> Great -- the WBA has said it will not sanction Foreman's proposed defense
> against Axel Schutlz, and if he defends anyway, they'll strip him. (Anybody
> remember when they said they'd strip Moorer for defending against Big
> George? I said at the time that they would find another reason to strip the
> winner not too long after the fight...)
> The WBA said Foreman must defend against their #1 contender --Tony Tucker--
> within x number of days. Whatever -- they're basically saying that he can't
> fight Bum #1, but instead must fight Bum #2...

> The worst part is, Don King has generously offered to promote a
> title-vacancy bout between Tucker and Bruce Seldon...

> The one good thing that would come of this would be the complete
> devaluation of the WBA. At least in my eyes, Tucker or Seldon beating the
> other is the equivalent of a NABF or WABA or what ever title fight. The WBA
> already sucks more than the other 2 major organizations. Foreman, Norris,
> Vasquez, Randall and Gonzalez are the only WBA titlists who can lay any
> claim to being the best in their division...So part of me actually hopes
> they'll, do it...
> Phrank Da Slugger

>Fabian Weber (fab...@eubank.clipper.de) wrote:
>: what kind of silly talk is that? why has George to fight the #1 contender?  
>: that's a completely new rule. nobody fought the #1 contender in his first  
>: defense of the crown.

>I believe the rule, which isn't new, states that the champ has to fight
>the number one conteneder withing one year. Since Moorer didn't fight the
>number one contender, and therefore the number one contender hasn't had a
>shot in a while, the champ (foreman) must now fight the number one contender.

>Can anybody verify if I am right?

>Mel

>Fabian Weber (fab...@eubank.clipper.de) wrote:
>: what kind of silly talk is that? why has George to fight the #1 contender?
>: that's a completely new rule. nobody fought the #1 contender in his first
>: defense of the crown.

>I believe the rule, which isn't new, states that the champ has to fight
>the number one conteneder withing one year. Since Moorer didn't fight the
>number one contender, and therefore the number one contender hasn't had a
>shot in a while, the champ (foreman) must now fight the number one contender.

>Can anybody verify if I am right?

>Mel

boxing...@aol.com (BoxingMel) wrote:
>Hi Guys - Seems to me we are all here to express our opinions, whether or
>not someone who reads the posting agrees.  The debate is the fun - the
>back and forth.  No one is right and no one is wrong.  I'm new and really
>enjoy reading the postings.  I have learned some things and others I
>ignore, but everyone has the right to their own opinion.  If some one
>disagrees, either don't reply to the message or come up with an
>intelligent rebuttal.  We can all express our selves without using the "F"
>words or by personally attacking someone's ideas.  This is how I feel and
>this is how I would like to see the newsgroup work.  If you don't like
>what I have said, and can't reply intelligently, keep it to yourself.
>This is the only group I have found dedicated to boxing and I would hate
>to see it go down the toilet.

>Melanie Ley
>Melanie Ley

Zhoozhitsu (kho...@csulb.edu) wrote:
> In article <3go66g$...@newsbf02.news.aol.com) scartko wrties:
> :   Bowe would fake a punch and KO Kostya. NUFF SAID!!!!!!
> If this is your idea of a joke, you are as lame as they come.
> I see you have great aspirations to be respected among your
> peers, but your FUCKING STUPID one liners make you look
> like an airhead each and everytime.  You sure you didn't
> get a hold of your daddy's account?
> Bowe would do this.... Chavez can't do that... Jones would
> get KO'ed by such and such ....
> How freaking pathetic trying to trademark a useless style.

> --
> "Gentlemen, you have undertaken to cheat me.  I will not sue you,
>  for law takes too long.  I will ruin you.", Cornelius Vanderbilt