Froch V Calzaghe. A Close Fight?

No offense Berol, but are you a convicted nonce? :think

 

The day after is completely irrelevant.

You've said that Joe beat a top 5 SMW. But he didn't. Joe beat one of the best SMW's of all time. But again, he was a once great SMW. You can only give Joe the credit for beating the 1997 version of Eubank. You can't give him credit for beating the guy who'd beaten Watson and Benn etc.

Dino's right, Eubank wasn't a top SMW when Joe fought him. At the time, he wasn't a factor in the division. He hadn't won at the weight for 3 years.

 

No offense?

:rofl

 

Not a close fight. :good

 

as much as you are an definite alt.


too easy.

 

So if you are saying I am an alt, then you are admitting you are a convicted nonce? :think

 

reason being its impossible to answer lies, observe -

with joe, he didn't have the title at all - what you are referring to was Salem's fight for the inter-continental belt, that prize for fringe contenders just outside the top 10. And which he failed to win, despite its lowly level.

As if to compound your error -

- I was commenting on the pascal froch vacant title fight, nothing to do with defences that you talk about..but everything to do with eubank-calzaghe, also a vacant title fight.

Though you were wrong on both counts, its good that you've now inadvertently clarified that Salem K was inter-continental belt "fringe contender" level by the time he fought joe. You've confirmed joe actively sought to defend against a weakling.

Shame you destroyed any point you had in doing so.

 

depends on what you are saying.

are you an alt?

..easier and easier....

 

Serge,

Hiya mate, did you enjoy the boxing this weekend?

I've been signed up to BoxNation for about a year, but they've said they haven't received my last payment. Yet there's no issue with my bank account etc. I recorded the GG fight but it didn't record. So I've had to watch clips from the net instead. What a joke!

He always applies spin and he talks in stats.

If that's true, it's up to you and the others to pull me on it and bring your examples to my door.

No doubt. He has incredible knowledge, and I know for sure that he's seen a lot more boxing than I have. It's a pleasure reading his posts. In the past, a few people have called him the 'Boxrec King' but I believe that's because of how he lays out his posts. I don't think it was because they actually thought he was studying the site. I think everyone on here who knows him, knows that he has great knowledge. Also, there's absolutely nothing wrong with using Boxrec, as long as it's used in the right way. I spend an awful lot of time on there looking at the dates etc.

Ha!

Again, it's up to you and the others to show me.

I try my best to be objective, and Roy's not immune from criticism. He's made a lot of mistakes in his career.

Ha!

As above.

Not that long. Only about 4 years.

:rofl

:good

At least I can apply logic and give actual facts to back up my opinions. I'm not an irrational hater.

It can be like Groundhog Day. But he reels us all in.

Ha!

There's some great posters on there though. Do you go on much?

I love talking to burt bienstock.

I know about your violent mood swings.

You need a cheeseburger.




It's always a pleasure talking to you, even when you tell me off.

:good

 

Do you think I am? :think

 

infinite regression into these same questions needs to be avoided.

you are on ignore for now till you learn how to break the habit.

 

:good

 

What because you've been Lacyied™ and I've exposed you as a convicted nonce?

toodle pip :hi: