¿Which of them do you think would give Prime Ali a more worthy fight?

When your arguments completely fall apart, the playground insults against anyone who disagrees start flying. Calling people 'pathetic' and 'Tweedle Dum' doesn't magically bolster your argument, nor does it disguise your own desperation now that you're cornered with no factual rebuttals left. It's the classic sign of someone who has comprehensively lost the debate on substance and is now just lashing out in frustration. Thanks for making your lack of a real argument so glaringly obvious to everyone!

 

I think it’s pretty simple, he just can’t handle any pushback and refuses to process points that don’t fit his preconceived notions. Honestly, it’s classic midwit behavior, just enough smarts to sound confident, but not enough to genuinely engage or reconsider anything.

 

I’ve been there (just being honest) I’m also not like 30-40 years old and calling people “Tweddle dum” among other childish things for the late Ken Nortons honour but yes you’ve scored a hole in one.

 

Back to the relevant discussion does anyone else think that David Haye is so unorthodox, spazy and athletic that he could find Ali the way Enry Cooper did? Just a supercharged awkward fighter like that against another equally “odd” style I think it could get messy and he could be hit by something he didn’t see? Seems like a dangerous opponent, I wouldn’t rate his chances above “okay” but interesting to think about.

 

No tantrum. As if but you obviously wish. Anyone can see that. Pure deflection straight out of the gates.

And, as forecast, after being routed, the pointless addendums and attempts to last word it continue…on..and on….same ol’, same ol’…

No, I’m not unduly tethered to official decisions - but I did prove that you are only as and when it suits you.

Again, you have disingenuously referred to Norton’s “mostly losing” official record vs Ali and Holmes. Ken beat Ali clearly in fight 1, fight 2 could’ve gone either way and Norton clearly beat Ali in fight 3.

You’ve made no point merely repeating what I’ve already said to you - the diff. being me providing evidence while you’ve just parroted back at me with no meat.

Your opinions on both Ali-Norton and Fury are indeed both relevant as it pertains to the rationale behind your stated positions and convenient deference to “official” decisions - thus, you won’t touch those fights, especially Ali - Norton 3 which you are happy to include your statement re Norton “mostly losing” but now baulk on giving your own opinion as to who actually deserved the won - because that is now somehow “irrelevant”?

Well, it needs no explaining as to why your rationale for refusing to provide your own opinion on those fights is illogical and simply deflective BS.

Your refusal to address the above is just another shameless cop out on your part - well done you.

So you’re claiming that you weren’t implying that Ali and Holmes weren’t of similar style?

Otherwise, you’re dismissing out of hand
Norton giving two stylistically different and multi applied ATGs all hell? And you’re also still ignoring Norton’s age and being past prime for Holmes. Wow.

And Norton did also beat Young clearly, and to repeat because it’s obviously not sinking in, Young was a different style altogether again as compared to Ali and Holmes.

Even falling back to Norton-Young being a very close fight for the SAKE of argument, that’s Norton still being absolutely competitive with another top contender.

Yeah, your analysis is shallow, weak and heavily biased….and yes, you have been routed - and what is truly hilarious is your pathetic tag team posting effort in tandem with your equally ill informed mate.

Btw, did you miss the part where I said I am not actually interested in your opinions on boxing…..? As I’ve also already said, you’re just a time waster….

 

Dee and Dum, at it again. Get yourselves a room already.

 

Again, just as forecast, more pointless addendums and last word freaking - exactly what you are known for.

I’ve won the debate - that ship has sailed - I simply don’t suffer fools like yourself gladly, especially when they’re in absolute denial, again, like yourself.

 

I agree that David Haye’s athleticism could give Ali problems, much like Henry Cooper did with his big shots. Haye’s speed and power might catch Ali off-guard early, especially since Ali was occasionally clipped by quick punches from slower fighters. But I can only see Haye winning by getting a knockout but Ali’s chin was iron, and his ring IQ was unmatched. Haye might have success in spurts, but he lacks the technical finesse to outpoint Ali over 12 or 15 rounds. Once Ali decodes Haye’s blitzes he’d likely neutralize Haye’s attacks and cruise to a decision. Haye’s a dangerous wildcard, but Ali’s adaptability makes him the clear favorite in my view.

 

Hmmm. You called me Special Needs and a Fruit previously. And you’ve also tried to “kiss up”. I could quote a number of other idiotic comments posted by you. I didn’t cry re same - I served you back as you should you should be served. You are such an insecure, self contradicting dummy.

 

Another lengthy diatribe, yet you still haven't addressed the fundamental point about Norton's resume depth beyond Ali and Holmes. It's impressive how many words you can string together to avoid a simple question.

You claim you're not "unduly tethered to official decisions," then demand my opinion on Ali-Norton 3 or Usyk-Fury as if it somehow invalidates the official records you dismiss when they don't suit your narrative. This is classic deflection. My stance on those fights is irrelevant, the record books show Norton's official outcomes, and your opinion doesn't change them.

You accuse me of "parroting" with "no meat," yet your "evidence" consists of your subjective interpretations of fights and repeatedly asserting Norton "clearly" won disputed decisions. That's not evidence; that's opinion. You're the one "disingenuously" framing Norton's record by selectively emphasizing your personal scorecards.

You can call my analysis "shallow" and claim I've been "routed" all you want. It's a common tactic when you can't actually refute the core argument: name the significant, undisputed wins against varied, top-tier opposition that bolster Norton's case beyond the Ali/Holmes series.

Your entire response is a testament to avoiding that question, liberally seasoned with insults and self-congratulation. If this is what "routing" someone looks like in your book, it's more of a self-own. The only thing you've "proven" is your inability to engage without resorting to bluster and deflection.

 

Midwit is rich coming from a half wit. You initiated - you were genuinely engaged and dismantled - it’s been done by many others besides me - and when it has been done, it clearly doesn’t still well with you leading to go on and on and on…….

 

Declaring 'victory' doesn't make it so, especially when your 'win' consists of dodging the actual question and resorting to insults. If the ship has sailed, why are you still shouting from the shore? Enjoy your self-awarded trophy.

 

More last word freaking hot air - posting exactly as I’ve profiled you…..post defeat, you simply can’t shut up…….

 

Ah, the classic 'no, you!' retort. Resorting to 'half wit' now? It seems my point about your inability to engage substantively hit a nerve.

Declaring me 'dismantled' is easy when you consistently sidestep the actual questions and substitute insults for arguments. My points about Norton's resume beyond Ali/Holmes still stand, unaddressed by your bluster. Keep telling yourself you've won, though. It's clearly important to you.

 

If I'm just 'hot air,' why are you still here fanning the flames?