-paid they must
be to give decisions to King fighters. Let's not start on the rankings which are
engineered to give paydays and not fan fights.
In short, let's not throw stones in glass houses. At least with Tough Man, you
can see how the champion got there.