Pdema...@rush.edu wrote in article <5hovku$...@cwis.campus.rpslmc.edu>...

-> Any "World Class " fighter knows the rules unless his desparate
-> punk-like street intsincts take over.

True about the rules, but Roy Jones a "punk?"  I think not.

-> guess pretty boy, Rap-Star, Basketball player doesn't like to get
-> hit. Some should remind him this is BOXING and sometimes even the
-> best get hit.

Ripping on him in this manner doesn't impress me.

-> a rematch only Griffin should get the big payday and Jones should
-> get chump change for being a CHUMP. Anyone agree?

I agree that the champion should earn more than the challenger, but not
because you think one of them is a chump.

In article <33409204.2...@alphat.csd.uwm.edu>,
        Mark <tysn2...@alphat.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:

+> Does every fight merit a rematch?

Of course not.  But fighters can improve, and in a lengthy career, a
rematch with someone you fought to a onesided end may become inevitable,
as in Bruno and Tyson.  Bruno was thoroughly defeated in the first fight
with Mike, but since Frank won the title, and Mike was on the comeback
trail, this rematch made a lot of sense.

+> Maybe Tyson should rematch with Bruce Seldon just to "settle it".  Maybe
+> next time he can knock out Seldon with an actual punch.

That's silly.  There is nothing to "settle".  Then again, if Seldon was to
mount a career comeback and fight a bunch of fights, winning all of them,
and then somehow get ahold of one of the titles again, a rematch with
Tyson would become reasonable.

So what's your point?

+> How about Peter McNeeley?  He deserves a rematch, too.  His trainer probably
+> threw the fight in order to set up the big-money rematch.  They're probably
+> still hanging by the phone, waiting for Don King's call.

The thing is, he doesn't deserver a rematch.  Neither his place in the
heavyweight rankings, nor his performance that night, nor his performance
in the ring SINCE that fight indicate that he is deserving of a rematch.
I think that much is clear.

+> How is the fact that most fights (including Holyfield's beating of Tyson)
+> don't merit a rematch supposed to be an excuse if Tyson wins a rematch?

I'm looking at this sentence and trying really hard to figure out what the
hey you are trying to say.

Fact a)  Most fights don't merit a rematch.

I'll agree with you there.

Fact b)  Holyfield vs Tyson was a fight.

Gotch covered.

Fact c)  Holyfield vs Tyson doesn't merit a rematch.

I disagree.

Fact d)  If Tyson wins the rematch, the fact that the first fight didn't
merit a rematch will be an excuse.

Sorry, that didn't help.  I still have no idea what you are trying to say.

Let's just move on.

+> Is Tyson afraid of losing to Seldon or Mcneeley?

Let's just move on from this foolishness too.

+> What we are talking about is RIGHT NOW.  Holyfield 1, Tyson 0.  Holyfield
+> career belts 9, Tyson 5.  If you could put a number on quality of
+> competition, it would probably favor Holyfield, but we don't need to
+> quibble.

I'm not sure I would disagree, but both have fought the big names in the
division, and I feel that neight has to bow their head in shame for having
particularly ducked anybody.

+>  You might be a Tysonista if....
+>
+>  If you still think Tyson is better, or that Holyfield needs to beat him
+> again to "settle it", then you're not giving Holyfield his due.

True enough.  I do think it is reasonable for people to pick Tyson to win
the rematch.  The first fight was a tough one for both of them, Holyfield
is older, probably would take everything he has to pull it off again.
Tyson could do better, and if he prepared physically and mentally, and
studies the film of the first fight, he could pull it off.

I still like Evander in this match-up.

Holyfield over Tyson UD12.

--

Holyfield, what a gem to the division.  A great example of a well
conditioned, bighearted, and intelligent fighter.  But would we be making
such a big deal if he didn't beat such an dominating force?  I think not.
Underdog he is.

On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:14:53 -0800, Ivan Weiss <iwei-...@seatimes.com>
wrote:

:On Sun, 30 Mar 1997, Paul Dalrymple wrote:
:
:
:>      Ray Oliveira's defeat of Miguel Santana 2 weeks ago has led to a
:> USA TNF bout vs. NABF jr. welterweight champ Charles "The Natural"
:> Murray on April 15th.
:
:Miguel Santana? I thought he hung up the gloves yars ago. Can this be
:correct, or was it Edwin Santana?
:
:Ivan Weiss
:Seattle Times
:iwei-...@seatimes.com
:Standard disclaimer
:
Ivan,

Starting to slip? Edwin was your man.

DCI