Iron MikeyJ

I have that "old school" (well 80's old school, lol) mentality when it comes to boxing. You gotta come in, clear out the division, and get all the belts. Being the UNDISPUTED Champion means WAY MORE than being WBC champion. You gotta go out there and take them all. After you've had all the belts, if you want to drop one (for some reason), then whatever, but you gotta get them first. So having said that, we have not had a TRUE UNDISPUTED Heavyweight Champion since Lennox Lewis retired. We've had a bunch of guys pass around the 3 or now 4 belts. Tyson Fury is one win against AJ away from changing that.

Thats why I have a hard time rating the Klitchkos. They were both really good fighters that would of been hard to deal with in any era. But neither of them actually reigned as UNDISPUTED, they always allowed others to have belts, including each other. So when people talk title defenses, lineal champ, or anything "historical" context matters. You can not give me ANY proof that Wlads title defenses are anywhere near as impressive as Joe Louis. Back when there were less divisions and one champion per division.

I heard Mayweather run his mouth about having beat more "champions" than any fighter in history. Of course you did, you fought at how many weigh classes with 4 titles per weight class. But that makes you better than Sugar Ray Robinson? Muhammad Ali? Get outta here with your alphabet nonsense. 

Us boxing fans gotta hold them accountable Len. Or they will use crap like that to spin history int their favor. Mayweather also called the "philly shell" the "Mayweather shell" because he said "I perfected it, it's not the Philly Shell anymore, it's the Mayweather Shell. I own it now."

18 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Everyone fights ‘easy’ fights early on, you only think they’re easy cuz you’re a fan, developing fighters don’t find them easy, Tyson didn’t fight ‘tomato cans’ as everyone says just as Wilder didn’t fight all bums, Eric Molina is not a bad fighter, Gerard Washington is not a bad fighter, Bermane Stiverne is not a bad fighter, Dominic Brazeale is not a bad fighter, Luis Ortiz is not at all a bad fighter, its a weakened division but a man can only fight who is around.  Even the great Joe Louis, a man who, in my book is second only to Ali, had a lot of ‘soft’ opponents on his record but thats only cuz he cleared out the division.

Problem these days is we think in extremes.  Wilder is neither a total bum nor a fearsome hard punching heavyweight of the kind I would call someone like Mike Tyson, Wilder is what he is, a man with world class skills but world class flaws to go with them.  
 

Also, AJ is easily a true champ, he’s fought better men is a shorter time than both Wilder and Fury.

By "tomato cans" I mean what the boxing critics would say, but I agree with you. 

I agree with what you said about "you can only fight who's there at that time" which is absolutely true. I don't hold opponents of an era against anyone, but when you compare eras (like Wilder did with Mike), that's when you call a spade a spade. At this point in their careers (Mike and Wilder), Tyson fought better opponents and took them out in far greater fashion, as well captured ALL the belts, it's just some BS for Wilder to talk like that. If George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Evander Holyfield, or Lennox Lewis want to compare resumes with Mike's then they have a point. But Deontay Wilder? No, not having it. 

As for AJ... Let's see how it all pans out. He's the unknown for me at this point. As we sit here today, he's Frank Bruno for me. If I put Fran Bruno in AJ's place, does much change? If I put AJ back in Bruno's place, does much change? I don't think it does. Which isn't a knock, I like Frank. He just came up in a really tough era, he'd be at the top in this era imo.

As for AJs record, the Klitchko win was HUGE, yes. But Fury already beat him. Fury ended the Klitchko era, not AJ. In the last 10 years the 4 best fighters have been Fury, AJ, Wilder, and Klitchko (not in that order, but those guys). Fury beat 2 of them, while they were still on top. Plus AJ DID lose to Ruiz. Having said that, his resume is solid, yes. But he's still just an alphabet champ at this point man.

