Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

First topic message reminder :

https://www.ringtv.com/488242-ring-greatest-heavyweight-time/

Done to death, I know, but I like the top ten. Quite where the likes of Charles and Walcott are (in the top 20), is another matter:

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Johnson
4. Marciano
5 Holmes
6. Dempsey
7. Foreman
8. Frazier
9. Tyson
10. Liston

as the man who once felt the heat after starting a thread entitled, 'Jack Dempsey, the beckham of his day?'... I'd probably best stay out of this!

Dempsey and Marciano seem to get over rated based on being smaller than subsequent Heavyweights, I'm going to say that Willard was worse than average and the shameful avoidance of Wills cannot be forgotten either. Promotional issues or not but I have no time for any boxer who drew the colour line.

In reality Dempsey isn't a patch on Tyson who was an active mostly destructive champion, he made a handful of defences across what 7 years? Somewhat makes a mockery of that 20-1-1 in a year, I'd wager AJ has harder sparring sessions than most of those fights.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Dempsey and Marciano seem to get over rated based on being smaller than subsequent Heavyweights, I'm going to say that Willard was worse than average and the shameful avoidance of Wills cannot be forgotten either. Promotional issues or not but I have no time for any boxer who drew the colour line.

In reality Dempsey isn't a patch on Tyson who was an active mostly destructive champion, he made a handful of defences across what 7 years? Somewhat makes a mockery of that 20-1-1 in a year, I'd wager AJ has harder sparring sessions than most of those fights.

What you say is mostly hyberbole and not worth the cyberspace its written in - you know nothing about the colour line, There were telegrams sent between Rickard and Dempsey in early 1926 that suggest that Dempsey wanted Wills or was considering Wills, preferring that to Tunney, and Rickardwas the obstacle.In the end and wrongly Dempsey trusted Rickard more than anyone at that point in time.
But Rickard was wrong about Tunney, and wrong about New York.

As for AJ has harder sparring sessions - I won't go into that because its just another ridiculous unfounded comment which is expected from a idiot like you.

Cheers

I couldn't care less whether it was Dempsey or Rickard, he didn't fight his biggest rival because he was black and I'm not surprised he wanted the fight in 1926, wasn't too keen five years prior to that though was he. It would help if you looked at the bigger picture once in a while instead of focusing on small insignificant details that suit your way of thinking.

It's not an unfounded comment at all, it's just one that doesn't fit into old is best attitude, there is absolutely no argument that sparring with Wladimir Klitschko is harder than fighting winless 15 year olds.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I couldn't care less whether it was Dempsey or Rickard, he didn't fight his biggest rival because he was black and I'm not surprised he wanted the fight in 1926, wasn't too keen five years prior to that though was he. It would help if you looked at the bigger picture once in a while instead of focusing on small insignificant details that suit your way of thinking.

It's not an unfounded comment at all, it's just one that doesn't fit into old is best attitude, there is absolutely no argument that sparring with Wladimir Klitschko is harder than fighting winless 15 year olds.

Do you have evidence that you know this for a fact ? He was very inconsistent on the issue. He first said that he would draw the colour line, then announced with a big fanfare that he was dissolving it, and from there his actions leave some room for interpretation. We do know Dempsey did sign once for a bout that was cancelled because the Michigan promoter could not come up with the promised money. I am not saying that Dempsey should not be criticised here, because I think that he should, but as normal you oversimplify the situation with your one lined quotes.

I can now see you've changed the argument in sparring now Wlad Klitschko - nice move, do you know how competitive the sparring sessions were ? Were they full contact sessions ? do you know this ? Its possible we have no argument that Dempsey would've wiped out all of Joshua's opponents and just as quickly.

Cheers.

The only one guilty of over simplifying their arguments is you, you quoted 20-1-1 as if it was some sort of achievement worth a damn, it simply isn't and it's why the old timers fought so often, not exactly a Harry Greb year of constant quality is it.

I've not changed the argument in the slightest Rodney, AJ has sparred Wlad and whether they were light sessions or not they'd have been harder than a one round blow out of a 15 year old. I genuinely don't understand how you can even contend that point. Jack Dempsey like Rocky Marciano were products of their times which tended to low on quality, there's also the other reason why the pair seem to get so over-rated.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The only one guilty of over simplifying their arguments is you, you quoted 20-1-1 as if it was some sort of achievement worth a damn, it simply isn't and it's why the old timers fought so often, not exactly a Harry Greb year of constant quality is it.

