Sunday, May 10, 2009
The Political Left -- Thought Police
Mel Brooks' 1974 classic "Blazing Saddles" could not be made in today's hyper-PC-sensitive environment. America can thank the political Left for this, for it is they who created political correctness and all its limits for speech and thought. Frankly, this hyper-sensitivity and PC worldview is the lone accomplishment of liberals the last 30 years. These people, like the title of a Tammy Bruce book, are the "new thought police." A person, especially if that person is a white heterosexual male, cannot think or say anything that runs contrary to the Left's social worldview. A person's entire life can be uprooted and destroyed by these despicable people if that person utters anything the liberals-in-charge-of-thought deem unacceptable. You are a racist, a sexist or their latest criminal-du-jour, a homophobe.
"Blazing Saddles" nearly violates each of the three in its opening scene alone, with the use of the "nigger" (a word so vile, it can't be said, but only referred to by it first letter -- the "N-word")and "faggots." Madeline Kahn plays a sexy German bombshell sent into the town to tame the new black sheriff. Of course, feminists (ulgy women and lesbians) would object because Kahn was using her feminine wiles instead of being some leader of industry -- or a lesbian.
The stifling culture we live in now, the one where everyone, but especially white males, fears discussing anything but the weather in mixed company is a creation of the cultural Marxists, the thought-control-crowd, also known as liberals, those supposedly open-minded sorts.
I long for the day of the First Ammendment: the right to say whatever you want. To the perpetually aggrieved, I simply say, "Grow up you pussys!" Oops, did I just commit a hate crime by addressing a protected "victim group?" My bad.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
All You Need to Know About Islam
And to think we have people in this country who believe these savages are the moral equivalent to us.
Friday, May 1, 2009
On Boxing - The Heavyweights
While many young people of today enjoy the UFC and MMA spectacles, it is not my cup of tea. I am still a boxing fan and lover of the sport, both its past and present. My father was a fighter in the late 1950s and early 1960s, so I grew up on the sport. I came of age in the 1970s, when heavyweight title fights were on ABC with Howard Cosell at the microphone. The decade produced one of the greater ears of heavyweight boxing with the likes of Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Lyle and Shavers. While I don't buy into the current thinking that the heavyweight division is dead -- I believe the Russians, mainly the Klitschkos, have simply cleaned out the division, just as Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson did during their reigns as champ -- it is hard to argue that the current lineup of heavyweights is as exciting as the "disco" era's. Heavywieht title fights were big deals in the 1970s, and, fair or otherwise, such fights are not viewed as such in 2009.
I fought both as an a amature and pro with a certain amount of success. Though never world class, I approached the sport seriously and believe myself to have been a good fighter. (The old pug in me tempts me to say "still a good fighter.)
Boxing is the ultimate in competition: man on man, one to one, each matching wits, skills, endurance and desire.
In my nearly 48 years, I have had the good fortune to witness (never in person) many great fights and the careers of many great fighters. My own travails in the squared circle, I believe, give me a unique perspective on the fight game, an insight not available to the average fight fan. I have been there so to speak, though certainly not on an elite level.
Putting together "lists" and "Bests" in any venture of any type is fun and never-ending in the debate such creates. No one agrees with any one person on everything. And, like and asshole, everyone has an opinion. While some opinions may have more validity than others, it doesn't make the "other" any less wrong. An opinion is someone's thoughts. This is America, the home of free thought, right? At the moment, it is...but give Obama and his wrecking crew some time.
I will limit this edition of "On Boxing" to the heavyweights. Other editions will come in the near future, as great fighters of every weight class are explored. Feel free to disagree, even though you are so utterly wrong and terribly misguided.
BEST SINGLE PERFORMANCE
George Foreman's unlikely odyssey to regain the heavyweight crown began in 1987. It ended on a November night in 1994 when he knocked out Michael Moorer -- I only wish Foreman had knocked out the pontificating lard-ass Michael Moore -- to regain the title he had lost to Muhammad Ali in Zaire, Africa in 1974. Foreman had performed gallantly and well in a 1991 title loss to Evander Holyfield. His shot in 1994 was definitely his last chance to gain back the title.
By the mid-rounds of the fight, it was apparent that Big George would need a miracle to win the fight. It seemed as if Father Time had finally caught up to Foreman in the parking lot before the weigh-in. He was plodding, slow, one step behind at all times. The left-handed Moorer used movement, angles and a good work rate to run up a huge lead on points. I don't believe Foreman won a round in the fight. Moorer was pitching a shutout until the 9th round. Foreman had stuck to his plan: counter the left-handed Moorer with straight hands. In the 9th round, one had stunned Moorer, making him stationary, a prime target for the hard-hitting Foreman, who, even at 45 years of age, could still knock down a tree.
