Classic Forums Thoughts on Pac-DLH

Because I thought the speed factor might be only slight in favor of Pacquaio, that doesn't necassarily mean De La Hoya has an easy time if that was the case. Heard of timing and accuracy? If De La Hoya was slightly slower, does that really mean he doesn't have a problem with Pacquaio's speed?

Think about it...............

I did initially say within the prediction I got wrong. That "Pacquaio's speed and southpaw stance will be the main problems" And I was indeed correct. Was I trying to make out that well, I knew Pacquaio would win? Not at all.

 

Leonard was probably quicker than Hearns in their first fight. But does that mean he never had a problem with Hearns' speed? Of course not.

Speed will be a problem" and then a few sentences later said "the speed advantage is very slight" (or words to that effect)

Makes perfect sense.

 

He had far more problems with Hearns' long reach than his speed. It was Tommy's sensible 'mid to long' range boxing that was winning the fight, when it came to exchanges at speed, then Leonard was the boss.

 

It was the tone. You began your post trying to extract some personal glory from a totally wrong prediction. That's what my problem was with.

 

Well, true. But like I said earlier it's always a case of hedging your bets with you.

Pac won: "I knew speed would be the main problem". If Oscar won you'd say: "I told you the speed advantage was slight."

 

Yeah, the height and reach were certainly factors. But Hearns' own speed was pretty sublime and played a role in the success he had. I would say Hearns' speed on the outside behind the jab, dropping in the ocassional right hand, etc, was the range where he was at his best. Once inside, it was Leonard who done the damage. The left hook to the body and head the main weapons.

I guess it was a combination of height, reach, speed, etc. Speed obviously not the only factor.

 

Ok, yeah. I agree here. Tommy was quick enough to give Leonard problems, but a pre-fight prediction, for me, should either say "Hearns' speed will cause problems as he's almost as fast" or "Leonard's speed will be the main problem for Tommy". Not both.

 

Cool. Conteh, I'll offer you my hand on our previous nonsense. Which I'm sure you will agree on was rather 'handbags' between us the other day about "whit" and inviting each other with whos the best in arguements, etc. I guess one thing lead to another the other day. Really a load of nonsense when I think about it.

I'm not the type to keep things going and become enemies who can't stand the sight of each other.

 

Ok mate. Shake on it....



....withdraws hand and ****'s a snook.

This content is protected

 

Classic Forums Thoughts on Pac-DLH?

Manny Armstrong
Henry Pacquiao

 

only jesting

 

No hard feelings mate.

Graeme Sharp, thoughts? :good

 

Your posts in this thread invited just the sort of exchange that you claim to be uncomfortable with.

The spirit of your posts to my opinion about Oscar's style was not "boxing related". You got stupid almost immediately. You began this whole matter with a challenge towards an opinion of mine, your challenge was answered, and then you got patronizing. I responded to that with comments about how I find you to be inconsistent in your arguments, which JT and Conteh also later affirmed. We're right. You should listen. You then got arrogant and disrespectful -"mumble jumble (sic) nonsense". I tried to be gentle and step out of it because you were about to invite some bad stuff from me, and what do yo do? You say I "don't have a clue."

JT then stepped in before I could and he offered you some sage advice. He may have saved you from getting your feelings hurt (your skin ain't "thick", my friend). JT was diplomatic and fair and you brought up something from another thread that was an attempt to deflect it. You also reacted to his statement about how "many of the rest of us" find your posts confusing and denied that it was anyone but JT and "sometimes" me. Conteh affirms with whistles that he is among those who find your posts confusing -thus beginning to prove JT's point. You attack him. He says that you "hedge your bets". (He's right. You did).

You have a pattern out here that resembles what happened in this thread. You may not accept this friendly advice, but I'd encourage you to re-read JT's first response and ponder it deeply.

 

I would have thought you would have read from where you left off and decided "Ahhh well, I'll let things go" considering the spirit over the last few posts between myself and Conteh was good natured and a shaking of the hands. I honestly thought this thread would have vanished and never be seen again. I certainly never planned on making a comeback myself. Yet you decide to pick out a post, unquoted might I add, and dedicate a massive in-depth reply and let the kittens out the bag. I mind when you and Manassa had heated arguement a month or two ago you accused him of continuing to come back and keep things heated. 7 hours later and you don't know when to give in.

I thought after the thread drifting down, and down, and further down, you would have decided enough. Perhaps you decided to make up for lost ground.

But I guess you were fully motivated in getting your say in and breaking things down, possibly knowing you'd pull me out of retirement. Not that I'm particularly 'outright' offended by the content of your post.

The spirit of my posts on Oscar's style is certainly far more boxing related that your latest constructed piece. I challenged your opinion, you awnsered, and I said "you don't have clue" which I believe you don't. Don't be offended by that my friend. It's just another way of someone saying that they strongly disagree with you. I can mind once, and I'd like you to take this on board. A poster said to me that they found your demeanour to be along the lines of "how dare you argue with me" when they were debating points with you once. You're not quite the royalty on here you maybe think you are.

