Cleveland Williams vs Brian London Primes

I think everyone gives him "a chance" and there's nothing outrageous at all about it. You give him a 50.50 chance and your reasoning is ridiculous. That starts to bark up the old outrageous tree, yes.

You have this wonderful habit of parroting things that aren't really relevant but still have this slight undermining affect for anyone ignorant enough not to actually think about what you are saying.

For the record, for the five-hundredth time on the forum, probably, Williams was literally shot when he faced Ali, London was bang in the middle of his bizarre prime. One looked as bad as the other. This tells me something, but you can't get that message.

No, that happens all the time, and often is reasonable - I have a degree of certainty, for example, that Robinson would beat Cotto. A fantasist is a person who appears to believe things to be true which are not, on a regular basis. That's you.

And the forum has overwhelmingly rejected this view and your explanation, which I had to ask for twice, was severely lacking in depth and factual accuracy.

Repeating ad naseum that you "just said it is 50-50" doesn't act as any kind of shield at all in these circumstances.

London doesn't look anything like as good as Williams to anyone but you, and one other guy, who refused to present himself in the forum.

When I finally got to the nuts and bolts of why you feel what you feel despite all evidence to the contrary, it turned out to be bull****. I was not surprised by this.

 

By "nuts and bolts" I mean your technical reasoning, which makes no sense.

You and the one other poster who voted for London. You seem to be saying you didn't vote for London? This means was have two random lunatics abroad rather than one...

The level i've stooped to? Exposing your nonsense about London's supposedly mauling his way to victory over Williams and then - possibly - mistakenly voting for London in the poll? Yeah, really disgustingly low that.

No, I accused of regurgitating Boxrec all over the thread and claiming it is an argument. And this is not an accusation so much as an indisputable fact.

I won't lie, I suspected it would be **** and you didn't disappoint, but my refutation is there in black and white. I'd guess there's a reason you completely ignored it, what with it being based on actual observations and all.

Yes. Everyone who twists reality on the forum to suit their own ends annoys me that much. This place should be, and I might even say used to be, about learning the truth, now it is over-run with agenda posters and trolls and many of the good ones have left because of that. It pisses me off. That you have admitted your agenda makes you slightly more tolerable to me, but not by much.

All any of us have is a point of view. Some are based on actual observed boxing and then we have yours, which is based upon total unreality and Boxrec. Which is just another way of saying some points of view are more respectable and interesting than others.

 

You keep repeating this. As you seem to think it is impossible to further technical understanding of boxers against lesser fighters, I suppose I shouldn't be shocked that you don't understand that we can learn about fighters in their losses too, if that's what you really mean...if it helps you, here he is looking great winning one against the soon-to-be-undermined Wiley

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfPYF3Tom8k[/ame]

Another fighter for you to complain about, can't wait :good

Interesting that whilst trying to be sarcastic you come closest to typing something resembling the truth.

I love, absolutely love, that you go scurrying back to Boxrec at the end of it all.


This argument "nAME A FIghter who he beat who was BETTER!!!" has been so completley de-bunked on this forum that I usually don't even bother to do so any more, but for you i'll make an exception.

It doesn't matter that Williams didn't (if he didn't) beat 3 better fighters than London. It doesn't actually even matter if London would become the best fighter he ever beat, should he beat him. All that matters is what would happen if the two were in the ring, and that should be - and is - apparent to most boxing people, allowing for the fact that heavy favourites sometimes lose. Of course, you will no doubt remind me that it is "all about opinion" again, another flailing argument of the hopelessly bemused, and I'll remind you again that opinions drawn form Boxrec aren't worth all that much to me.