Watching the fight at home, I remember telling my roommate at the time that Moorer needed to keep moving and to stop standing still in front of Foreman. He obviously didn't listen to me or his corner. Maybe he couldn't move. As a result, Foreman was getting closer to finding his mark. In the 10th round, he did, landing a huge right hand flush on the chin of the champion, and the world had a new heavyweight champion.
The referee could have counted to 100 and Moorer wasn't getting up. Thirty-three at the time and feeling the word "old" getting closer, Foreman's shot caused me to jump off the couch like a teenager. It gave me (and many other old guys) hope. At 45 years of age, George Foreman won the heavyweight title of the world. Suddenly, all was possible, and, for me, age was just a number again. It would stay that way until I hit the dreaded 40. Maybe George could go out and win the belt again at 60; I need a pick-me-up.
What George Foreman accomplished in 1994 just might be the single greatest sports performance ever in any sport. No one was punching Nolan Ryan or Jack Nicklaus while they worked their craft in middle age.
BIGGEST FIGHT
During the 1980s, ESPN used to run a series called "Super Fights," a reruns of boxing's greatest fights in its entirety. Only one fight should have been called "Super Fight": Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali I in 1970 at Madison Square Garden. It was an event that went beyond sports. It was one of the first great battles of the "culture wars" that would define politics and society for the next three decades. Joe Frazier, unwillingly, was placed into the role of "culture warrior" for traditional America, the hard-hats and conservatives, while Muhammad Ali gladly accepted the role of standard-bearer for the counter-culture. A divided America was the backdrop for this fight. It was "good vs. evil," and the "good" and the "evil" varied, depending on your politics. Joe Frazier was a white man in this fight, if for only the duration of the fight. The nasty racial overtures of this fight would not be seen again until 1982, when Gerry Cooney, a "real" white guy, challenged Larry Holmes for the belt.
A nine-year old kid at the time, I listened to the fight on the radio. There were sold-out closed-circuit tv broadcasts (the forerunner to pay-per-view)all across the country. This was much more than a fight.
Set for 15 rounds, the fight was Muhammad Ali's third fight since he had been stripped of his title for refusing induction into the military. Joe Frazier had won thet title, but a good portion of the public, at Ali's urging, refused to recognize Frazier as the real champ because he had not beaten Ali to win the title. With Frank Sinatra snapping pictures for Life Magazine and a sold-out-and-decked-out-star-studded crowd in the Garden, Joe Frazier won a unanimous decision against Ali. His knockdown of Ali in the 15th round was icing on the cake or insult to injury -- once again, depending on your political views.
The fight would be the first of a trilogy the two men would have. Ther last one, the "Thrilla' in Manilla," would be the swan song for both men. Neither would ever be the same after Manilla, a brutal contest that sapped whatever skill the two still had in the tank.
No title fight to this date, in my view, has quite captured the public's eye like the first Frazier-Ali fight. It was the World Series, Super Bowl, Olympics and World Cup all rolled into one.
MOST OVERRATED
Mike Tyson, whom your talented writer shares a birthday with, burst onto the boxing scene in 1984 when he was just a teenager, and Sports Illustrated featured him on the cover of their magazine with the title "Kid Dynamite." The magazine literally introduced Tyson as the next boxing sensation with the caption of the "Next Heavyweight Champion." Tyson's fast and furious starts had already become legend, as he was knocking out opponents -- tomato cans all -- in devastatingly short manner. Tyson's black trunks, lack of socks and robe and permanent scowl gave him a scary demeanor and personna. Tyson's intimidation alone won many of his early (and later) fights before the bell even rang. His tender care for his pidgeons contrasted sharply with his demolition in the ring. His love and study of old Dempsey and Louis fight films endeared him to a boxing public in search of a new heavyweight idol. Muhammad Ali's retirement in 1981 (which should have come in 1975) had left a void in boxing, one that could not be filled by the very talented Larry Holmes, who ruled the heavyweights for seven or so years. Tyson would come to define boxing much like Ali did during his era.
But was Tyson really that good? I don't think so.
In his defense, Tyson did clear out the division, just as other champs in the past: Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Larry Holmes. Tyson could not help the opponents he fought; he could not "create" a Joe Frazier or Muhammad Ali. His 90 second destruction of Michael Spinks to unify the belts is the lone shining moment in Tyson's entire career.
