An Evening with...

First topic message reminder :

Sugar Ray Leonard - November 28th Richard Dunn Sports Centre, Bradford.

Tickets £20 - VIP tickets £40 (including photo with Sugar Ray

Organized by MJK Sports events

Some of you may be interested although may not be prepared to travel to Bradford!!

Why do some think Hagler won? Do their eyes not work? Or are they biased for Hagler??

On a fishing trip Adam?

Serious question actually.

milkyboy wrote:Intriguing,  What are you going to ask exactly to put it to bed? 'Ray did marvin give you a quiet beating?'. Would a yes or no answer put it to bed?

When is the York one, I'm tempted. I need that photo to go with all the posters on my bedroom wall.

27th November (a Sunday avo).

Yeah. Do you agree Sugar Man, that you received a quiet beating and can you give a statement to the naysayers on 606v2?

AdamT wrote:Serious question actually.

Some think he won because they know how to judge a fight..........(insert fishing emoticon here)

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:Serious question actually.

Some think he won because they know how to judge a fight..........(insert fishing emoticon here)

Oh right, is that what it is??

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Intriguing,  What are you going to ask exactly to put it to bed? 'Ray did marvin give you a quiet beating?'. Would a yes or no answer put it to bed?

When is the York one, I'm tempted. I need that photo to go with all the posters on my bedroom wall.

27th November (a Sunday avo).

Yeah. Do you agree Sugar Man, that you received a quiet beating and can you give a statement to the naysayers on 606v2?

Like it. Matter of fact, straight to the point. I thought you might go the entrapment route:

Haz 'what do you think of mcilvanney as a writer?'
Ray 'one of the best'
Haz ' ha ha gotcha'
Ray 'except that quiet beating nonsense'

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Intriguing,  What are you going to ask exactly to put it to bed? 'Ray did marvin give you a quiet beating?'. Would a yes or no answer put it to bed?

When is the York one, I'm tempted. I need that photo to go with all the posters on my bedroom wall.

27th November (a Sunday avo).

Yeah. Do you agree Sugar Man, that you received a quiet beating and can you give a statement to the naysayers on 606v2?

Like it. Matter of fact, straight to the point. I thought you might go the entrapment route:

Haz 'what do you think of mcilvanney as a writer?'
Ray 'one of the best'
Haz ' ha ha gotcha'
Ray 'except that quiet beating nonsense'

As if I'd dare ask him a question.

Hoipe this doesn't come across wrong but: had the opportunity to go to a few of these (only one I've been to is Nigel Benn) but turned down the chance to see two of my top three heroes all time in Joe Frazier and Tommy Hearns as I didn't want to see them in the state they/they've ended up in (if that makes sense).

The great thing about Leonard is he's genuine boxing royalty (he and Duran must be the greatest boxers still alive) who's still fully with us.

With Ali dead, Duran and Leonard are most certainly the greatest living boxers/

AdamT wrote:Why do some think Hagler won? Do their eyes not work? Or are they biased for Hagler??

Interesting. Has this topic ever been discussed before?

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Intriguing,  What are you going to ask exactly to put it to bed? 'Ray did marvin give you a quiet beating?'. Would a yes or no answer put it to bed?

When is the York one, I'm tempted. I need that photo to go with all the posters on my bedroom wall.

27th November (a Sunday avo).

Yeah. Do you agree Sugar Man, that you received a quiet beating and can you give a statement to the naysayers on 606v2?

Like it. Matter of fact, straight to the point. I thought you might go the entrapment route:

Haz 'what do you think of mcilvanney as a writer?'
Ray 'one of the best'
Haz ' ha ha gotcha'
Ray 'except that quiet beating nonsense'

As if I'd dare ask him a question.

Hoipe this doesn't come across wrong but: had the opportunity to go to a few of these (only one I've been to is Nigel Benn) but turned down the chance to see two of my top three heroes all time in Joe Frazier and Tommy Hearns as I didn't want to see them in the state they/they've ended up in (if that makes sense).

The great thing about Leonard is he's genuine boxing royalty (he and Duran must be the greatest boxers still alive) who's still fully with us.

Great fighters who are alive and can string a sentence together are at a premium.