I've not changed the argument in the slightest Rodney, AJ has sparred Wlad and whether they were light sessions or not they'd have been harder than a one round blow out of a 15 year old. I genuinely don't understand how you can even contend that point. Jack Dempsey like Rocky Marciano were products of their times which tended to low on quality, there's also the other reason why the pair seem to get so over-rated.

If it that easy to amass and quickly you don't see that many doing it now do you ? You're twisting it and changing you angle you said AJ has had more difficult sparring sessions than Dempsey's opponents - now this has been changed to sparring Wlad and a handpicked opponent from Dempsey's sensational form.

Please do enlighten me on the other reason ? You certainly have a chip on your shoulder regards certain fighters.

Atila wrote:Honestly don't know what you mean?

Ah sorry.It was a debate a few years ago...modern fighters versus old fighters..and some thought that protein shakes were the deal breaker. I don't know if many peoe got the reference....the posters involved have retired from these parts with their undefeated title also.Apart from Chris,whom I have no doubt is in personal league with the devil and he had a secret painting of himself as a wizened old man in his attic

Rodney wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The only one guilty of over simplifying their arguments is you, you quoted 20-1-1 as if it was some sort of achievement worth a damn, it simply isn't and it's why the old timers fought so often, not exactly a Harry Greb year of constant quality is it.

I've not changed the argument in the slightest Rodney, AJ has sparred Wlad and whether they were light sessions or not they'd have been harder than a one round blow out of a 15 year old. I genuinely don't understand how you can even contend that point. Jack Dempsey like Rocky Marciano were products of their times which tended to low on quality, there's also the other reason why the pair seem to get so over-rated.

If it that easy to amass and quickly you don't see that many doing it now do you ? You're twisting it and changing you angle you said AJ has had more difficult sparring sessions than Dempsey's opponents - now this has been changed to sparring Wlad and a handpicked opponent from Dempsey's sensational form.

Please do enlighten me on the other reason ? You certainly have a chip on your shoulder regards certain fighters.

What's the point of amassing it when there's barely a worthwhile fight, AJ should fatten up his record with club fighters and journeyman then? We'll then proclaim him to be in sensational form.

The angle hasn't changed at all, AJ sparred Wlad, he's sparred Wach, Joyce, Okolie, Fury, the majority of his sparring sessions would have been more strenuous than the majority of Dempsey's worthless fights

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Rodney wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The only one guilty of over simplifying their arguments is you, you quoted 20-1-1 as if it was some sort of achievement worth a damn, it simply isn't and it's why the old timers fought so often, not exactly a Harry Greb year of constant quality is it.

I've not changed the argument in the slightest Rodney, AJ has sparred Wlad and whether they were light sessions or not they'd have been harder than a one round blow out of a 15 year old. I genuinely don't understand how you can even contend that point. Jack Dempsey like Rocky Marciano were products of their times which tended to low on quality, there's also the other reason why the pair seem to get so over-rated.

If it that easy to amass and quickly you don't see that many doing it now do you ? You're twisting it and changing you angle you said AJ has had more difficult sparring sessions than Dempsey's opponents - now this has been changed to sparring Wlad and a handpicked opponent from Dempsey's sensational form.

Please do enlighten me on the other reason ? You certainly have a chip on your shoulder regards certain fighters.

What's the point of amassing it when there's barely a worthwhile fight, AJ should fatten up his record with club fighters and journeyman then? We'll then proclaim him to be in sensational form.

The angle hasn't changed at all, AJ sparred Wlad, he's sparred Wach, Joyce, Okolie, Fury, the majority of his sparring sessions would have been more strenuous than the majority of Dempsey's worthless fights

That's what AJ has already done hasn't he ? Are you saying guys like Fred Fulton and Billy Miske are club and journeymen fighters ?

How do you know about the sparring sessions they could be just touching sessions ? Okolie ?? have you seen him looks worse than a club fighter and another guy you hate Fury is "rubbish" in your words so I guess we'll leave that one out then ?

but come on please enlighten us the reason why Dempsey and Marciano are rated highly other than achievements ?

cheers

Describe Fred Fulton to me, what were his strengths as a boxer?

