He got him when he was old - He got him when he was a rookie Bunk!

[Carkner]

Originally Posted by BaddaBing Badda Boom

As far as these morbid defenses posters make for a fighter that is either too long in the tooth, or, on the flipside, mere rookies are specious, without merit, and totally daft.

To the seasoned fighter: If they spent their whole careers fighting and banging and then some youg buck comes in and beats him, well, he beats him. Plus since men's strength peaks when they are in their 50s there should be no quarter given. Its not as if he has never had a fight before -Oh! that was at the end of his career" Again, No excuses! An example of this would be the whiners that tried to make a case that Simon beat an "old" Brown - How daft!

To the young bucks: Like when Fotiu beat Wilson "Oh! He was just a rookie", bunk! what the heck was he doing in the minors all those years? No excuses and the results are not going to change after a few more years or fights

Plug in your example it does not and should not matter

Okay BBBB I'll say there's some validity to your comments, as some of us do overblow the point in a fighter's career to make excuses. But I would also say there also is definitely at least small difference in most fighters...and a BIG difference in others. As someone else mentioned, I thought Nystrom looked just as good from rookie to retirement. Brown was very good as a rookie, got better technically (and added some power) as a vet, and tailed off significantly at the end of his career. I will also give Simon credit and say that he was one of the guys that pointed Brown to the door. Simon was one of the first guys to beat Brown in a fair fight where Brown simply looked overmatched..in my opinion of course. Up to that point I could come up with an excuse for just about every bad Brown loss...and confident that if they fought again Brown would show he was better. I remember the first Simon fight when it happened and felt that he just got beat by a guy who was a better lefty than him at the time. 3 years earlier...who knows...but it doesn't matter. Simon won fair and square...the 2nd one even more convinciningly.

I have to call you out on your "what the heck was he doing in the minors all those years" comment. That's just a flat out ridiculous comment and I think you know it. Sometimes I think you say things even though you know its wrong just to make a case. Please try and use valid points, you are better than that...you are not some "other guy" on this site. Okay...I'll explain anyway. The minors in hockey is the equivalent to amateurs in boxing. When boxers become pro (come up from amateurs) they are not thrown into the ring against the champ for good reason...they are not ready. They usually have at least 20 fights (with the quality of their opponents getting better as they get closer to the 20th) before they are put in the ring against the champ or even a top contender. Hockey rookies don't have this luxury and sometimes get exposed. So...athough I agree that the rookie thing can be overused as an excuse it definitely is a factor. Come on you know this why'd you make me type all that.

[srehm1]

Originally Posted by bigjack

I've never used the old stuff with Fotiu. He got beat but not bad. It was even until the end when Paterson got in a bunch of rabbit punches and won! No bullsh*t from me about age!
I read all the time how people will only reference the motor city Probert and ignore the fact that as a BlackHawk he wasn't nearly as dominate!
It is what it is!
I've defended a Kocur in NY for not fighting as much because of his hands or a Maloney not being as good as a Leaf because of a bad shoulder but it is what it is!
Put it out there and let everyone decide what they like.

Oh dear lord, people - It's called sarcasm. Of course Fotiu was past his prime when he fought Paterson. I don't knock Fotiu at all for that fight. I don't knock any fighter for losses late in their career - or early in their career for that matter. I guess I just rank them by how good they were in their primes.

I threw that Fotiu nugget out there to antagonize BBBB for once again starting a thread to belittle Brown and Wilson. Now don't get all exclamation points on me bigjack! I was just making light of BBB's continued attempts to sh!t upon Brown and Wilson. FACT!

As for Probert - Everyone and their mother will tell you he was not the same fighter he was in Chicago that he was while with Detroit. He was still very good and could win some big fights but not the same - he was past his prime. Even being past his prime, Probert still was a top-10 caliber fighter until maybe his last year or so. FACT! I only call'em the way I see'em!

As for the OP's contention that fighters stay the same and don't improve or breakdown - that is NONSENSE. Everyone will tell you that Fotiu was a MUCH better fighter with the Rangers than he was late in his career with Philly. bigjack even you can give me a "FACT!" on that one.

Do people make big deals of a rookie loss or an over the hill loss - yes. But when a poster does nothing but post about the same fighter over and over again non-stop - of course you're going to catch the same excuse over and over again.

For example:

BBBB: Brown was a bully. Simon is #2 all-time. Look at how he handled Brown in those two fights. WOW! You people must be blind not to see it.

EVERYONE ELSE: Simon did good in those fights but they weren't beatdowns and Brown was at the end of his career.

Now when you post the same type of thread over and over again with the same youtube clip over and over again - you will see the same answer to the same goddamn question over and over.

Next day, new thread - same tired (yawn) BS:

BBBB: Brown was a bully. Simon is #2 all-time. Look at how he handled Brown in those two fights. WOW! You people must be blind not to see it.

