WHAT'S MORE IMPRESSIVE?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: WHAT'S MORE IMPRESSIVE?

    In response to mryazz's comment:

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    I don't see any relation.  One was a downright beating, the other was a comeback.

    Both were pretty darn enjoyable, however.

    (You know, until we learned that the Sox sluggers were both all jacked up on the juice.)

     

     



    Hey, do you think yaz gets more respect around the forums now that he's renamed himself "Mr"? 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    you got the wrong guy, MORON. btw, ESAD!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah sure I do. I look forward to hearing what your grampy would have thought. 

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hanrahan1. Show Hanrahan1's posts

    Re: WHAT'S MORE IMPRESSIVE?

    With respect, don't really care all that much about baseball. So the obvious answer is 1.

    Next question?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from east-westBsfan. Show east-westBsfan's posts

    Re: WHAT'S MORE IMPRESSIVE?


    Yaz was my boyhood idol. After he retired it just wasn't the same for me. I remember just chuckling over the Buckner episode just thinking hey that's the sox. If that would have happened pre 1983 I would have put my foot through the tv screen or at least broken a towel rack as I did when Guy Lafleur scored that "too many men on the ice" goal. And now with all this juice stuff I could care less.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: WHAT'S MORE IMPRESSIVE?

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

    You have Manny Ramirez in his prime on PED's and he is going to effect the outcome of a game more than say a Mark Lemke on PED's.

    ________________________________________________________________________________

    So you think Manny was using early in his career in Cleveland ? and his early days in Boston ?

    You do think the 2004 and 2007 championships were tainted ?

    Not going to argue any further just want to see you answers on those two questions.

    Guerrero wasn't on those lists that came out. I point to Vlads stats allot and Manny's early career stats is why I ask.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: WHAT'S MORE IMPRESSIVE?

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

    You have Manny Ramirez in his prime on PED's and he is going to effect the outcome of a game more than say a Mark Lemke on PED's.

    ________________________________________________________________________________

    So you think Manny was using early in his career in Cleveland ? and his early days in Boston ?

    You do think the 2004 and 2007 championships were tainted ?

    Not going to argue any further just want to see you answers on those two questions.

    Guerrero wasn't on those lists that came out. I point to Vlads stats allot and Manny's early career stats is why I ask.



    1. Can't say for sure. I used to love to watch Manny hit, after I found out he tested positive. I was done with him. He's a cheater.

    2. Tainted? I think they have to be somewhat. They had players that were cheating.

    I have a question for you San, and I'm not trying to be a jerk to you as I respect you, but do you consider Barry Bonds the all-time home run champ? Because If you don't, how can you not think the Red Sox World Series titles were somewhat tarnished as they had players who were doing pretty much the same thing as him.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: WHAT'S MORE IMPRESSIVE?

    Fair enough.





     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: WHAT'S MORE IMPRESSIVE?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    Nite,

    I think boxing was ruined by the Mayweather approach of winning on points coupled with no interesting heavyweights for the last 10+ years.



    That too. The downfall for me really started in the 1st fight between Razor Ruddock and Tyson. When referee Silvers called that fight I was shocked. Razor was in a little bit of trouble,  but Tyson wasn't connecting at all. Then in the rematch I thought Razor deserved a draw. He took Tyson the distance which I believe he was the 1st fighter to do so. He had Mike staggering a few times.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from RichHillOntario. Show RichHillOntario's posts

    Re: WHAT'S MORE IMPRESSIVE?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    Nite,

    I think boxing was ruined by the Mayweather approach of winning on points coupled with no interesting heavyweights for the last 10+ years.



    True, NAS.  I pretty much see the heavyweight division as dead.  And you're right.  It has been for years.  The only heavyweights of recent note that I can think of are the Klitschkos who hold all the major heavyweight belts between them.  They've fought nobodies over the last several years and both are aging with Wladimir being 37 and Vitali is 40, I think. 

    Such a far cry from the 70's when the division was packed with the likes of Ali, Big John Tate, Joe Frazier, Leon Spinks, Chuck Wepner, George Forman, Ringo Bonavena, Kenny Norton, Jerry Quarry, Jimmy Ellis, an aging Floyd Patterson, Joe Bugner and Larry Holmes.  There doesn't appear to be anyone on the horizon to revive the heavyweight boxing.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from RichHillOntario. Show RichHillOntario's posts

    Re: WHAT'S MORE IMPRESSIVE?

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

    Nite,

    I think boxing was ruined by the Mayweather approach of winning on points coupled with no interesting heavyweights for the last 10+ years.

     



    That too. The downfall for me really started in the 1st fight between Razor Ruddock and Tyson. When referee Silvers called that fight I was shocked. Razor was in a little bit of trouble,  but Tyson wasn't connecting at all. Then in the rematch I thought Razor deserved a draw. He took Tyson the distance which I believe he was the 1st fighter to do so. He had Mike staggering a few times.

     



    Man, there's a name I haven't heard in ages.  I remember that bout as having a lot of controversy.  Didn't Ruddock trip on Tyson's foot or leg with the ref awarding Tyson a knock down?  I don't recall all the details but I do remember the fight being called despite Ruddock looking like he could have continued.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: WHAT'S MORE IMPRESSIVE?

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

    Fair enough.



    Fair enough what?  Do you agree with my idocy that the WS titles are tainted or do you feel that the all time home run king is Bonds?

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: WHAT'S MORE IMPRESSIVE?

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

    Nite,

    I think boxing was ruined by the Mayweather approach of winning on points coupled with no interesting heavyweights for the last 10+ years.



    That too. The downfall for me really started in the 1st fight between Razor Ruddock and Tyson. When referee Silvers called that fight I was shocked. Razor was in a little bit of trouble,  but Tyson wasn't connecting at all. Then in the rematch I thought Razor deserved a draw. He took Tyson the distance which I believe he was the 1st fighter to do so. He had Mike staggering a few times. [/QUOTE]


    Richard Steele was the ref of the first fight Ruddock-Tyson.

    Go figure LoL

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: WHAT'S MORE IMPRESSIVE?

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

     

    4 years ago I sold all my baseball cards and bought my wife a Denali. And I took a beating on all of them since many of them were Canseco,Clemens,Bonds cards etc..



    Where did you sell yours? I need to get rid of my extensive hockey/baseball/football card collection. I've got some pretty old cards that I want to get rid of. Jagrs rookie card anyone?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: WHAT'S MORE IMPRESSIVE?

    I could wallpaper the Pentagon with my hockey cards from '87-95.

    It would cost the government less than wallpaper.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: WHAT'S MORE IMPRESSIVE?

    In response to lambda13's comment:

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    4 years ago I sold all my baseball cards and bought my wife a Denali. And I took a beating on all of them since many of them were Canseco,Clemens,Bonds cards etc..

     



    Where did you sell yours? I need to get rid of my extensive hockey/baseball/football card collection. I've got some pretty old cards that I want to get rid of. Jagrs rookie card anyone?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Pretty much all of them on Ebay.

     

Share