Harry Greb fighting in the Stanley Ketchel era

Yeah, moderator can tell someone to go and **** themselves if they feel like it. If you don't care for it, you can report it here:

http://www.boxingforum24.com/member.php?u=4

Given that most people think you are a perma-banned member, you probably won't though.

Yeah, my own thread, like one i've started? You understand, I think. And yes, a public forum, where I can tell you "**** you" if i feel like it. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

Actually, i expressed what was on my mind in great detail, but you chose to completely ignore what I wrote about Tommy Ryan and Hugo Kelly, Jim Barry and my responses to you about Klaus, Blackburn and Langford and responded only to the sentence that had the word "****ing" in it. Somebody that drawn/repelled (Which is?) by cursing probably shouldn't be posting on ESB.

 

You're definitely a gentleman of leisure, you just took the time to type out twenty-five questions on Stanley Ketchel (probably, I didn't read them all). Whether that type of strange behaviour is also convulsive to a "Great" life is debatable...

 

Yes; thanks for that. I think i'm bound to agree.

This would have been impressive. Getting to Burns first on that type of clock would have been perhaps the more impressive part of the feat; because that is a tough wade through some insanely tough fighters and he can't afford to slip up. Even without his slipping up, given the proclivity for that era's policy-makers for knockouts, i'm not 100% convinced. The task was Herculian for Ketchel, in fact he failed in it - and Greb has the added unpleasantness of having to take on Ketchel himself. But he might be able to lace each and every one of them straight up.

Part of what needs to be taken into account is that in this period, Ketchel didn't need to meet guys like Thomas or Sullivan more than once because he stopped them. A ten round decision might leave enough room for a rematch over a longer distance. So the schedule might become prohibitive, not because guys can beat him but because he can't stop them. Burns-Johnson gets made and he's missed his window.

Because I think you are right about Burns but he's not taking the title from Johnson.

 

Seven weeks.

Nah. **** off.

 

Yeah, i'll debate the eras with you, but i'm not going to spend an hour answering twenty-five ****ing questions you've taken time out of your incredible life to prepare for me; nobody would. It's ****ing stupid McVey.

And no, I don't know the answers, not to the two or three I read anyway. And yes, I still have bollock- ache.

 

**** you too:twisted:

 

Because I moderate based upon how people conduct themselves, not based upon what people say about them.

If this is meant to be some less than guarded criticism of me, well done on the pathetic fail: i've never banned anyone i've had a disagreement with - ever. But nice of you to attack me over my modship nonetheless.

But I like people disagreeing with me.

Also, you have to get rid of this notion that i'm somehow odd, possessive or in contradiction of the public nature of the forum by describing a thread i've started as "my" thread; everyone does it. In fact, literally every single avenue of criticism you are pursuing is non-existent.

:huh "Agree" with my thread? How would someone "agree" with a thread asking for opinions on how Greb would do in Ketchel's era?

Have you even read the opening post?

Are you sure, on any specific, exactly what the f*ck [censored for baby ears] it is you are talking about? At all?

Yes, one way of "moderating" would indeed be to ban everyone disagrees with me. Unfortunately for your rather pointless post, this is not something any moderator on this forum currently has ever pursued to the best of my knowledge; well done for wasting almost every single keystroke in your post.

I await your next with baited breath.