i sort of see your point. both king and arum put on some huge fights and boosted the profile of boxing, but king especially is something of a...
broner dwarfed his opposition at lower weights. the rest of your post is excuses. superfan? **** off, he's fun to watch and will move up. there's...
ok, someone was taking the **** because someone else was on about a sky stable and boxnation stable. thought it was you. kid is better known...
i couldn't guage saint's popularity right now, but a fight against kessler on a froch degale (or even ward if he's an option by then) undercard...
if kessler comes in at that sort of weight ggg could fight him at 168 at his normal fight weight without worrying about making weight. that'd sell...
then ignored my response, when i pointed out broner boiled down to fight men smaller than him, something ggg's getting slaughtered for suggesting....
this isn't the 1st time you've posted something that suggests you're from britain, are you?
although random by definition includes a 0 option, in this instance it shouldn't. this harms boxing's credibility.
it scanned a bit 1-sided, but i'm glad we agree.
did you watch?
*****s do the exact same things.
probably depending on your bias. in truth, both situations produce both reactions, but those on either side (such as yourself) see only half.
he ain't.
wlad's jab and straight right have been pretty effective over the last decade.
only if you're **** at maths. it's less than 150%.