EVERYONE ELSE: Simon did good in those fights but they weren't beatdowns and Brown was at the end of his career.

next week, new thread - again more baloney:

BBBB: Brown was a bully. Simon is #2 all-time. Look at how he handled Brown in those two fights. WOW! You people must be blind not to see it.

EVERYONE ELSE: Simon did good in those fights but they weren't beatdowns and Brown was at the end of his career.

This becomes tiring but you see my point. It would be nice if people learned from other posters and not beat on the same tired topic. instead we have a few people here who think they and only THEY can see the light and the rest of us are lemmings or sheep being led to the slaughter by some HF.com conspiracy to keep Brown and Wilson atop their perch in the top-3. FACT!

[bigjack]

Originally Posted by srehm1

Oh dear lord, people - It's called sarcasm. Of course Fotiu was past his prime when he fought Paterson. I don't knock Fotiu at all for that fight. I don't knock any fighter for losses late in their career - or early in their career for that matter. I guess I just rank them by how good they were in their primes.

I threw that Fotiu nugget out there to antagonize BBBB for once again starting a thread to belittle Brown and Wilson. Now don't get all exclamation points on me bigjack! I was just making light of BBB's continued attempts to sh!t upon Brown and Wilson. FACT!

As for Probert - Everyone and their mother will tell you he was not the same fighter he was in Chicago that he was while with Detroit. He was still very good and could win some big fights but not the same - he was past his prime. Even being past his prime, Probert still was a top-10 caliber fighter until maybe his last year or so. FACT! I only call'em the way I see'em!

As for the OP's contention that fighters stay the same and don't improve or breakdown - that is NONSENSE. Everyone will tell you that Fotiu was a MUCH better fighter with the Rangers than he was late in his career with Philly. bigjack even you can give me a "FACT!" on that one.

Do people make big deals of a rookie loss or an over the hill loss - yes. But when a poster does nothing but post about the same fighter over and over again non-stop - of course you're going to catch the same excuse over and over again.

For example:

BBBB: Brown was a bully. Simon is #2 all-time. Look at how he handled Brown in those two fights. WOW! You people must be blind not to see it.

EVERYONE ELSE: Simon did good in those fights but they weren't beatdowns and Brown was at the end of his career.

Now when you post the same type of thread over and over again with the same youtube clip over and over again - you will see the same answer to the same goddamn question over and over.

Next day, new thread - same tired (yawn) BS:

BBBB: Brown was a bully. Simon is #2 all-time. Look at how he handled Brown in those two fights. WOW! You people must be blind not to see it.

EVERYONE ELSE: Simon did good in those fights but they weren't beatdowns and Brown was at the end of his career.

next week, new thread - again more baloney:

BBBB: Brown was a bully. Simon is #2 all-time. Look at how he handled Brown in those two fights. WOW! You people must be blind not to see it.

EVERYONE ELSE: Simon did good in those fights but they weren't beatdowns and Brown was at the end of his career.

This becomes tiring but you see my point. It would be nice if people learned from other posters and not beat on the same tired topic. instead we have a few people here who think they and only THEY can see the light and the rest of us are lemmings or sheep being led to the slaughter by some HF.com conspiracy to keep Brown and Wilson atop their perch in the top-3. FACT!

Actually I was agreeing with you about not making excuses for a young or old fighter. I think you missed my point and am taking it personal for some reason. I have no issues saying that Nicky lost that fight on points but it was no big deal and have never said well he was older bla bla bla!

[srehm1]

Originally Posted by bigjack

Actually I was agreeing with you about not making excuses for a young or old fighter. I think you missed my point and am taking it personal for some reason. I have no issues saying that Nicky lost that fight on points but it was no big deal and have never said well he was older bla bla bla!

Nothing personal at all bigjack. My first post in this thread was laced with sarcasm. Yeah Fotiu lost that fight, but I try to put it into it's proper perspective. He was past his prime. These guys are only human and cannot be expected to fight at the same level throughout their whole careers. Do you think Paterson beats a prime, New York Ranger version of Fotiu?

I do believe that some fighters improve over time - look at Grimson, Ray, Brashear etc. They withstood some early losses and were able to improve over time.

I think if someone were to point out Brown's fights with Simon I would say "Brown fought him twice. Lost one and the other was a draw. Simon was in his prime while Brown was at the end of his career" I don't think that's making an excuse so much as putting those fights in their proper perspective!

[bigjack]

Originally Posted by srehm1

Nothing personal at all bigjack. My first post in this thread was laced with sarcasm. Yeah Fotiu lost that fight, but I try to put it into it's proper perspective. He was past his prime. These guys are only human and cannot be expected to fight at the same level throughout their whole careers.

