Nathan Cleverly is so clued up! He WILL unify the LHW division.

if as you claim, its my norm to post about calzaghe and wlad exclusively, then how is me mentioning calzaghe just once on this thread and not all the time, classed as 'some change that's happened to me'?
the change surely is that I have mentioned joe just once!

-why are you trying to claim something false?

 

this is an old Thread that Herol bumped. from the posts you see from him daily and his severe sick obsession to go out and find these old Threads just to **** on Cleverly, only goes to show his true feelings that are purely racist.

you're sick in the head. you seriously need professional help. freak!

 

No, not because he lost to Kovalev...

But because he only ever held one win; his close domestic war with Bellew.

Kovalev is among the top 3 at the weight with Adonis and Hopkins.

Who knows what would have happened, but I certainly would have given Hopkins an 80% chance of victory had they fought a couple years ago.

Bernard has picked his competition with a calculated mind... Hmm... Not nearly as calculated as Cleverly's career and title run. I would probably pick Shumenov to beat Cleverly.

He's not a bad fighter. He was a top 10 guy, but a very unproven and unworthy titlist.

 

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?p=16280568&highlight=sister#post16280568




You're not takin' your meds, are you Herol ?

I know you don't like the side-effects....

I've heard that a lot of patients on those pills can't get a hard-on, but it's just for a year or two.

Just till you to get cured, lad.

Yer 'ealth comes first.

You don't want to be an obsessive, ranting, raving fu ck-wit your whole life now, do you ? :yep

 

At least Cleverly had the gonads to take on the Krusher, unlike linear LHW Champion Superman who fled for his life to a rival network in the most shameful of ducks in recent memory.

Clev will do well at CW once he settles into the weight.

Kovalev knocks out everybody at LHW including Hopkins.

 

From earlier in this thread:

And now:

Nice to see that insight and good sense have caught up with you.


You can change !




In time, I expect you'll sing the praises of Wladimir.



And there's no fanatic like a new convert; I hope you don't end up in full Klittard mode.

 

Kovalev proved himself and showed more layers since i posted that.

 

you're forgetting Murat. he was a good win for Nathan. he took his 0.

Hopkins and Adonis want nothing to do with Kov, so he's not able to show for a fact that he's the number 1. it's fear that stops them from getting in there with the Russian.

Hopkins had actually agreed to fight Nathan, and in the UK. but this was when he hadn't even seen him fight. but when Nathan fought in the states on an undercard, Hopkins had a good look at him and decided otherwise.

Nath wanted Shuminov in a unification, but he wouldn't come to the UK to do it. that's the only place the fight made sense because Shuminov wasn't even known in the states for it to make any sort of business sense.

so who else was there to fight?

the only fighter to agree to face Cleverly, was Kovalev. and vice a versa.

had it been Hopkins that night, Cleverly would have beat him down hard. Bernard finds it hard to deal with that style at the best of times. at the age he was when the fight was being talked about, it would have ended brutally for Bernard. and there isn't one single doubt in my head. when you know you're on a dead cert, it's a done deal for me.

as i've already pointed out, Cleverly wanted the best. he fought the best. there was no calculated mind at work.

Hopkins however, was only too pleased to see the two guys he wanted nothing to do with, fight each other. that way, he only had to duck one. the other, he just says that he's lost so it means nothing. that would be a perfect excuse.

 

you've quoted the wrong thread entirely.
utter irrelevance.

 

50something Hopkins beats prime clev.

clev is not terrible, but man hes nothing like good.

 

No Herol, I quoted exactly what I wanted to quote, to save me some typing.

Here it is, again.... you sad little man.

 

so why did you quote that in this Nathan thread?

no answer.

it is you who is bringing up calzaghe, and remarkably, you are handing us the evidence up on a plate for all to see.

 

Have a look at where it was posted, ****-for-brains.
It was brought up to make a joke out of your claim not to be obsessed with Calzaghe.

In a Nathan thread that someone else has pointed out that you bumped so you could get another dig at Calzaghe.


You're not very bright, are you ?

Have you noticed ?

 

no its you making the connection between calzaghe/wassen/nath tricks, and calzaghe on his own.

you can choose to do so, its your prerogative.

but don't pretend others are bringing calzaghe along into this when its you.

 

Like I said, you're not very bright.

Even the obvious escapes you.


But don't worry.

Anyybody (who gives even the smallest of fu cks) can see what is going on. They don't need to take your word for things. :yep