I'm hatching a plan that involves wife and kids at the rail museum. It's a plan that will require cunning and deceit in the preparation stage... and letting a shopaholic loose with my credit card in the implementation stage.

Atila wrote:

AdamT wrote:Why do some think Hagler won? Do their eyes not work? Or are they biased for Hagler??

Interesting. Has this topic ever been discussed before?

Not that I recall... Fancy first dabs at it Atila?

milkyboy wrote:

Atila wrote:

AdamT wrote:Why do some think Hagler won? Do their eyes not work? Or are they biased for Hagler??

Interesting. Has this topic ever been discussed before?

Not that I recall... Fancy first dabs at it Atila?

I've never thought about this topic before. So I'll let you start and see where it goes.

From reading your previous comments over the years, on the subject, it's no surprise to learn you've never thought about it

milkyboy wrote:From reading your previous comments over the years, on the subject, it's no surprise to learn you've never thought about it

Hagler gave him a silent beating and was robbed.

Also please do not let Mr Hagler watch the fight, if by chance he is in your premises. Apparently Television's go flying out windows when he watches it over again.

The sad thing about Hagler v Leonard is that in all the controversy....What gets lost is what a brilliant performance it was by a guy who'd had "One fight in five years !!!" (against a journeyman in Howard).....To move up in weight and be beating or coming close to beating the best fighter in the sport !!!.

......Probably the best win since Ali v Foreman......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The sad thing about Hagler v Leonard is that in all the controversy....What gets lost is what a brilliant performance it was by a guy who'd had "One fight in five years !!!" (against a journeyman in Howard).....To move up in weight and be beating or coming close to beating the best fighter in the sport !!!.

......Probably the best win since Ali v Foreman......

You know what? I'm a Duran fan, but to come back and beat one of the best ever middles in history after such a lay off, shows Leonard's true greatness. The man was snorting coke and drinking like a fish.

I don't get the controversy. Hagler didn't do enough. Leonard outfoxed/outboxed him. He won the fight.

Leonard has two of the very best wins of all time. That fight with Hagler and his come from behind win over Hearns.

AdamT wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The sad thing about Hagler v Leonard is that in all the controversy....What gets lost is what a brilliant performance it was by a guy who'd had "One fight in five years !!!" (against a journeyman in Howard).....To move up in weight and be beating or coming close to beating the best fighter in the sport !!!.

......Probably the best win since Ali v Foreman......

You know what? I'm a Duran fan, but to come back and beat one of the best ever middles in history after such a lay off, shows Leonard's true greatness. The man was snorting coke and drinking like a fish.

I  don't get the controversy. Hagler didn't do enough. Leonard outfoxed/outboxed him. He won the fight.

Leonard has two of the very best wins of all time. That fight with Hagler cand his come from behind win over Hearns.

It was a great performance - but so controversial it's difficult to label it a great win. For me, Duran's performance against a better Hagler was even better (but I do get why many scored for Leonard watching it unfold live - it was so unexpected).

The Hearns win vies with Frazier over Ali and Duran over Leonard in the modern era.

I think he did beat Hagler. It was close, but I don't think Hagler did enough.

Hagler was a beast, but he didn't look too hot against a blown up Duran, or inactive Leonard. Granted he was nearing the end of his career.

AdamT wrote:I think he did beat Hagler. It was close, but I don't think Hagler did enough.

Hagler was a beast, but he didn't look too hot against a blown up Duran, or inactive Leonard. Granted he was nearing the end of his career.

The Mugabi fight took a lot from Hagler. Leonard spotted it to his credit and it persuaded him to come back.

Great fighters can pull off great performances - Hagler encountered that three times (the other was Hearns).

Leonard was a shrewd fighter. Have no arguments there.

AdamT wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The sad thing about Hagler v Leonard is that in all the controversy....What gets lost is what a brilliant performance it was by a guy who'd had "One fight in five years !!!" (against a journeyman in Howard).....To move up in weight and be beating or coming close to beating the best fighter in the sport !!!.

......Probably the best win since Ali v Foreman......

You know what? I'm a Duran fan, but to come back and beat one of the best ever middles in history after such a lay off, shows Leonard's true greatness. The man was snorting coke and drinking like a fish.