The thing about Wilder for me is I did really like him for a while. His rise to the top was similar to Mike's, they both fought tomato cans for the first 20 or so fights, just build up their records. They both are big punchers as well, so I was watching him. Having said that, I was never a fan of his "style" (if that's what you can call it). He fights like a poor man's Lennox Lewis (without the technical skills or strategy), which I was not a fan of, but whatever. I was also not a fan of his ring walks (Roy Jones started that crap, but whatever), costumes, or calling himself the "bronze bomber". But I could over look those things for the sake of the sport of boxing. I even "rooted" for him in the first Fury fight and felt the draw was justified. I believe you have to take the championship, not look for a win on points. You gotta take it to the champ to beat them. 

Where he lost me was first in the Fury rematch. He straight got punked, no other word for it. Then the excuses... The final straw was when he started running his mouth about Mike. He said crap like "I punch harder than Mike", "I beat better fighters than Mike", etc. Which is such garbage coming from an alphabet champion. I don't consider him or Joshua true champions yet, Fury yes but those two no. Back in the day, fighters wanted to be UNDISPUTED Champion. Now they are happy with a "piece" of the title. I blame Mayweather for this, and the Klitchkos.

2 hours ago, moreblack said:

Although if you watch the way Wilder talks on his social media, he's almost sure he was winning 
Or that he only lost because:

• they poisoned his water
• heavy costume
• Fury's illegal gloves

His ego is shaken right now. That's why it's insane that he wants to fight Fury again. Fury will end his career (essentially imo). He will most likely box again, even after another Fury loss, but Fury provided the blue print to beat him. What heavyweights out there can do to him what Fury did is another question. But Wilder being even considered an all time heavyweight is academic imo, that ship has sailed. Unless he pulls off the incredible, but he doesn't have that Fury/Ali/Holyfield mentality to do it.

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Maybe my memory is dodgy but the peek-a-boo style was far more evident in the exhibition than it was at the tail end of Tyson's proper career, v Lewis etc., when I seem to recall it virtually disappearing. 

It VERY much was. Tyson got away from that style after Rooney left. He still used it from time to time, but he became more of a brawler, a head hunter just looking to land the big shot. He wasted his prime years just looking to land one big shot, instead of the combinations, head movement, body shots that set up the big shots earlier in his career. The first Bruno fight was the first fight without Rooney, and Tyson got hit WAY more in that fight than his previous 2 or 3 fights combined. He just went out there and tried to overwhelm his opponents with his power. Which it worked more often than not, sure. But it's also why he lost to Douglas, then Holyfield, and eventually to Lewis. That's why I say the REAL Mike Tyson never lost. The real Tyson was a master of the peak a boo style, threw combinations with deadly intentions, chopped down bigger fighters by going to the body, and had elusive head movement. 

2 hours ago, spunko12345 said:

I can't believe that you are a fan of Tyson if you'd want to see him to fight Wilder. At least not in the sense that you wouldn't like to see him get seriously hurt.

Wilder telegraph's his punches. I honestly don't believe he has the technical ability to be in there with Mike. IMO he wouldn't of been able to even crack the top 10 back in the 90s. Forget Tyson, Holyfield, or Lewis; Wilder wasn't beating Tommy Morrison, Frank Bruno, Razor Ruddock, Riddick Bowe, Foreman or even Holmes. 

Honestly Fury is the only one that would of been trouble in the 70s, 80's, 90's, etc. Joshua I believe would of been a really solid fighter in any era as well, but I can't see him beating some of those guys I mentioned either, but I think he would have fared better than Wilder. 

So even in his advanced age, I just don't think he has the actual boxing skill to beat Mike. I'm not going to say Mike would just run him over (he would have in 88, but not now). I also don't feel that Tyson would beat him 10/10 times currently either. But I would give Mike the 6/10 odds advantage over him. 

Think about it like this, look what Fury did to him. Went in there, out boxed him and took the fight to Wilder. He couldn't handle the pressure. That's Mike's #1 ability, applying pressure. Mike would destroy his skinny mid section with those body shots. Wilder HAS to land the big right hand, that's all he has. 

