Battle of the jab: Sonny Liston V Vitali Klitschko

Jesus Christ are you autistic?

If you are gonna come to an argument that has 0 relevance to you and act like a teacher reviewing a students work, then you better not make dumb "mistakes" like this if you want to be taken seriously.

Your "constructive criticism" is worthless bull****. First you straight up ignored my arguments on the compubox stats and called my response "bizarre and copium". Then when I pointed out that I did in fact give arguments about the compubox stats, you called it the "biggest L you've seen the entire week", mocked my arguments by bringing up lies- sorry, "mistakes" that weren't even true and then ended it off with a delusional "I was trying to be nice" comment.

Nothing about these comments are "contructive criticism", you are just trying to come off as the nice guy here, when you are really a patronising douchebag who can't even decide if he is giving criticism on my arguments or counter-arguing my claims.

I don't care what tf you think of my argument or what your esteemed views on connect percentage are, the point is you are acting like I ignored Dino's connect percentage argument. I didn't, I gave my argument as to why I didn't care about it. What you think of them is irrelevant.

At this point you could take a boxing class from MarkusFlorez, which says a lot.

It clearly is for you.

 

At 20 votes to 9 this horse has already bolted with Liston the big winner.

 

I don’t remember Vitali having a particularly good jab. He always kept his lead hand very low and used it to feint and bait opponents into attacking so he could lean back and counter.

 

I love Liston here ... Chisora , far more limited , gave Vitali a very tough fight .. Sonny, maybe an inch shorter but infinitely better with a much longer reach would bust Vitali up ... today Sonny would be a rock solid 230 and be all kinds of brutal nightmare ..

 

Ah, yes, because no one is ever allowed to make a single mistake, otherwise they are not qualified to point out the obvious 5 other people noticed.

There is nothing dumber than crashing out for 3 pages in a row simply because someone pointed out a mild mistake in your argument. No one was acting like a teacher correcting a student until you kept becoming increasingly irate and irrational over sincere advice because of pride. It's incredible, no one was being rude initially but you keep escalating while claiming you "don't care".

No, but I'm not the one who doesn't understand what the word "literally" means.

I didn't.

Which was only after you insinuated stats were misleading/irrelevant without actually addressing Dino's simple and straightforward reply. Pointing out the numbers are skewed because of volume/feints doesn't suddenly prove Vitali "outjabbed" Lewis, especially if you want to dig deeper at what that means. Do you mean Lewis feinted to create openings, Vitali, or both? Are you saying some of Vitali's jabs were simply feints that got counted as real jabs? By all means explain.

Do not get defensive acting like you weren't being snarky almost immediately.

You're kind of skimming through the sequence of events, I didn't start off mocking you right out of the gate. I mocked you after you repeatedly refused to address the very simple issue of connect percentages. The posts are all right there lol. Like even now, you are making a mountain out of a mole-hill with all the grace of an angry rhinoceros in a China shop after I admitted I misspoke. You do realize "delusional" people aren't known for admitting mistakes...? I highly suggest you get a dictionary or encyclopedia so you can avoid repeatedly using words that do not apply.

So guess what? Now I am going to mock you even more if you insist on doubling down.
Been away for a while, but I guarantee this section will become lively again.

This content is protected

I wasn't acting like you ignored Dino's percentage argument. I was telling you that ignoring it (your words, not mine) doesn't address the point he was making. Which is why I said it was an "L", if you fail to properly address something a person said in a debate, that's a concession. If your goal is to lose the debate, then by all means act like what he said doesn't matter.

I literally teach boxing and martial arts fundamentals.

There's your favorite word again. Have you figured out what it actually means yet...?

And you clearly think being aggressive and abrasive even when blatantly wrong about the obvious is somehow the manliest way to handle things.

 

Yes, you are not allowed to make a mistake in your argument if your entire argument is about criticizing someone else's. Go fix your own **** arguments before talking about somebody else's, quite simple to understand.

Of course, thats not what you did though. If you act like a patronising ******* with arguments that don't even have any consistency or coherence, this is about the reaction you'll get from anyone.

You're blatantly lying, your kind words of "bizarre" and "copium" came from your first response, you were antagonistic from the start. Just don't be a b***h man, stand by what you actually tried to do, be honest.

I wish I could post that nerd emoji here.

Yes you did. Why do you keep lying? Hear it from yourself below:

You said that my only response was saying "stop reading stats" and that I should first address why the stats are wrong or misleading before waving it off. I pointed out that my paranthesis already explains why I think stats are misleading. Then you started saying Ls and weeks. Hell here's the paranthesis itself, I doubt you actually read it a single time:
"Stop reading stats (which btw are completely misleading as Vitali’s volume and feints naturally decrease his accuracy on compubox)"

Except I didn't, you just lacked the braincells to keep reading until the paranthesis, and from the first reply you were already talking about bizarre and copiums.