I  don't get the controversy. Hagler didn't do enough. Leonard outfoxed/outboxed him. He won the fight.

Leonard has two of the very best wins of all time. That fight with Hagler and his come from behind win over Hearns.

and that was just between rounds

All the greater Milkyboy!!!

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The sad thing about Hagler v Leonard is that in all the controversy....What gets lost is what a brilliant performance it was by a guy who'd had "One fight in five years !!!" (against a journeyman in Howard).....To move up in weight and be beating or coming close to beating the best fighter in the sport !!!.

......Probably the best win since Ali v Foreman......

You know what? I'm a Duran fan, but to come back and beat one of the best ever middles in history after such a lay off, shows Leonard's true greatness. The man was snorting coke and drinking like a fish.

I  don't get the controversy. Hagler didn't do enough. Leonard outfoxed/outboxed him. He won the fight.

Leonard has two of the very best wins of all time. That fight with Hagler cand his come from behind win over Hearns.

It was a great performance - but so controversial it's difficult to label it a great win. For me, Duran's performance against a better Hagler was even better (but I do get why many scored for Leonard watching it unfold live - it was so unexpected).

The Hearns win vies with Frazier over Ali and Duran over Leonard in the modern era.

I've always thought it was a great occasion more than a great fight and fought by two guys past their best. Although the very nature of the brewing upset made it compelling viewing. But even allowing for that, you have to consider it a great performance in context from leonard.

As for the scoring on the night... underdog doing better than expected, epic illusion and a quiet beating... that only the great hugh Mc could spot:

Some quotes from Hugh before the fight, writing off leonard, slagging off the fight as a mismatch... to be fair many felt the same:
"seldom if ever has prizefighting presented it's critics with so pressing an invitation to condemn it"... "odds should be 20:1 not 5:2"... "in this quarter his arguments for success are seen as almost entirely illusory"

Hugh after the fight "Hagler won that fight.... epic illusion... quiet beating etc"

His article after the fight is regularly quoted, his article before didn't make the cut for any of his boxing books. I'm fine with Hugh thinking Hagler won, plenty do, it was a close fight... but he should have eaten up a bit of humble, rather than pay lip service to leonard's performance...what did he say? 'better than anyone had a right to expect' (better than you expected, yes Hugh) before implying leonard was interested in hoodwinking the judges rather than fighting, and rant on about a robbery that wasn't. Great writer, but let his ego get in the way of this one.

The real epic illusion is hugh's mastery of the written word, convincing people that Hagler was robbed, rather than admit he made an epic misjudgement in his earlier article. There was one very bad card and two credible ones. That would be considered better than average scoring today.

...In my most humble of opinions

What is this quiet beating rubbish??

Don't you know that dancing around the ring like Michael Jackson and throwing bolo punches... in the last round of a fight is a sure sign of a hammered fighter...Adam.

I remember Hagler following him around, like a lost little brother.

If Leonard is catching the eyes of the judges picking up the rounds, surely that makes him the deserved winner on points.

People look for different things........But I thought Leonard controlled the fight......

Had it 116-112 or 116-113.........

Hagler just didn't do enough for me.....But more importantly for two of the three judges..Though 118-110 was harsh but understandable....

AdamT wrote:I remember Hagler following him around, like a lost little brother.

If Leonard is catching the eyes of the judges picking up the rounds, surely that makes him the deserved winner on points.

Leonard largely pitter-pattered, shoe-shined and looked to pinch rounds with theatrical flurries. Hagler's work was more understated, more workmanlike and more hurtful. Hagler gave him a bit of a working over at spots during the second half of the fight (after giving away much of the first half by following Leonard around rather than pressuring him in the way we'd seen him do time and again).

I scored it for Hagler - as did many good judges. If you watch that fight now and, somehow, you didn't know who was who or the context of Leonard's performance, you'd see a close fight that could have gone either way.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:People look for different things........But I thought Leonard controlled the fight......

Had it 116-112 or 116-113.........

Hagler just didn't do enough for me.....But more importantly for  two of the three judges..Though 118-110 was harsh but understandable....

118-110 was a disgrace and the judge was rightly called out for its ludicrousness in the immediate aftermath.

I had it to Leonard by two or 3.

His flurries at the end of rounds were eye catching.