Honestly if you are Wilder (or his people), you don't want ANY part of Mike (unless you just want a pay day). Styles make fights, and Mike Tyson is a HORRIBLE style for Wilder, if you want Wilder to flourish. Joshua is a FAR better matchup for him. If I'm Wilder THATS the fight I want, not Fury, not Mike. Fury will lay him out again and his career will be pretty much over. Same goes for if he fights Mike. If Mike kos him, or even beats him on points, it's a BAD look for Wilder. Even if he beats Mike, he beat an old, past prime Mike. No HUGE win, not anymore. He doesn't have anything to really gain (other than money), for even thinking about fighting Mike. Having said that, with all the crap he's talked about Mike, it wouldn't shock me if he is dumb enough to WANT to fight him. 

Honestly just watch the two of them train. Wilder literally does NOTHING as good as Mike can, even at 54 years old. Age is literally his ONLY advantage. The big bad power puncher got BEAT UP by a guy (Fury) that's NEVER been known as a power puncher. That's SERIOUSLY telling about his boxing skills.

The ONLY other times that top, serious heavyweight champions got punked like Wilder did was when Joe Frazier got beat down by George Foreman (but it was freaking Foreman), when Lennox Lewis got rocked by Rahman (but Lewis got revenge, Lennox got punked twice in his career but avenged both losses), and when Patterson got punked by Liston in their rematch (but again it was Sonny Liston.) My point being, it's not just the fact that Fury won. It's not even that Fury koed him, it's HOW Fury Koed him. He done BURIED that boy. Wilder's career is hanging in the balance right now. If he fights Fury again, and loses badly again, he's no longer considered elite (not while Fury is still in the picture). Which again, Fury is NOT a power puncher, so that makes it even worse. 

Every fighter that's ever stepped into the ring with Mike has done the clinch and dance routine, it's not shocking (or it shouldn't be), that Roy did that as well. Even if they fought in their prime, Roy would of had the same game plan. 

Guys HAVE  to fight that way with Mike. Even if Ali and Mike fought in their primes, Ali would have been holding him half the fight as well. The distance that Mike is MOST comfortable with, is the distance that 75% or higher of fighters are UNCOMFORTABLE fighting at, that's always been part of his allure. His inside fighting skills are literally second to none, and I mean NONE. 

Most fighters (especially more modern fighters), like fighting on the outside. When Mike bobs and weaves into that "uncomfortable zone" his opponents have ALWAYS looked to grab and hold him. What else can they do? Trade with him? That always seemed to work out well...

5 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

So basically...it was awful?   Y’know Tyson tried to do this before, just after he retired, this little tour of exhibitions, of which the Sanders match that I previously mentioned was once, it fell apart quickly due to a lack of interest...and that was like 15 odd years ago.  Cut to present day and people and laying out PPV money for that shit.  And they say species evolve over time. 

Oh come on Len, have you actually watched it? It was pretty good. Mike looked better last night (at 54) than anytime he's looked since the first Holyfield fight imo. He just wasn't into boxing after the bite fight, he didn't train well, etc. His heart just wasn't into it anymore. It's a shame, because if he had THIS mentality back in 95, he beats Holyfield and Lewis imo. Having said that, you can't change the past, so it is what it is. It's just good to see him out there enjoying boxing again (possibly the first time since he beat Spinks honestly). 

You might say I'm crazy, but I'd go so far as to say this "fight" was one of the best heavyweight bouts of the last 10 years. It's not better than Fury vs Wilder 1 or 2, Fury vs Klitschko, Joshua vs Ruiz 1 and Joshua vs Klitschko. Beyond those fights, it's better than any other heavyweight bout you can name, and that includes Joshua vs Ruiz 2 imo. 