I do believe that some fighters improve over time - look at Grimson, Ray, Brashear etc. They withstood some early losses and were able to improve over time.

I think if someone were to point out Brown's fights with Simon I would say "Brown fought him twice. Lost one and the other was a draw. Simon was in his prime while Brown was at the end of his career" I don't think that's making an excuse so much as putting those fights in their proper perspective!

That's cool and again I totally agree with you. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[BaddaBing Badda Boom]

Originally Posted by srehm1

Oh dear lord, people - It's called sarcasm. Of course Fotiu was past his prime when he fought Paterson. I don't knock Fotiu at all for that fight. I don't knock any fighter for losses late in their career - or early in their career for that matter. I guess I just rank them by how good they were in their primes.

I threw that Fotiu nugget out there to antagonize BBBB for once again starting a thread to belittle Brown and Wilson. Now don't get all exclamation points on me bigjack! I was just making light of BBB's continued attempts to sh!t upon Brown and Wilson. FACT!

As for Probert - Everyone and their mother will tell you he was not the same fighter he was in Chicago that he was while with Detroit. He was still very good and could win some big fights but not the same - he was past his prime. Even being past his prime, Probert still was a top-10 caliber fighter until maybe his last year or so. FACT! I only call'em the way I see'em!

As for the OP's contention that fighters stay the same and don't improve or breakdown - that is NONSENSE. Everyone will tell you that Fotiu was a MUCH better fighter with the Rangers than he was late in his career with Philly. bigjack even you can give me a "FACT!" on that one.

Do people make big deals of a rookie loss or an over the hill loss - yes. But when a poster does nothing but post about the same fighter over and over again non-stop - of course you're going to catch the same excuse over and over again.

For example:

BBBB: Brown was a bully. Simon is #2 all-time. Look at how he handled Brown in those two fights. WOW! You people must be blind not to see it.

EVERYONE ELSE: Simon did good in those fights but they weren't beatdowns and Brown was at the end of his career.

Now when you post the same type of thread over and over again with the same youtube clip over and over again - you will see the same answer to the same goddamn question over and over.

Next day, new thread - same tired (yawn) BS:

BBBB: Brown was a bully. Simon is #2 all-time. Look at how he handled Brown in those two fights. WOW! You people must be blind not to see it.

EVERYONE ELSE: Simon did good in those fights but they weren't beatdowns and Brown was at the end of his career.

next week, new thread - again more baloney:

BBBB: Brown was a bully. Simon is #2 all-time. Look at how he handled Brown in those two fights. WOW! You people must be blind not to see it.

EVERYONE ELSE: Simon did good in those fights but they weren't beatdowns and Brown was at the end of his career.

This becomes tiring but you see my point. It would be nice if people learned from other posters and not beat on the same tired topic. instead we have a few people here who think they and only THEY can see the light and the rest of us are lemmings or sheep being led to the slaughter by some HF.com conspiracy to keep Brown and Wilson atop their perch in the top-3. FACT!

You mean this:

YouTube - Chris Simon vs Dave Brown Round 2

[srehm1]

Originally Posted by baddabing badda boom

you mean this:

youtube - chris simon vs dave brown round 2

hahahahahaha!!!!

[BaddaBing Badda Boom]

Originally Posted by srehm1

Nothing personal at all bigjack. My first post in this thread was laced with sarcasm. Yeah Fotiu lost that fight, but I try to put it into it's proper perspective. He was past his prime. These guys are only human and cannot be expected to fight at the same level throughout their whole careers. Do you think Paterson beats a prime, New York Ranger version of Fotiu?

I do believe that some fighters improve over time - look at Grimson, Ray, Brashear etc. They withstood some early losses and were able to improve over time.

I think if someone were to point out Brown's fights with Simon I would say "Brown fought him twice. Lost one and the other was a draw. Simon was in his prime while Brown was at the end of his career" I don't think that's making an excuse so much as putting those fights in their proper perspective!

Your making excuses, simply put.

Look! The reason I tried to make a case for Simon ws precisely because he was kicking that a** 16 years later, and not tomato cans! Sure he took some losses along the way, but, on balance, Simon went out getting the same results as when he arrived, in the middle, and the end -

[srehm1]

Originally Posted by BaddaBing Badda Boom

Your making excuses, simply put.

Look! The reason I tried to make a case for Simon ws precisely because he was kicking that a** 16 years later, and not tomato cans! Sure he took some losses along the way, but, on balance, Simon went out getting the same results as when he arrived, in the middle, and the end -

What excuses? Simon beat Brown 1 time - no beat down. the other fight was a draw. Simon was in his PRIME - do you understand what that means? Brown was at the end of his career. These are FACTS! What excuses are being made here?

If Brown took off a few years while still playing full seasons I'm sure he would've lasted 16 years and beat on a watered down version of NHL enforcers just like Simon did.