In a close round, judges will remember the end.

118-110 was a disgrace. Some judges should be shot.

AdamT wrote:I had it to Leonard by two or 3.

His flurries at the end of rounds were eye catching.

In a close round, judges will remember the end.

118-110 was a disgrace. Some judges should be shot.

I can see that, especially had we been scoring live. If you'd been ringside you'd have been sitting mouth agape at some of the stuff Leonard was producing after being off so long.

Then haven't you been conned? You're supposed to score the whole round, and how long a fighter has been out of the ring shouldn't affect your judgement.

Atila wrote:Then haven't you been conned? You're supposed to score the whole round, and how long a fighter has been out of the ring shouldn't affect your judgement.

I agree, which is why I thought McIlvanney's piece cut to the heart of matters brilliantly.

Atila wrote:Then haven't you been conned? You're supposed to score the whole round, and how long a fighter has been out of the ring shouldn't affect your judgement.

Fighters are taught to finish the round strongly to impress the judges in a close round , but ultimately I agree, you should score the whole round or you've been conned.

I scored the whole rounds. Thought Leonard won enough of them. Two judges gave credible cards, one lost the plot.

Leonard's a divisive figure and plenty of cards in both directions probably reflect personal like or dislike for him as well as personal taste in what you favour in close rounds. Hagler offered pressure and workrate, Leonard offered more moments of quality.

I agree with haz, that if you didn't know who they were you'd likely see a close fight. I'd suggest that if you swapped hearns for Leonard it probably wouldn't be seen as so controversial - just a close fight and somebody gets the decision.

I think I may have made my opinions on the mcilvanney piece known once or twice before... Possibly three times

milkyboy wrote:

Atila wrote:Then haven't you been conned? You're supposed to score the whole round, and how long a fighter has been out of the ring shouldn't affect your judgement.

Fighters are taught to finish the round strongly to impress the judges in a close round , but ultimately I agree, you should score the whole round or you've been conned.

I scored the whole rounds. Thought Leonard won enough of them. Two judges gave credible cards, one lost the plot.

Leonard's a divisive figure and plenty of cards in both directions probably reflect personal like or dislike for him as well as personal taste in what you favour in close rounds. Hagler offered pressure and workrate, Leonard offered more moments of quality.

I agree with haz, that if you didn't know who they were you'd likely see a close fight. I'd suggest that if you swapped hearns for Leonard it probably wouldn't be seen as so controversial - just a close fight and somebody gets the decision.

I think I may have made my opinions on the mcilvanney piece known once or twice before... Possibly three times

Myself, I'd suggest that if it wasn't for Leonard's layoff, he wouldn't have got the decision. He threw less but landed a mere 15 more punches over the fight, but somehow, according some posters it was an easy fight to score for Leonard?

Here's a wild theory of mine. If Hagler did blow the first 4 rounds as I constantly hear, it's quite possible that that's were Leonard's 15 punch advantage was made. Hagler might very well have outlanded Leonard during the rest of the fight.

If anyone has a link or any info on the punchstats for this fight that were done round by round, please post it.

I admire all your persistence, nothing else, but I do admire that.

Rowley wrote:I admire all your persistence, nothing else, but I do admire that.

You don't admire anything else about me? That hurts.

Atila wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Atila wrote:Then haven't you been conned? You're supposed to score the whole round, and how long a fighter has been out of the ring shouldn't affect your judgement.

Fighters are taught to finish the round strongly to impress the judges in a close round , but ultimately I agree, you should score the whole round or you've been conned.

I scored the whole rounds. Thought Leonard won enough of them. Two judges gave credible cards, one lost the plot.

Leonard's a divisive figure and plenty of cards in both directions probably reflect personal like or dislike for him as well as personal taste in what you favour in close rounds. Hagler offered pressure and workrate, Leonard offered more moments of quality.

I agree with haz, that if you didn't know who they were you'd likely see a close fight. I'd suggest that if you swapped hearns for Leonard it probably wouldn't be seen as so controversial - just a close fight and somebody gets the decision.

I think I may have made my opinions on the mcilvanney piece known once or twice before... Possibly three times

Myself, I'd suggest that if it wasn't for Leonard's layoff, he wouldn't have got the decision. He threw less but landed a mere 15 more punches over the fight, but somehow, according some posters it was an easy fight to score for Leonard?