I don't rate Fury you'd be right but I'd back him to comfortably beat Jess Willard and your comment about Okolie sums you up really, a complete imbecile stuck in black and white.

The Trouble is with Arsenal is they always try to walk it in.

Oops.Thought that I was on the football site for a minute.Anyway..I wonder how many protein shakes a day AJ is on

Fulton was noted of having basically everything, except durability! A outside fighter with a dynamite punch. Lets say he'd be like someone like Deontay Wilder..

So you're back to H2H basis now - and you discarding Fury from sparring - the lineal holder (unbeaten) yet i'm a imbecile because I think Okolie looks like a club fighter ? Did you see his last fight ?? Probably not - since you told me once you don't watch many fights.

You're a strange fish ! you still haven't enlightened us on your thoughts why Dempsey and Marciano are rated highly by many, are you ducking the issue ?

Cheers

Wlad apparently spars at 100%, so obviously it's going to be harder than the dross these guys fought the majority of the time.

AdamT wrote:Wlad apparently spars at 100%, so obviously it's going to be harder than the dross these guys fought the majority of the time.

Of course he does..

Please divulge on the dross they've fought and explain what makes you come to this theory ?

cheers.

Dempsey is apparently a real filth bag, so I can't be bothered to talk about him.

Ezzard Charles is an atg light heavy and a very good win for Marciano. Frankly I don't think old Walcott (I need 50 chances to win the title) is that great a win. He was losing the fight too, until he landed that peach.

To be honest I have never watched many Marciano fights or clips. Why would I waste my time watching him, when there are so many other wonderful fighters out there?

Lets be honest, his record is hardly made up of greats is it? Louis was about 87 years old at the time.

Chris gave the best answer as to why Marciano is so highly rated by some and why others don't rate him quite so highly. (with no personal insults in it as well, what a guy, someone smoke him a kipper)

Lists are lists that people have made cause they like certain boxers. It's all subjective so dunno why we get so het up on it all.

AdamT wrote:Dempsey is apparently a real filth bag, so I can't be bothered to talk about him.

Ezzard Charles is an atg light heavy and a very good win for Marciano. Frankly I don't think old Walcott (I need 50 chances to win the title) is that great a win. He was losing the fight too, until he landed that peach.

To be honest I have never watched many Marciano fights or clips. Why would I waste my time watching him, when there are so many other wonderful fighters out there?

Lets be honest, his record is hardly made up of greats is it? Louis was about 87 years old at the time.

I'm speechless - you're a real asset to the forum Adam.

Cheers

AdamT wrote:Dempsey is apparently a real filth bag, so I can't be bothered to talk about him.

Ezzard Charles is an atg light heavy and a very good win for Marciano. Frankly I don't think old Walcott (I need 50 chances to win the title) is that great a win. He was losing the fight too, until he landed that peach.

To be honest I have never watched many Marciano fights or clips. Why would I waste my time watching him, when there are so many other wonderful fighters out there?

Lets be honest, his record is hardly made up of greats is it? Louis was about 87 years old at the time.

Look at me! Look at me everyone!

Thank you Rodney.

Least someone appreciates me!

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:Dempsey is apparently a real filth bag, so I can't be bothered to talk about him.

Ezzard Charles is an atg light heavy and a very good win for Marciano. Frankly I don't think old Walcott (I need 50 chances to win the title) is that great a win. He was losing the fight too, until he landed that peach.

To be honest I have never watched many Marciano fights or clips. Why would I waste my time watching him, when there are so many other wonderful fighters out there?

Lets be honest, his record is hardly made up of greats is it? Louis was about 87 years old at the time.

Look at me! Look at me everyone!

Why would anyone look at you??

except for my exaggeration, what was wrong with my post?

Was Dempsey not complete perverted filth?

Was Ezzard Charles not a great light Heavy and a solid win?

Did Walcott not have to come again and again?

Are there not many other better fighters to watch than Rocky.

Is his record made up of great wins?

Was Louis old at the time?

AdamT wrote:except for my exaggeration, what was wrong with my post?

Was Dempsey not complete perverted filth?

Was Ezzard Charles not a great light Heavy and a solid win?

Did Walcott not have to come again and again?