After Simon beat probert in the '96 playoffs how many elite fighters did he beat? How many all-time fighters did he beat? NONE. He only fought Laraque and lost. He fought some good but not great fighters here and there but no other top-20-25 all-time caliber fighters. Face it he beat more tomato cans than Brown did by far. He even went a whole season - fighting the whole way without fighting a single legit HW. These are facts my friend. You can still parade your boy Simon around all you want but he is the one who took advantage of a weaker HW division and a softer NHL.

He did suffer losses along the way - to lower tier competition. All the while not fighting any more elite fighters. FACT!

YouTube - Simon vs Laraque Apr 1, 2006

What happened there? The only elite fighter he took on in 8 fukkin' years and he lost? What's up with that?

[BaddaBing Badda Boom]

Originally Posted by srehm1

What excuses? Simon beat Brown 1 time - no beat down. the other fight was a draw. Simon was in his PRIME - do you understand what that means? Brown was at the end of his career. These are FACTS! What excuses are being made here?

If Brown took off a few years while still playing full seasons I'm sure he would've lasted 16 years and beat on a watered down version of NHL enforcers just like Simon did.

After Simon beat probert in the '96 playoffs how many elite fighters did he beat? How many all-time fighters did he beat? NONE. He only fought Laraque and lost. He fought some good but not great fighters here and there but no other top-20-25 all-time caliber fighters. Face it he beat more tomato cans than Brown did by far. He even went a whole season - fighting the whole way without fighting a single legit HW. These are facts my friend. You can still parade your boy Simon around all you want but he is the one who took advantage of a weaker HW division and a softer NHL.

He did suffer losses along the way - to lower tier competition. All the while not fighting any more elite fighters. FACT!

YouTube - Simon vs Laraque Apr 1, 2006

What happened there? The only elite fighter he took on in 8 fukkin' years and he lost? What's up with that?

I agree with you that Simon had the bad shoulder and could not go the way he normally does. Props to Laraque for holding on ala Domi and going for the spin cycle -

[srehm1]

Originally Posted by BaddaBing Badda Boom

I agree with you that Simon had the bad shoulder and could not go the way he normally does. Props to Laraque for holdin gon ala Domi and going for the spin cycle

You're making excuses, simply put.

[BaddaBing Badda Boom]

Originally Posted by srehm1

You're making excuses, simply put.

Yes, but not with respect to age. Beginning, middle, end of career you would be hard pressed to find a guy (not withstanding his losses, granted) that did it that long, and against the top level guys. Again, you and I have opinions, but the facts are the facts.

[srehm1]

Originally Posted by BaddaBing Badda Boom

Yes, but not with respect to age. Beginning, middle, end of career you would be hard pressed to find a guy (not withstanding his losses, granted) that did it that long, and against the top level guys. Again, you and I have opinions, but the facts are the facts.

Brown took on all-comers from beginning to end. Had no problem taking on a prime and on his way Simon late in his career. He lost one fight to Simon - a narrow win and a good exchange by both - and you claim it as a defining moment for Simon and "proof" that Brown was overrated or a bully or a thug.

Brown fought more than Simon did in a shorter career. If you also look, Brown took on more than half the people in your top-30. He was the one who went beginning, middle, and end with his career. Simon took off the "middle" of his career.

These are the FACTS. Not my opinion, but FACTS. You are stating your opinion and that's fine, but I completely disagree with you.

[BaddaBing Badda Boom]

Originally Posted by srehm1

Brown took on all-comers from beginning to end. Had no problem taking on a prime and on his way Simon late in his career. He lost one fight to Simon - a narrow win and a good exchange by both - and you claim it as a defining moment for Simon and "proof" that Brown was overrated or a bully or a thug.

Brown fought more than Simon did in a shorter career. If you also look, Brown took on more than half the people in your top-30. He was the one who went beginning, middle, and end with his career. Simon took off the "middle" of his career.

These are the FACTS. Not my opinion, but FACTS. You are stating your opinion and that's fine, but I completely disagree with you.

Simon's middle years were simply him obeying management (especially when they found dout that he had skills) he was found extremely valuable and asked to keep it real and stay out of the box.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by srehm1

brown took on all-comers from beginning to end. Had no problem taking on a prime and on his way simon late in his career. He lost one fight to simon - a narrow win and a good exchange by both - and you claim it as a defining moment for simon and "proof" that brown was overrated or a bully or a thug.

Brown fought more than simon did in a shorter career. If you also look, brown took on more than half the people in your top-30. He was the one who went beginning, middle, and end with his career. Simon took off the "middle" of his career.

These are the facts. Not my opinion, but facts. You are stating your opinion and that's fine, but i completely disagree with you.

badabingbada...........KABOOM!!!!!