Here's a wild theory of mine. If Hagler did blow the first 4 rounds as I constantly hear, it's quite possible that that's were Leonard's 15 punch advantage was made. Hagler might very well have outlanded Leonard during the rest of the fight.

If anyone has a link or any info on the punchstats for this fight that were done round by round, please post it.

After two rounds, Hagler had landed 11 of 54 to Leonard's 29 of 51.

Hagler only landed 45 of 151 through four rounds. He eventually landed 291 of 752.

After six rounds Leonard had landed 117 of 234. Hagler, 103 of 304 (so his output doubled in rounds 5-6).

Leonard ended up landing 306 of 629.

So:       Hagler         Leonard

1-2.      11               29
3-6       92               88
7-12     188             189

Hahahahahaha!!!!!!!! You're a funny guy.

Atila wrote:

Rowley wrote:I admire all your persistence, nothing else, but I do admire that.

You don't admire anything else about me? That hurts.

I think it's aimed at all of us, and we should consider ourselves fortunate to have even our persistence admired. Though I suspect even that is laced with a faint touch of irony!

Now we've cleared that up... So if we're just going on punch stats, Leonard wins the first half of the fight, second half even. Leonard wins. Simples.  

Atila wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Atila wrote:Then haven't you been conned? You're supposed to score the whole round, and how long a fighter has been out of the ring shouldn't affect your judgement.

Fighters are taught to finish the round strongly to impress the judges in a close round , but ultimately I agree, you should score the whole round or you've been conned.

I scored the whole rounds. Thought Leonard won enough of them. Two judges gave credible cards, one lost the plot.

Leonard's a divisive figure and plenty of cards in both directions probably reflect personal like or dislike for him as well as personal taste in what you favour in close rounds. Hagler offered pressure and workrate, Leonard offered more moments of quality.

I agree with haz, that if you didn't know who they were you'd likely see a close fight. I'd suggest that if you swapped hearns for Leonard it probably wouldn't be seen as so controversial - just a close fight and somebody gets the decision.

I think I may have made my opinions on the mcilvanney piece known once or twice before... Possibly three times

Myself, I'd suggest that if it wasn't for Leonard's layoff, he wouldn't have got the decision. He threw less but landed a mere 15 more punches over the fight, but somehow, according some posters it was an easy fight to score for Leonard?

Here's a wild theory of mine. If Hagler did blow the first 4 rounds as I constantly hear, it's quite possible that that's were Leonard's 15 punch advantage was made. Hagler might very well have outlanded Leonard during the rest of the fight.

If anyone has a link or any info on the punchstats for this fight that were done round by round, please post it.

Think you underlined my point there. Everyone who thinks hagler won has a theory on why Leonard got the decision, but most of the same people saw a close fight. Why does there have to be a reason, other than two judges who saw the same fight as most of us, who favoured different things... And one who was erm, a bit blinkered.

milkyboy wrote:

Atila wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Atila wrote:Then haven't you been conned? You're supposed to score the whole round, and how long a fighter has been out of the ring shouldn't affect your judgement.

Fighters are taught to finish the round strongly to impress the judges in a close round , but ultimately I agree, you should score the whole round or you've been conned.

I scored the whole rounds. Thought Leonard won enough of them. Two judges gave credible cards, one lost the plot.

Leonard's a divisive figure and plenty of cards in both directions probably reflect personal like or dislike for him as well as personal taste in what you favour in close rounds. Hagler offered pressure and workrate, Leonard offered more moments of quality.

I agree with haz, that if you didn't know who they were you'd likely see a close fight. I'd suggest that if you swapped hearns for Leonard it probably wouldn't be seen as so controversial - just a close fight and somebody gets the decision.

I think I may have made my opinions on the mcilvanney piece known once or twice before... Possibly three times

Myself, I'd suggest that if it wasn't for Leonard's layoff, he wouldn't have got the decision. He threw less but landed a mere 15 more punches over the fight, but somehow, according some posters it was an easy fight to score for Leonard?

