breaking down this heavyweight era and others: Why today stinks!!

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by JAB5239, Dec 5, 2013.


  1. bremen

    bremen Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,843
    196
    Oct 11, 2010
    This is a really simple question: what was Holmes ranking for the second Spinks fight according to your so-called "method"?
     
  2. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    128
    Aug 13, 2009
    :patsch

    With this post you have effectively rendered your entire argument from the first page as void.

    My god, man, get it together.
     
  3. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    128
    Aug 13, 2009
    Using his "same year" annual ratings, Holmes would not be counted as a top 10 win for Spinks. :shock:
     
  4. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    58
    Feb 23, 2008
    Why do you keep avoiding those links? Can't do it, huh?
     
  5. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    58
    Feb 23, 2008
    How do you figure? I CLEARLY stated some fighters may have been missed due to the method. It does not change the FACT that it works the same for every fighter. I don't see why that so difficult for you to grasp. Would like like to wager the numbers don't favor this era in comparison to almost every other whether we use your method or mine?
     
  6. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    58
    Feb 23, 2008
    Yep you guys are right. But you know what's really funny? Even without that ranking that era was much more favorable than this one. Great detective work fellas! :lol:
     
  7. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    128
    Aug 13, 2009
    Because you have just backtracked on your own method of focusing on the top 10 records of Wlad, Vitali, Tyson, Holmes, and Louis to prove the worth of "this era"

    You have just speculated that the stats of individual fighters can be a misleading measure of said era's quality and a bigger picture that includes the contenders' records is needed. Funny, same thing I said pages ago that was dismissed as "numbers don't lie, fellows." Which as I pointed out, the numbers did lie, which has been written off as "some mistakes"

    And after arguing for page after page that your method proved your theory, you are now just speculating.

    "I'd bet money if we choose say this era and ten others, picked the top ten contenders from those eras that this era would lag towards or at the very bottom. "

    I really can't be bothered with this anymore. It's like arguing against a smoke, there's nothing solid to even go on anymore.
     
  8. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    58
    Feb 23, 2008
    I'm using a method that is sound, not perfect. And no, you can't argue the number because for the upteenth time they work the same for every fighter. Do they or do they not. If they don't than tell me how it is unfair? I'm not even sure what you're arguing about. Are you trying to argue I'm wrong, or are you just trying to prove the method has flaws? If you're trying to argue the era doesn't stink than take take me up on my bet. Oh, but all of a sudden you can't be bothered anymore. If think we know why! :yep
     
  9. bremen

    bremen Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,843
    196
    Oct 11, 2010
    And this, gentlemen, proves that JAB is a dope. I rest my case.
     
  10. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    58
    Feb 23, 2008
    It proves ****. That era was still better even without ranking Holmes. And we're still waiting for those links. You like to make claims but never seem to back them up. At least mongoose is trying to mount an argument. You, you bring nothing to the table at all. :lol:
     
  11. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    128
    Aug 13, 2009
    -You have failed to define your method.

    -You have failed to define "this era" or other eras.

    -I think its obvious why I can't be bothered.
     
  12. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    58
    Feb 23, 2008
    Lmao!! And you failed to say what you're arguing about! Is it the method, or is it the era doesn't stink. I'm arguing it stinks.

    I'm feeling so confident about this I'll let you define the era's as long as they lasted more than 4 years (its idiotic to argue something with nothing to work with) AND we'll use your method. Say $150 through pay pal? This era will rank withing the bottom 20%. Deal?
     
  13. bremen

    bremen Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,843
    196
    Oct 11, 2010
    You can deny it all you want but it proves that your "method" is **** and you are a ******.
     
  14. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    58
    Feb 23, 2008
    Imagine a guy who claims Lewis' dreads and thumbs caused the cuts to his hero Vittles calling somebody ******ed? Lmao!!! :lol:

    Any luck with those rankings and links? I didn't think so! :rofl
     
  15. Butch Coolidge

    Butch Coolidge Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,305
    2,625
    Jul 20, 2004

    :good


    He even thinks the "this era of heavyweights stinks" thesis is something new.