Are there not many other better fighters to watch than Rocky.

Is his record made up of great wins?

Was Louis old at the time?

Marciano was one of the most action-packed heavyweights in history. Go and watch the 6th round of Marciano vs Moore and tell me he isn't great to watch? Marciano vs Walcott was one of the best fights in division history. If you haven't watched a fighter, why would you post a comment claiming he's not worth watching?

Two left feet and a slugger. I like watching technical boxing, not bar room brawling.

I have watched him, I said I HARDLY watched him. Can't you read??

AdamT wrote:Two left feet and a slugger. I like watching technical boxing, not bar room brawling.

I have watched him, I said I HARDLY watched him. Can't you read??

Sometimes this forum makes me regret that I can.

Superfly are you a barrister? (professional liar)

No, not a barrister - just a standard common or garden lawyer. Lying is really just a hobby for me.

Was going to commend you. Still will. Good career, fair play!

Rodney wrote:Fulton was noted of having basically everything, except durability! A outside fighter with a dynamite punch. Lets say he'd be like someone like Deontay Wilder..

So you're back to H2H basis now - and you discarding Fury from sparring - the lineal holder (unbeaten) yet i'm a imbecile because I think Okolie looks like a club fighter ? Did you see his last fight ?? Probably not - since you told me once you don't watch many fights.

You're a strange fish ! you still haven't enlightened us on your thoughts why Dempsey and Marciano are rated highly by many, are you ducking the issue ?

Cheers

Can you push me in the direction of some Fulton footage he sounds like quite the boxer?

You might want to discard the head to head aspect of it but I won't be, it gives an indication of respective ability and dominating weak eras doesn't make someone great hence why I don't think Wlad is great. I'd like you to show where I said I don't watch much boxing because it patently isn't true.

You no disrespect are someone who thinks it makes you clever to rate older boxers based on flimsy reasoning, what's a pro for an old timer is a con for a modern boxer. Dempsey knocking over cans is a positive for you but a modern guy fighting at European or fringe world level is a negative.

Dempsey and Marciano have historical significance because they're the only two White Americans to have defended the Heavyweight championship a handful of times in the past century. I don't think it's necessarily racism but Gerry Cooney and Tommy Morrison were seen as great white hopes, there's a fairly clear racial aspect to it.

AdamT wrote:Two left feet and a slugger. I like watching technical boxing, not bar room brawling.

I have watched him, I said I HARDLY watched him. Can't you read??

Yes, you said: "To be honest I have never watched many Marciano fights or clips".

Why would you say someone wasn't worth watching when you have never watched many of their fights or clips?

Watching the likes of Rigondeaux is Ok, but a bit dull. I prefer the exciting fighters, like Marciano (especially watching fights back).

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Dempsey and Marciano have historical significance because they're the only two White Americans to have defended the Heavyweight championship a handful of times in the past century. I don't think it's necessarily racism but Gerry Cooney and Tommy Morrison were seen as great white hopes, there's a fairly clear racial aspect to it.

Dempsey and Marciano have historical significance because they were two of the greatest heavyweight champions of all time. Simple as that.

AdamT wrote:Thank you Rodney.

Least someone appreciates me!

think he meant asset with a silent et

It's not as simple as that at all, it's a bit beyond you don't worry about it.

I might be an asset with a silent et.

The forum is full of Bert Sugar wannabes.

The problem some of you guys have, is you need historians to tell you who is great and walk you by the hand.

I clown about, but thankfully I believe in the evidence of my own eyes. Leave the history books down and make your own minds up.

Going back to Atila on the previous page re: Dempsey and Tunney...

Appreciate that I might seem a little harsh on Dempsey, and for the reasons you've listed I can give him some leeway for the Tunney defeats. What I can't do is brush them off as an irrelevance, or safely say that father time is the only reason for those defeats and that if the fights had taken place a few years earlier the evidence points to a clear Dempsey win, which I think you'd have to do to give him such a high place. He didn't beat anyone of Tunney's outstanding quality before his layoff, which leaves a bit of doubt, for me. I'm not saying that Dempsey could never have beaten Tunney had he been a bit closer to his prime - but it takes quite a big leap of faith given how average he did look by the time they did fight.