Here's a wild theory of mine. If Hagler did blow the first 4 rounds as I constantly hear, it's quite possible that that's were Leonard's 15 punch advantage was made. Hagler might very well have outlanded Leonard during the rest of the fight.

If anyone has a link or any info on the punchstats for this fight that were done round by round, please post it.

Think you underlined my point there. Everyone who thinks hagler won has a theory on why Leonard got the decision, but most of the same people saw a close fight. Why does there have to be a reason, other than two judges who saw the same fight as most of us, who favoured different things... And one who was erm, a bit blinkered.

Larry Merchant cracked a great line when he said Leonard stole the fight, legitimately stole the fight.

Caught an ESPN doc the other day (looking for those punch stats) where Leonard claimed to have taken Hagler out to dinner after the Mugabi fight. Real old pals act. He then managed to get Hagler to admit he no longer had it anymore, admit that he cut too easily and had lost his mojo - at which point he made the fight. Can that possibly be true? That's brinksmanship on another level!

Larry Merchant cracked a great line when he said Leonard stole the fight, legitimately stole the fight.

AdamT wrote:

Larry Merchant cracked a great line when he said Leonard stole the fight, legitimately stole the fight.

Bit cryptic for you Adam? Basically, he meant Golovkin would hammer Floyd at 154.

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

Larry Merchant cracked a great line when he said Leonard stole the fight, legitimately stole the fight.

Bit cryptic for you Adam? Basically, he meant Golovkin would hammer Floyd at 154.

I could care less what some senile Merchant says. He's an idiot.

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Atila wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Atila wrote:Then haven't you been conned? You're supposed to score the whole round, and how long a fighter has been out of the ring shouldn't affect your judgement.

Fighters are taught to finish the round strongly to impress the judges in a close round , but ultimately I agree, you should score the whole round or you've been conned.

I scored the whole rounds. Thought Leonard won enough of them. Two judges gave credible cards, one lost the plot.

Leonard's a divisive figure and plenty of cards in both directions probably reflect personal like or dislike for him as well as personal taste in what you favour in close rounds. Hagler offered pressure and workrate, Leonard offered more moments of quality.

I agree with haz, that if you didn't know who they were you'd likely see a close fight. I'd suggest that if you swapped hearns for Leonard it probably wouldn't be seen as so controversial - just a close fight and somebody gets the decision.

I think I may have made my opinions on the mcilvanney piece known once or twice before... Possibly three times

Myself, I'd suggest that if it wasn't for Leonard's layoff, he wouldn't have got the decision. He threw less but landed a mere 15 more punches over the fight, but somehow, according some posters it was an easy fight to score for Leonard?

Here's a wild theory of mine. If Hagler did blow the first 4 rounds as I constantly hear, it's quite possible that that's were Leonard's 15 punch advantage was made. Hagler might very well have outlanded Leonard during the rest of the fight.

If anyone has a link or any info on the punchstats for this fight that were done round by round, please post it.

Think you underlined my point there. Everyone who thinks hagler won has a theory on why Leonard got the decision, but most of the same people saw a close fight. Why does there have to be a reason, other than two judges who saw the same fight as most of us, who favoured different things... And one who was erm, a bit blinkered.

Larry Merchant cracked a great line when he said Leonard stole the fight, legitimately stole the fight.

Caught an ESPN doc the other day (looking for those punch stats) where Leonard claimed to have taken Hagler out to dinner after the Mugabi fight. Real old pals act. He then managed to get Hagler to admit he no longer had it anymore, admit that he cut too easily and had lost his mojo - at which point he made the fight. Can that possibly be true? That's brinksmanship on another level!

Well he certainly said it! You'd imagine it probably helped Marv get his mojo back for their fight. Don't imagine he lacked desire for the fight... Just the legs maybe.

SRL reckons he was half cut in that press conference where he invited hagler along for a big announcement.. and then retired... Claims he didn't actually know what he was going to say. Who knows, he obviously wasn't in a great place at that time!

I quite like the story about almost getting starched by Quincy Taylor in sparring and changing his strategy from standing his ground to sticking and moving at the last minute. Best punch he ever took he says.

Who needs to go to 'the evening with' we've heard all the stories already!

AdamT wrote:I could care less what some senile Merchant says. He's an idiot.

If he was 50 years younger...