James "Buster" Douglas showed the world how to beat Mike Tyson in Japan in the spring of 1990: keep a jab in his face, move, don't buy his intimidation and, most importantly, hit him back! Had Douglas not been considered a mutt and heartless fighter for most of his career, he would not have been the great underdog he was in this fight. Douglas had skills and could fight, but he wasn't a true pro, in that he was lazy and didn't take his career seriously for most of it. His mother's death prior to the Tyson fight may have had as much to do with Buster's win as any of the skill he possessed. His mom's passing seemingly gave Douglas the courage he lacked in other moments in his career. Whatever his foibles, Buster Douglas did manage to get his act togehter for one fleeting moment -- 27-plus minutes of a scheduled 12 round match -- in 1990. He exposed Mike Tyson. The emperor had no clothes, only bluster and hype. Mike Tyson was a bully, one who would quit against a quality opponent. Mike Tyson was a 5'9" heavyweight with limited boxing skills. Take away his intimidation, and Tyson was very mediocre, at best.
Buster Douglas was just the first to KO Tyson. Mike Tyson was knocked out by every decent fighter he ever faced. Evander Holyfield got to him twice. Lenox Lewis dominated him. Other lesser known fighters -- Danny Williams and Kevin McBride -- also took Tyson out.
Mike Tyson, a decent fighter who came into boxing at just the right time, would not make my top ten heavyweights of all time. He burst upon the boxing scene like a nova, only to exit it a late-night show joke and sad figure. I would say tragic, but tragic is not the proper word to describe a person who willingly threw it all away.
I fought both as an a amature and pro with a certain amount of success. Though never world class, I approached the sport seriously and believe myself to have been a good fighter. (The old pug in me tempts me to say "still a good fighter.)
Boxing is the ultimate in competition: man on man, one to one, each matching wits, skills, endurance and desire.
In my nearly 48 years, I have had the good fortune to witness (never in person) many great fights and the careers of many great fighters. My own travails in the squared circle, I believe, give me a unique perspective on the fight game, an insight not available to the average fight fan. I have been there so to speak, though certainly not on an elite level.
Putting together "lists" and "Bests" in any venture of any type is fun and never-ending in the debate such creates. No one agrees with any one person on everything. And, like and asshole, everyone has an opinion. While some opinions may have more validity than others, it doesn't make the "other" any less wrong. An opinion is someone's thoughts. This is America, the home of free thought, right? At the moment, it is...but give Obama and his wrecking crew some time.
I will limit this edition of "On Boxing" to the heavyweights. Other editions will come in the near future, as great fighters of every weight class are explored. Feel free to disagree, even though you are so utterly wrong and terribly misguided.
BEST SINGLE PERFORMANCE
George Foreman's unlikely odyssey to regain the heavyweight crown began in 1987. It ended on a November night in 1994 when he knocked out Michael Moorer -- I only wish Foreman had knocked out the pontificating lard-ass Michael Moore -- to regain the title he had lost to Muhammad Ali in Zaire, Africa in 1974. Foreman had performed gallantly and well in a 1991 title loss to Evander Holyfield. His shot in 1994 was definitely his last chance to gain back the title.
By the mid-rounds of the fight, it was apparent that Big George would need a miracle to win the fight. It seemed as if Father Time had finally caught up to Foreman in the parking lot before the weigh-in. He was plodding, slow, one step behind at all times. The left-handed Moorer used movement, angles and a good work rate to run up a huge lead on points. I don't believe Foreman won a round in the fight. Moorer was pitching a shutout until the 9th round. Foreman had stuck to his plan: counter the left-handed Moorer with straight hands. In the 9th round, one had stunned Moorer, making him stationary, a prime target for the hard-hitting Foreman, who, even at 45 years of age, could still knock down a tree.
Watching the fight at home, I remember telling my roommate at the time that Moorer needed to keep moving and to stop standing still in front of Foreman. He obviously didn't listen to me or his corner. Maybe he couldn't move. As a result, Foreman was getting closer to finding his mark. In the 10th round, he did, landing a huge right hand flush on the chin of the champion, and the world had a new heavyweight champion.
The referee could have counted to 100 and Moorer wasn't getting up. Thirty-three at the time and feeling the word "old" getting closer, Foreman's shot caused me to jump off the couch like a teenager. It gave me (and many other old guys) hope. At 45 years of age, George Foreman won the heavyweight title of the world. Suddenly, all was possible, and, for me, age was just a number again. It would stay that way until I hit the dreaded 40. Maybe George could go out and win the belt again at 60; I need a pick-me-up.
What George Foreman accomplished in 1994 just might be the single greatest sports performance ever in any sport. No one was punching Nolan Ryan or Jack Nicklaus while they worked their craft in middle age.