I guess I should also confess that Dempsey's inactivity as champion does grate on me a little more than others', as unlike Ali or Tyson there was nothing completely preventing him from fighting more often during what were / might have been his prime years. He, Rickard and Kearns all had legal problems at the time, but Dempsey also spent a lot of time farting about on Vaudeville tours wife his wife and suchlike. So I'm maybe not the most balanced on this subject!

Hence the bollockings I've received from Rodney over the years as he's mentioned, and Windy back in the day, too!

To be fair, Dempsey was unlucky in that rematch, after dropping Tunney in the seventh. He picked up the count at eight but those few seconds extra may have changed history. Reminds me of Tyson, completely under trained after shagging his way around Tokyo, almost putting Douglas away. Had Buster stayed down a second or two longer, Tyson's greatness would have been rubber stamped.

Dempsey didn't look a patch on what he'd been against Tunney. Granted, that was down to him and his lifestyle, but still.

AdamT wrote:I might be an asset with a silent et.

The forum is full of Bert Sugar wannabes.

The problem some of you guys have, is you need historians to tell you who is great and walk you by the hand.

I clown about, but thankfully I believe in the evidence of my own eyes. Leave the history books down and make your own minds up.

And if there's no (or limited) footage? Just forget about that lot? Greb, Robinson at his peak, Burley, Gans, Langford etc.? And even if there is footage, if you've hardly watched any, just write them off, too?

I guess folk should forget about George Best when rating great footy players, seeing as there's barely any film of him at his peak?

marciano is too high in the list but have no complaints about him being in top ten. if we apply the rules of ranking him to other fighters there are plenty who would fall down. take wlad for instance (someone who would get in or around most peoples top 15). marciano was fighting light heavies who werent that different in height to himself. wlad off the top of my head has fought two people similar size to himself one of which he lost. the rest he's had a fairly massive size advantage that the likes of frazier, marciano, dempsey could only dream off. much bigger advantage than a small heavyweight fighting a light heavyweight.

anywhere around 8 upwards you can pick anyones record to pieces (tyson for a easy example), but small opponents or not you cant argue about being undefeated

compelling and rich wrote:marciano is too high in the list but have no complaints about him being in top ten. if we apply the rules of ranking him to other fighters there are plenty who would fall down. take wlad for instance (someone who would get in or around most peoples top 15). marciano was fighting light heavies who werent that different in height to himself. wlad off the top of my head has fought two people similar size to himself one of which he lost. the rest he's had a fairly massive size advantage that the likes of frazier, marciano, dempsey could only dream off. much bigger advantage than a small heavyweight fighting a light heavyweight.

anywhere around 8 upwards you can pick anyones record to pieces (tyson for a easy example), but small opponents or not you cant argue about being undefeated

Marciano was such a great champion for his time. Klitschko wasn't ever a great champion in his own time - he was unbelievably consistent and developed a hell of a difficult style to deal with (for anyone smaller than him) but never great.

hazharrison wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:marciano is too high in the list but have no complaints about him being in top ten. if we apply the rules of ranking him to other fighters there are plenty who would fall down. take wlad for instance (someone who would get in or around most peoples top 15). marciano was fighting light heavies who werent that different in height to himself. wlad off the top of my head has fought two people similar size to himself one of which he lost. the rest he's had a fairly massive size advantage that the likes of frazier, marciano, dempsey could only dream off. much bigger advantage than a small heavyweight fighting a light heavyweight.

anywhere around 8 upwards you can pick anyones record to pieces (tyson for a easy example), but small opponents or not you cant argue about being undefeated

Marciano was such a great champion for his time. Klitschko wasn't ever a great champion in his own time - he was unbelievably consistent and developed a hell of a difficult style to deal with (for anyone smaller than him) but never great.

where do you rank wlad then haz?

compelling and rich wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:marciano is too high in the list but have no complaints about him being in top ten. if we apply the rules of ranking him to other fighters there are plenty who would fall down. take wlad for instance (someone who would get in or around most peoples top 15). marciano was fighting light heavies who werent that different in height to himself. wlad off the top of my head has fought two people similar size to himself one of which he lost. the rest he's had a fairly massive size advantage that the likes of frazier, marciano, dempsey could only dream off. much bigger advantage than a small heavyweight fighting a light heavyweight.

anywhere around 8 upwards you can pick anyones record to pieces (tyson for a easy example), but small opponents or not you cant argue about being undefeated

Marciano was such a great champion for his time. Klitschko wasn't ever a great champion in his own time - he was unbelievably consistent and developed a hell of a difficult style to deal with (for anyone smaller than him) but never great.

where do you rank wlad then haz?