After we were debating on Oscar's style JT pops out of nowhere with this.....

"It might be time to realise that many of the rest of us have a very hard time understanding a lot of what you type. Instead of considering the majority is taking you wrong 100% of the time it might be high time to ponder if you yourself might have a little to do with it"

Analyse that carefully Stonehands. What JT is saying is that "the rest of us" not sure how many people or who specifically he's referring to, find me difficult to understand. Bad spelling? someone reading my points and have no idea what I'm saying? Just not making plain and simple sense?

People disagree with me and with others, but not understaning what I say? Humorous, rather than hurtful. I responded with and guessed he means himself, Conteth, and you sometimes?. I had to say you sometimes as you recently said I was a "solid poster". JT, then goes on and says "the majority" I consider that majority of people on ESB take me wrong 100% of the time. Evidence? 100% as well he said. Funny. If JT himself takes me wrong, then thats him, not the majority. Add yourself to the equation in his opinion, still not the majority.

I post on here daily and very seldom, if at all, do I come across anyone finding me difficult to understand with a lot of what I type. He maybe should have referred to himself if he finds me difficult to understand, and not "many of the rest of us" and later "the majority".

Being inconsistent with an argument is one thing, understanding them is another.

What JT typed, many others would have found offensive. Especially when the person in question, me, is accussed of being difficult to understand by "many of the rest of us" as he put it. I decided it was worth a little chucke. Thick skin?

Exactly, JT stepped in. If he had any advice he maybe should have IM'd me instead. It certainly would have been more appropriate. He may have saved me from getting my feelings hurt, by who? Who was the first to drift away from boxing related posts? JT. I did say "you don't have a clue" but that was boxing related. I decided to bring up stuff from another thread based on his cheeky remark towards myself. And hey, it had to be done I'm afraid. I wasn't going to get personal and be abusive with bad language and call him every name under the sun. He's worth better than going down that route, and so am I.

And I never attacked Conteh after he whistled, I replied with "Toffee whistler" which is a reference to the soccer team he supports. Not offensive. Then it was back to talking boxing regarding my failed prediction. Pretty much good natured until he said "Everyone around here seems to have problems with you i've noticed" That invited a counter-punch. Everyone? is it occuring daily? weekly? I seldom have problems with anyone on here. I don't have a track record of being a disliked poster or generally a moron. Maybe so, but people don't show it towards me. I need the evidence.

 

A massive in-depth post? This response of yours dwarfs it. Come on. Conteh was kind and bowed out. I'm not done yet. You are, of course, free to ignore this post.

Give in...? To what? Evidently, you're offended by advice. Three veteran posters are essentially saying the same thing to you and you can't accept it. Oh, and "seven hours" is about the time I was at work.

You flatter yourself.

Not offended...? It's quite obvious you are having strong feelings about it.

Here you are bringing some shadowy critic to lend strength to your shot. You're indirect. That's further proof.You got (and you get) disrespectful, Robbi. There are consequences for that. You paid dearly for it out here, but you still don't get it and still can't accept your role in this. This whole thing is your ******* child. If I may speak on JT and Conteh's behalf -that alone doesn't bother any of us -the fact that it is far from the first time does. You have many ******* children and you don't pay child support. That last post I wrote was written in the hope that you'd see what you haven't seen yet... I see I've also failed. That's okay -I'm in good company. Whether it's royal or not is mere opinion.

Bull. You completely missed his reasoning for stepping in. Completely! You're hung up on some misguided indignation about an incidental point. You strain gnats and swallow camels.

First of all, you don't need to call someone a bleepity bleep to be offensive. Secondly, you're attempting to minimize your disrespect. Thirdly, did you ever think that JT's publicly stepping in was on my behalf because you were out of line? -and why should he privately PM you? That would be like a cop seeing a guy in a raincoat flashing his goods on Main Street and then taking him aside to spare his feelings. If you are going to get offensive out here -directly or indirectly, then you should expect a rebuke sometimes. And you should therefore thicken your skin.

Conteh made a point that you wouldn't accept. It's your turn to listen and listen well: One of the ways that you deflect criticism is to be a literalist. With JT, you got hung up on the definition of "most". With Conteh, you got hung up on the word "everyone". You close yourself off from points that strike close to home and hold on to incidentals like a drunk to a lamp post. Here's medicine. Open wide:

---Many??! Who?! I want their names! I need evidence!!! And I repeat, you are also a problem to debate because of that very literalism -which is why I was reluctant to engage you on the meaning of "tense" and "fluid", etc. in the first place. ....Continue if you want, but I don't see the point.

.Whatever ..Elvis has left the building.