BIGGEST FIGHT
During the 1980s, ESPN used to run a series called "Super Fights," a reruns of boxing's greatest fights in its entirety. Only one fight should have been called "Super Fight": Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali I in 1970 at Madison Square Garden. It was an event that went beyond sports. It was one of the first great battles of the "culture wars" that would define politics and society for the next three decades. Joe Frazier, unwillingly, was placed into the role of "culture warrior" for traditional America, the hard-hats and conservatives, while Muhammad Ali gladly accepted the role of standard-bearer for the counter-culture. A divided America was the backdrop for this fight. It was "good vs. evil," and the "good" and the "evil" varied, depending on your politics. Joe Frazier was a white man in this fight, if for only the duration of the fight. The nasty racial overtures of this fight would not be seen again until 1982, when Gerry Cooney, a "real" white guy, challenged Larry Holmes for the belt.
A nine-year old kid at the time, I listened to the fight on the radio. There were sold-out closed-circuit tv broadcasts (the forerunner to pay-per-view)all across the country. This was much more than a fight.
Set for 15 rounds, the fight was Muhammad Ali's third fight since he had been stripped of his title for refusing induction into the military. Joe Frazier had won thet title, but a good portion of the public, at Ali's urging, refused to recognize Frazier as the real champ because he had not beaten Ali to win the title. With Frank Sinatra snapping pictures for Life Magazine and a sold-out-and-decked-out-star-studded crowd in the Garden, Joe Frazier won a unanimous decision against Ali. His knockdown of Ali in the 15th round was icing on the cake or insult to injury -- once again, depending on your political views.
The fight would be the first of a trilogy the two men would have. Ther last one, the "Thrilla' in Manilla," would be the swan song for both men. Neither would ever be the same after Manilla, a brutal contest that sapped whatever skill the two still had in the tank.
No title fight to this date, in my view, has quite captured the public's eye like the first Frazier-Ali fight. It was the World Series, Super Bowl, Olympics and World Cup all rolled into one.
MOST OVERRATED
Mike Tyson, whom your talented writer shares a birthday with, burst onto the boxing scene in 1984 when he was just a teenager, and Sports Illustrated featured him on the cover of their magazine with the title "Kid Dynamite." The magazine literally introduced Tyson as the next boxing sensation with the caption of the "Next Heavyweight Champion." Tyson's fast and furious starts had already become legend, as he was knocking out opponents -- tomato cans all -- in devastatingly short manner. Tyson's black trunks, lack of socks and robe and permanent scowl gave him a scary demeanor and personna. Tyson's intimidation alone won many of his early (and later) fights before the bell even rang. His tender care for his pidgeons contrasted sharply with his demolition in the ring. His love and study of old Dempsey and Louis fight films endeared him to a boxing public in search of a new heavyweight idol. Muhammad Ali's retirement in 1981 (which should have come in 1975) had left a void in boxing, one that could not be filled by the very talented Larry Holmes, who ruled the heavyweights for seven or so years. Tyson would come to define boxing much like Ali did during his era.
But was Tyson really that good? I don't think so.
In his defense, Tyson did clear out the division, just as other champs in the past: Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Larry Holmes. Tyson could not help the opponents he fought; he could not "create" a Joe Frazier or Muhammad Ali. His 90 second destruction of Michael Spinks to unify the belts is the lone shining moment in Tyson's entire career.
James "Buster" Douglas showed the world how to beat Mike Tyson in Japan in the spring of 1990: keep a jab in his face, move, don't buy his intimidation and, most importantly, hit him back! Had Douglas not been considered a mutt and heartless fighter for most of his career, he would not have been the great underdog he was in this fight. Douglas had skills and could fight, but he wasn't a true pro, in that he was lazy and didn't take his career seriously for most of it. His mother's death prior to the Tyson fight may have had as much to do with Buster's win as any of the skill he possessed. His mom's passing seemingly gave Douglas the courage he lacked in other moments in his career. Whatever his foibles, Buster Douglas did manage to get his act togehter for one fleeting moment -- 27-plus minutes of a scheduled 12 round match -- in 1990. He exposed Mike Tyson. The emperor had no clothes, only bluster and hype. Mike Tyson was a bully, one who would quit against a quality opponent. Mike Tyson was a 5'9" heavyweight with limited boxing skills. Take away his intimidation, and Tyson was very mediocre, at best.
Buster Douglas was just the first to KO Tyson. Mike Tyson was knocked out by every decent fighter he ever faced. Evander Holyfield got to him twice. Lenox Lewis dominated him. Other lesser known fighters -- Danny Williams and Kevin McBride -- also took Tyson out.
Mike Tyson, a decent fighter who came into boxing at just the right time, would not make my top ten heavyweights of all time. He burst upon the boxing scene like a nova, only to exit it a late-night show joke and sad figure. I would say tragic, but tragic is not the proper word to describe a person who willingly threw it all away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
