Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

This is what Mike Tyson reportedly said about his legacy in an interview with a 14 year old:

"I don't believe in the word 'legacy.' I think that's another word for ego. Legacy doesn't mean nothing. That's just some word everybody grabbed on to. Someone said that word and everyone grabbed on to that word, now it's used every five seconds.

It means absolutely nothing to me. I'm just passing through. I'm gonna die and it's gonna be over. Who cares about legacy after that?

So I'm gonna die. I want people to think that I'm this, I'm great? No, we're nothing. We're just dead. We're dust. We're absolutely nothing. Our legacy is nothing."

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, BruceyB said:

2. Cael didn't beat anyone who went on to win a National title?

He beat Hahn in a one point match one of his years.  He also beat Brad Vering & Mark Munoz

Edited by PortaJohn
  • Fire 1

I Don't Agree With What I Posted

Posted

at NCAA tournament, I found 2 wins by Cael over future champs. In 1999 semi-final at 184, he pinned Brad Vering in 1:59. Vering won it 197 the next season. In 2000 quarter final, he won 20-5 over Rob Rohn. Rohn won it at 184 in 2002. 

  • Bob 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, 11986 said:

fwiw Demeray dropped back to 150 in 1992 and won NCAA tournament while Smith was winning his 3rd title at 158. That year Smith beat Ray Miller in the finals, Miller would win title next season at 167. Smith also beat eventual 3x champ Joe Williams his senior year (1994) by TF in the dual (Joe was a freshman).  

I think people tend to forget how good Pat Smith was, despite his 4 NCAA titles, because he never made the national team at the Sr level. Plus that was 30 years ago, how many people under the age of 40 can claim to have watched Pat?

Posted
10 minutes ago, peanut said:

This is what Mike Tyson reportedly said about his legacy in an interview with a 14 year old:

"I don't believe in the word 'legacy.' I think that's another word for ego. Legacy doesn't mean nothing. That's just some word everybody grabbed on to. Someone said that word and everyone grabbed on to that word, now it's used every five seconds.

It means absolutely nothing to me. I'm just passing through. I'm gonna die and it's gonna be over. Who cares about legacy after that?

So I'm gonna die. I want people to think that I'm this, I'm great? No, we're nothing. We're just dead. We're dust. We're absolutely nothing. Our legacy is nothing."

Tyson isn't known for his towering intellect. 

  • Bob 1
Posted
1 hour ago, peanut said:

This is what Mike Tyson reportedly said about his legacy in an interview with a 14 year old:

"I don't believe in the word 'legacy.' I think that's another word for ego. Legacy doesn't mean nothing. That's just some word everybody grabbed on to. Someone said that word and everyone grabbed on to that word, now it's used every five seconds.

It means absolutely nothing to me. I'm just passing through. I'm gonna die and it's gonna be over. Who cares about legacy after that?

So I'm gonna die. I want people to think that I'm this, I'm great? No, we're nothing. We're just dead. We're dust. We're absolutely nothing. Our legacy is nothing."

He said that because he knew he just sold his legacy for a freak show exhibition. 

  • Bob 1
Posted

Some of us older folks remember Cael & his career well.

He never missed a match. He beat everyone for his four full seasons as the Starter for ISU.

After three seasons undefeated we were hearing "let him come up to 197 - he'll gt his azz handed to him" - so he went up & still won it all. 184 saw guys going up or down to avoid him - part of why he went up.

Hahn match at 184 was close manly because Hahn slowed it down big time - mainly stalling & hoping for a last minute takedown. Didn't work.

As for a 5 timer? It is a fluke of the rules. If Starocci makes it, good for him, he earned it. If he doesn't it takes nothing away from his 4 titles and will be fodder for discussion for decades to come.

Hope he does it, good for the sport.

” Never attribute to inspiration that which can be adequately explained by delusion”.

Posted
4 hours ago, 666 said:

Found it. 

 

Interesting to go back and watch this.  Pat seemed unconcerned that his opponent might get to his ankle or that he might get taken down.  He had so many options he was just looking to see which one opened up.  

.

Posted
16 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

We're all misfits here...

... except for that group of dummies 🤓 in the back ... 🙅‍♀️

.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...