My biggest takeaway from last night is Mike is still Mike. He is a dangerous fighter for anyone STILL. AM I saying I think he would beat Fury at 54 years old? No. Nor do I think he would beat Joshua (unless he lands a big shot). But I DO think he could hang with them. Do I want to see him fight them? No. I've already seen Mike lose when past his prime, so I'm not interested to in watching more of that. 

What about Wilder? That's the ONLY current fighter I would get excited about. Fury and Joshua are too big for Mike at 54. They will hold him, and put their weight on him to wear him out, then win in the later rounds. Wilder on the other hand isn't "bigger" than Mike. Taller yes, but not heavier. Plus when you add the fact that Wilder isn't a great boxer, bad footwork, etc. I DO think Mike could take him, right now. Plus Wilder is stupid enough to want to fight him. 

Last night, Mike went to the body all night long (probably because it was a lower knockout possiblity than going for the head). But by doing that, he did two things. Firstly, he became WAY too much of a head hunter post prison (arguably after Rooney left). It was his secret weapon in his early career, he chopped down big guys by going to the body. Somebody like Wilder, Mike would hurt his body like he's never known. Secondly, Mike was the fresher man throughout the fight. Which isn't something ANYONE expected. Mike went 8, 2 minute rounds EASILY. How would he do in 3 minute rounds, of a 12 round fight, thats yet to be seen. But if I'm honest, I don't think Wilder would last into the late rounds against him.

I'm just calling things like I see them, yes I am a bias Tyson fan. But I've always been honest about his career. Having said that, I HONESTLY believe Mike could KO Wilder right now, today. Wilder's style is kinda like Lennox Lewis style, but without the brains, footwork, or technical ability. Lennox was prepared on how to deal with Mike's ferocity. I don't believe Wilder has the skills to handle Mike's pressure. Obviously, Wilder could land his big right hand, but that's ALL he has. Mike would attack his ribs, slow him down, tire hims out, then when Wilder lowers his hands, land the big shot. I feel VERY strongly that Mike would take him out. Honestly, I would LOVE to see Wilder pick up a belt, fight Mike, and have Mike be the youngest nd oldest heavyweight champ. That would be a perfect ending to his career.

Having said all of that, I don't see Mike doing anything other than these exhibitions. Which are fun, and a good show imo.

BTW, last night was NOTHING like those exhibitions he did in the 2000s. I agree those where awful. Those were just sparring sessions. Last night was MUCH better than those.

18 minutes ago, James Bond said:

Which is fair enough, but that wasn't mine either. Just that once Sony gave us their go at analog sticks the industry standard was born.

Yes and no. I would say the N64 was more important than the dual shock for the transition from the d pad to analogue sticks. 

Having said that, I understand your point. The N64 controller was hot garbage, so the dual shock DID create the blue print that they all followed. 

Having said that, the 2nd OG Xbox controller (not the Duke), deserves MORE credit than it gets. It corrected the biggest problem with the dual shock (putting the analogue stick down low and d pad up high). It's a better configuration (feels better imo), with the d pad low and stick high. Anyways, I believe the OG Xbox controller (or the gamecube controller, whichever came first). Is the REAL hero in the controller debate. 

Let's not forget about the Dreamcast controller either.

22 minutes ago, James Bond said:

The original DualShock is literally the current button configuration/layout as all current controllers across the platforms. Admittedly it took Sony forever to finally get the proportions right but nevertheless they took the idea and refined it to give us what we know now across all platforms.

It wasn't the first though, that's my point.

I haven't read through all the comments, but as for controller talk, the Sega Saturn gave the world the analogue stick BEFORE nintendo and Sony. 

This is the controller that launched the modern controller, not the dual shock or N64.

https://video-games.fandom.com/wiki/Sega_Saturn_3D_Controller

3 hours ago, RussTCB said:

Ah, gotcha. Still though, an actually pinball machine is farrrrrr more expensive than these. 

Oh, for sure. What is it $6000 for the gnr pinball machines?

18 hours ago, RussTCB said:

Huh? Pinball games are far more expensive than $750. Also, neither AtGames nor Arcade1Up are $750

I said the ATgames machine is $600, but if you change the artwork, that's another $150. So that's where the $750 came from. Arcade1up is $550 right now, but I have a feeling it's going to come down to $499 to better undercut the ATgames table.

8 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

 

Am I Talking To The Champagne is my favourite too, it kinda sounds like the Stones meets Fleetwood Mac with the Struts adding their spin to it.

Everybody Wants was a lot better than Young & Dangerous but we'll see how this album ages... I might end up liking Strange Days better than Everybody Wants.

Strange Days rocks more, than their previous two, I really appreciate that. But at the end of the day, it's all about the songs. Kiss this is STILL my favorite song by them, and Could have been me and put your money on me are also solid tracks. But to be honest, I like all 3 of their albums. Young and Dangerous is pretty solid as well. Body Talks and Somebody new are REALLY good songs on that album. The rest of Young and Dangerous is pretty poppy though. 

So far I like all of their albums.

I don't think he sounds like Freddie all that much, I honestly get more of a Mick Jagger/Steven Tyler vibe.

I'll say this though, Luke Spiller is the best frontman of the last 20 years.

@Gordon Comstock,

Yes I have heard it. Am I talking to the champagne is my favorite one. Overall, I like the sound of this album better than the previous two (more raw, less produced). Having said that, Everybody Wants is their best album so far imo.

@RussTCB,

I've been watching the Atgames pinball as well, and I agree that it looks like the better deal. I'm going to wait until I have all the information before I decide, but right now Arcade 1up is what I'll probably get. 

The biggest factor for me is space, my room isn't huge, and I have to maximize every square inch. So while the ATgames table looks better specs wise, me finding room for it is an issue. I feel more confident that I can squeeze the smaller Arcade1up table in somewhere. 

My 2nd issue is artwork. While it might not mean much to some, the ATgames table looks ugly imo. What we've seen from Arcade1up just looks far more appealing to the eye for me. Sure you can spend $600 on the ATgames, and another $150 on your own artwork. But now your $750 invested... Ouch.

I don't have much interest in either the Star Wars or Marvel tables (though if I had to pick, I'd pick the marvel one). I've heard that Arcade1up had 10 different tables that might get released. I've heard rumors about a Universal Studios table (jurassic park, back to the future, Jaws and ET). That one appeals to me the most, if it gets released. 

Having said all of this. If space or money are not an issue, the ATgames table is better. Just like the ATgames legends cab is better than any one Arcade1up. Not better than modded arcade1ups though. I wouldn't trade my modded SF for the Legends cab, no way. 

I WISH a virtual gnr pinball would get released, I'd be all over that.

1 minute ago, BigVanVader said:

IIRC, it's the Use Your Illusion album version minus the phone call.

Is from that Target Use Your Illusions that was a mix of one and two? I never considered buying that nor I have ever listened to it. This 98 remix is news to me. I have the Days of Thunder soundtrack and CAN here a difference between that version and the studio version. I believe they are different studio takes all together. 

I like the Struts, one of my favorite "new" bands. My other favorite newer band is Tyler Bryant and the Shakedown.

I think many of you underestimate HOW popular gnr truly is, especially with casual fans. Just recently I have read two articles that establish this point. 

In this article, it discussed the most streamed songs by rock/metal acts on spotify. Guns n Roses streaming numbers are HUGE. What makes this even more important, this is YOUNGER people listening on spotify. 

https://loudwire.com/most-streamed-spotify-songs-rock-metal/

This next article is impressive because ALL of guns studio albums are listed. Not only that, but again some HUGE album sales numbers. Especially when you compare to their contemporaries.

https://loudwire.com/rock-metal-artists-five-more-platinum-albums/

My point is, Guns n Roses are STILL extremely popular. Even despite all the nonsense. 

