Which fight was closer Madrimov vs Bud or Usyk vs Briedis

No it is not

I'll tell you what some ''facts'' are

You tucked tail and ran away when I turned the heat up to #2 the last time I slapped you around

You ducked answering all my questions

You're ducking them again

And are claiming you only speak facts to try and distract away from that because you can't counter my points with anything of substance because you know I'm right

You're an alt

And last but not least, it's a fact I'm about to ban your ass, time waster alt

Those are some actual'' facts''

 

Of course we are, because I've spent time on all of the other sites and they're all quite lackluster. There's a reason why this site is still going fairly strong while the rest of them are slowly crumbling. Because we're levels above the rest, mainly due to the intellects and deep resources of information most of the better posters are carrying around with them. There's a few borderline walking encyclopedias on here, myself included. But of course it can't be proved to a biased jackass with an ax to grind like you.

Outside of this forum equals, all of the other inferior boxing sites and Twitter. Like I said, If you disagree that vehemently you're more than welcome to leave or head back to them.

I couldn't care less what most of the press scores are, most of them are knee jerk lemmings, with a pro American bias, who are more than willing to go with the flow. They're certainly not willing to go out on a limb so they can have clowns ridicule them and try to question their credibility. So when the match is really close and hard to score, they play it safe and agree with the herd. The same thing happens all of the time with movie critics. When you have a mainstream reputation on the line, nobody wants to risk their positions. So they get in line and be the good little company men that they are. You speak in bull****, I speak as someone who's probably scored more matches this year than you've seen. I value my judgement, Serge's judgement and IntentionalButt's judgement over some race obsessed dickhead like you.

 

Once again, I accept your surrender.

No it isn't it's all 100% relevant and I actually back my arguments up with actual facts and proof, none of which you can counter or can even summon the courage to try to do so

I said he's never fought anyone ''much'' bigger than him and then I proceeded to ask you a bunch of simple questions which would prove me wrong regarding that if I was wrong and once again you ducked answering them and the ''fact'' he hasn't despite moving up 5 divisions (not 6) completely proves my point, genius

You can keep repeating you're ''speaking facts'' over and over again but no one is buying it

You already wasted your time for the 2nd time on me after I embarrassed you the first time you plucked up the courage to come at me under this alt

Go find another forum

 

Kind of like how you post your scorecards in a thinly veiled attempt to push your Crawford agenda. Look, I like you, and I know you think highly of your scoring ability. But I think highly of mine as well, as does IB. Both of us had Madrimov winning as did about half the people on that RBR. Whereas 1 person had Briedis winning. So to even things out a bit.....

 

It's the same gatekeeper usual suspects with Crawford's ballsack lodged in their throats, trying to discredit anyone who speaks truth to groupthink power. But... but... but... Bivol beats Usyk! Go let Frank The Cuban Octogenarian give you Dirty Sanchez.

 

What takes more skill

Losing 12 of your 70 amateur fights whilst fighting at a much lower level despite taking up the sport aged 7

Or losing 15 of 350 whilst fighting at a much higher level for much longer after taking up the sport at 15 y/o and winning Olympic gold, World Amateur gold, European gold?

Which takes more skill fighting opponents you're much or bigger than or roughly your size, maybe occasionally a little bigger, extremely occasionally with a significant weight advantage (no more than 7-8lbs max)

Who you have a huge, big or significant reach advantage or a reach advantage over and never being at a reach disadvantage

Whilst having fought a ton of featherfists and average punchers, and very few KO artists or legit bangers, especially your size


In your backyard or home country for 41 out of 42 fights on a deck stacked in your favour or very occasionally an even one at worst, only x 1 stacked in your opponent's favour

Never taking your belts on the road to defend in your opponent's backyard

Or winning and unifying all your world titles in your opponent's backyards, never having home country advantage in all your world title fights and fights at the world level, vs opponents your size, bigger or often way bigger who hold big or huge physical advantages over you and only a few times being bigger or much bigger than your opponents, whilst said opponents your size, much or way bigger happen to be savage punching KO artists or legit bangers?

It's not rocket science

It's much easier to be ''dominant'' when you're doing the former

And for the umpteenth time, despite all of the aforementioned, I rate Crawford very highly in terms of both skills and accomplishments and have for a long time, I enjoy watching him fight, and I don't dislike him at all. I just simply do not rate him above Usyk which despite the attempts to browbeat those of us who do not into submission is a perfectly valid opinion to hold.