Wass.. Seriously. Go find another forum to post on. No one likes you here and you either get slapped or ignored by half of us.
Aww tuck that bottom lip in flower, there's a good boy...... Still can't find an answer to my point hey bird brain?
LOL.. I've forgotten more about boxing than you'll ever know. Your posts and most people's responses to them have proven it.. Look at how many people have already bailed on THIS thread alone because of your idiocy. Now I'm one of them.. Goodbye wass..
You've never laced up any gloves so you know naff all. You're bailing because you can't answer my point, typical yellow belly behaviour.....
Actually I just did a bit of sparring last Sunday... I've grown quite used to you being WRONG.. In addition, I already responded multiple times to what you believe to be a "clever" argument. Lem Franklin had BOTH knockout wins over durable opponents AND a high KO percentage. Having just one or the other may not necessary indicate great power but when a fighter has BOTH of those things it generally means he can crack. I don't have to find old film footage to put two and two together.. Its certainly a hell of a lot more credible than you arriving at the conclusion that he couldn't punch because he was beaten on numerous occasions which is fvckall of an indicator of anything.... Happy??? Now go play with yourself.
Get off your high horse, calm down and you might see a little sense. I have never once said he couldn't punch because he was beaten on numerous occasions. I'm saying we need to see those fights he lost to confirm wether he hit his conquerors with his best shots. If he did and they beat still that would make his power look not quite as impressive. The only sparring you've done this weekend is when you were fcuking around in the back garden attempting to put up a wooden fence.....
yeah except it also involved headgear, boxing gloves, a mouth piece and an opponent who had the same. The rest is accurate.