1 hour ago, RussTCB said:

Very nice @Iron MikeyJ. I'm still on the 4 cabs and I really don't think I'll get more. A nice looking (and playing) Tron cab from A1U would be an instant buy for me, but I'm really not sure if there's anything else I'd make room for. The records and sound equipment take up so much room that I kinda have to choose going forward. The choice is always going to be music though, so I have to save the most room for audio related stuff.

I have my records and player in this room as well, you just can't see them well in the pics here. My collection is no where near yours. I probably have 200 or so records. I enjoy collecting them, for sure. I'm a bit of a multi collector kinda person, meaning I collect a TON of different things, but maybe not a TON of one or two things. 

As for Arcade1up, I'm watching what they are doing with pinball. That's what I want next, a sweet virtual pinball machine.

I've always found ADKOT to be an interesting album in the VH catalogue. Eddie is REALLY on, which is always great to hear. Having said that, I don't hear the creativity in Eddie or the band that is on every other album. VH 3 has creativity to the moon and back (too much, hurt the album). I have always felt and believed that VH 3 was Eddie's swan song creatively. After that album bombed, Eddie got sick, and that was TRULY the end of VH. 

ADKOT is a reunion album, where it just FEELS like Eddie is just happy to be along for the ride, not driving the band. At least NO WHERE near how he drove the band in years past. That's why most of the songs are reworked old things, Eddie wasn't into it creatively nearly as much. 

Having said that, his actual guitar playing is phenomenal. It's just the only album where Eddie does "feel" more like the "guitar player," and not the musical genius.

The songs are really heavy though, and that probably appeals to a lot of people. I still enjoy the album, and LOVE She's the woman and Blood and fire. For me, I would take Right Now and Pound cake over anything on ADKOT. So that's why I put FUCK higher, even though I feel that album has some issues as well.

1 hour ago, James Bond said:

For me the debut loses points for two covers (as much as I love both), and while I would never dare to slight the impact Eruption had on me (and the rest of the world) I enjoy listening to Spanish Fly just a little bit more. So I basically consider VH II to be a slightly more refined version of the debut, plus it has Women In Love.

Spanish Fly IS more impressive than eruption imo

1 hour ago, James Bond said:

Am I only person who thinks VH II > VH?

No, I've heard it often enough (by people). I have a hard time placing VH2. Beautiful Girls and Light up the sky are my JAMS. Those 2 songs ALWAYS end up on my VH playlists. You're no good (even though it's a good cover), kinda starts the album out with a bit of a let down for me. It's also not one of VH's strongest covers. The rest of the album is killer though. I STILL put it ahead of 5150, and I really LOVE that album. 

As for Dave albums though, it's easily better than ADKOT and Diver Down. I'm not a HUGE Women and Children first fan, but Take Your Whiskey home, Could this be magic (which is criminally under rated), and Everybody Wants some edge out VH 2 for me. My top 3 are set in stone.

While I also enjoy the more mature lyrics of the Sammy era, I can't say he is the better lyricist. Dave has the ability to turn a phrase, the way he puts words together, that I think is criminally under rated. I 100% agree that some of the Sammy songs (right now, not enough, and a few others) are far more advanced (in content), than anything Dave would have ever wrote. Having said that, take Jump and I'll wait for example. Dave's use of perspective and phrasing is incredibly strong. While I'm not saying they are some profound lyrical insights, they are extremely unique. Basically, NOBODY writes like Dave. Don't get me wrong, Dave has some serious non sense going on lyrically in some songs, but he also really turned some instantly memorable phrases "might as well jump, go a head and jump," "did you see juniors grades," etc. I don't think they can be quickly dismissed imo.

As for album rank 

1. VH 1

2. 1984

3. Fair Warning

4. Women and Children First

5. VH 2

6. 5150

7. Balance

8. OU812

9. Diver Down

10. FUCK

11. ADKOT

12. VH3