I don't have to explain anything to you, this debate was between me and Dino, he can reply if he wants to continue. This is not what "constructive criticism" is, you are not criticising my arguments any longer, you are actively giving your own arguments about my points. Actually debate me on this if thats what you want to do.

I responded to your fake "respectful" tone.

This is from your first reply to me:

And these are the things you said after I told you to read the paranthesis:

Now please explain to me in great detail how calling my argument the "biggest L you've seen all week" and counter-arguing my volume and feints claim is "mere constructive criticism".

Indeed.

I can pick any tone I want against you bro, you are a stranger on the internet, don't reply if it bothers you so much.

Please don't I'm terrified.

Your words are up there in this same reply, I won't enter this back and forth again.

Thanks for your personal input, now go away. You are not a person of authority here, no one has to take your personal opinions serious. Dino can keep this up if he wants to, this argument has nothing to do with you.

My condolences to your poor students.

 

This content is protected

That wasn't my entire argument, but okay Lil bro.

I don't have an argument for this topic, I was just pointing out the elephant in the room.

This was literally my first post:

"Dawg, I am not saying stats are everything or that you're wrong in thinking Vitali wins this fight, but you literally claimed Vitali outjabbed Lewis. Dino then posted stats which seem to indicate Lewis had a better connect rate for jabs compared to Vitali, and your response is "stop reading stats".

That's an incredibly bizarre response and reads like copium. If you think the stats are wrong or misleading, you should address that first before simply waving off stats as a potentially credible metric for deciding whether or not Lewis outjabbed Vitali."

Where in this post was I being "patronizing"...? This was constructive criticism with a friendly opening. I genuinely had no idea you were so goddamn sensitive this would make you crash out. You must not have any friends offline, or at least, none who are allowed to dare question you on anything

I do stand by what I said. Nothing I wrote was "antagonistic". You're the one being a "*****" and crying over perceived insults. The irony. You must not play a lot of online games, huh? My first post was PG-rated banter with some Gen Z/Millennial slang, but I guess I read the room wrong.

So in addition to being sensitive, a crybaby, unable to accept any constructive criticism for minor things, and having a chip on your shoulder believing crashing out is a valid response to someone saying there is a mild hole in your argument...

...you also think if someone points out that you FREQUENTLY use words incorrectly, that means they're a "nerd". No, idiot, it means I was attempting to treat you like an adult and somehow you failed multiple times. We can't ****ing understand what you're saying if you use words incorrectly. This is common sense to most people, but apparently it's a revelation for you. That's your new vocab word for the day, lil bro. Spelling quiz is this Saturday.

I read your entire terrible argument and nitpicked it multiple times in this thread, do you need glasses too? I literally referenced you citing feints and volume in multiple posts. Do you not know what a the ****ing definition of "lying" is either, a 2nd grade level vocabulary word? Like seriously, no one is trying to be pedantic, I am genuinely baffled at how you keep using words like a chimp throwing feces at a wall hoping something sticks.

I never said that was your "only" response. NOW who is being pedantic and obsessing over minute details...? The irony. Did you even read the goddamn words you quoted? Show me where I said that was the "only" thing you wrote.

No one said you aren't allowed to think stats can be misleading. My only point was that the stat in question (Lewis landing at a higher connect percentage) should be addressed if you think Vitali outjabbed Lewis. You don't get to decide that's a meaningless stat or not worth addressing if your opponent believes it has merit unless you don't mind taking L's in a debate. It's your choice.

You are literally not in any position to talk about someone lacking brain cells (it's 2 words, not 1). Oh look, there's your favorite word again!

Then explain it to Dino.

The free vocabulary lessons are over. You are literally too slow to get what I'm saying at this point, it absolutely was constructive criticism. You're sensitive as ****.

Because I was pointing out the flaws in your argument and gave a suggestion on how you could improve it, simpleton.

I know, you can dish it out but you can't take it. None of this bothers me, it's downright hilarious, like you not knowing what the words "literally", "lying", or "delusional" mean.

You are terrified of simply admitting a minor issue with your argument could use some polishing because you think your balls will fall off if you admit you made a mistake. A true sign of manhood is being able to admit mistakes. Guess which of us has admitted to making a mistake in this thread?

I know you won't, you don't have the intellectual capacity or honesty for it.

No one said you "have" to take my personal opinions seriously. I am going to take a wild guess that you grew up with a single mom, because your hyper sensitivity to criticism+combativeness towards other males you perceive are attempting to "boss you around" is quite common with guys like that.

Well, one of them became a Golden Gloves boxing champion and was a sparring partner to both Albert Prince Bell and Jared Anderson, so I wouldn't call them a "poor" student.

 

Pot meet kettle

 

FINALLY. Thanks for acknowledging that I did in fact have an argument for the compubox stats thing.

I couldn't care less about the rest of your words, cheers.