He has to scrape top twenty based on his championship record. He was utterly dominant for a few years. I'd pick any number of heavyweights to have knocked him out in mythical head to heads, but they don't carry much water in these types of lists.

I just couldn't rank him over someone like Joe Walcott - though maybe that's unfair considering their respective title reigns.

Wlad is quite clearly above Walcott, struggling against smaller men makes you a great champion but dominating for ten years doesn't. Go figure.

I'm not sure Hammer. Walcott was an atg.

Wlad has only dominated for a decade against Bigger stronger men. I pick Walcott!!

Walcott was no ATG, he was woefully inconsistent and had a purple patch at the end his career. Haz will say how he split a series with Charles and lost to Louis, as if that's enough.

Haz only rates those he likes. He changes the goal posts when it suits him.

If Wlad is struggling to make top 20 because of rubbish opponents, then someone like GGG will never be a top 20 mw.

Haz quit the double standards. Can't have your cake and eat it. If Wlad is rubbish and barely top 20 fine. Then so is other boxers that rule sh1t division's for a decade.

Joe Louis (great fighter) fought loads of bums too and was sparked early in his career. If he's number 2 (rightly so), then Wlad is well above Walcott types.

Lol at the chuckle brothers getting het up over my picks. I've already explained I'm a bit torn with it but the bottom line is, I rate Walcott as a way better fighter than Wlad. Wlad dominated the poorest heavyweight era in history (in my humble opinion) yet his performances were often turgid and borderline embarrassing at times (my abiding memory is Steward pleading with him to stop being a big wuss and start hitting that little guy who trained with the Furys). A great fighter should have been knocking the chuff he was fighting out of the park.

AT/Truss often accuses me of only rating fighters I like - which is laughable (anyone I rate I get accused of "liking" and that's a pretty ridiculous argument to be having). I've never known anyone take my criticism of Floyd so badly. It infects every single thread (bizarre when I don't know anything).

Walcott beat Charles, arguably beat Louis and gave Marciano hell. He had the misfortune of operating at the same time as two legendary champions. Wlad's best win is David Haye. He had the great fortune of operating in a turgid era rife with PED use and resembles a man half his age (with bigger muscles than Stallone). He had his ar5e handed to him by Corrie Sanders, Lamon Brewster and Tyson Fury.

Maybe you do have to rate Wlad slightly higher based on longevity (Walcott lost plenty of fights and was as erratic as hell) but it's up for debate. It's certainly not the open and shut case some on here are wringing their panties out in support of, though.

Walcott also lost to a lot of rubbish but ignore that Haz because that wouldn't suit your argument. I can't imagine Wlad would get anywhere near the credit Marciano and Walcott get for beating men who started at Middleweight. 

It is an open and shut case, there is absolutely no debate of Walcott being above Wlad. I don't see how you can even begin to defend your comments, everything is from one angle.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Walcott also lost to a lot of rubbish but ignore that Haz because that wouldn't suit your argument. I can't imagine Wlad would get anywhere near the credit Marciano and Walcott get for beating men who started at Middleweight. 

It is an open and shut case, there is absolutely no debate of Walcott being above Wlad. I don't see how you can even begin to defend your comments, everything is from one angle.

I've already stated Walcott was erratic and lost plenty. Try reading posts before smearing them with your haughty indignation. Walcott has better wins/performances than Wlad. Klitschko hugged and mugged his way to more wins over Tony Thompson types.

You claim Tyson Fury is an abysmal fighter. He embarrassed Klitschko.

Rarely are any of the arguments that feature on here open and shut - boxing is too subjective. Soiling your tena lady everytime someone has an opposing opinion is ludicrous (it wouldn't be as bad if you ever had any substance to your arguments, rather than merely being outraged at everyone else's views).

I'll class that as a win for me then Haz seeing as how your toys are well and truly out the pram, not sure if you think making sexist comments strengthens your views.

My soiled tena lady contains more substance than your posts .