Hearns vs. Whitaker at 147 15 rds.

That response that I wrote that you call "off the rails" -could just as easily be considered a challenge. Sweet Pea strikes me as biased. I have been accused of being biased. Senya IS biased, so much so that I jokingly said that he IS Roy himself. My asking if Sweet Pea was actually Whitaker himself is light-hearted. Sweet Pea responded with a temper tantrum. Stop defending it. His subsequent posts are the functional equivalent of kicking and screaming.

I submit that Sweet Pea engages in inductive reasoning. His arguments stem from a pre-conceived conclusion. That's faulty. That's bias. He should be called to task. I did so pretty gently.

Ahh, but Sweet Pea did... and you neglect to point that obvious fact out. Others are, but you fail to.

I invited a counter, yes, an answer to the charge. He failed to answer that post with anything substantive.

If you take care to read my posts, you will see that I appreciate good argument. At times I will challenge a poster for deficiencies that I may find in their argument. You will not see me get "touchy" unless they are full of it or they take a shot at me. There are exceptions -2 at this time- who I don't hesitate to attack because they pollute the site with posts that are not worth a pile of feces.

 

Robbi "owned" me in a debate. Do you mean where I offered the opinion that Foreman-Moorer was the greatest performance I had seen in sport's history? Did you read it or are you just lashing out again like a child?

Additionally, if I am "immature", then you are "in utero".

 

McCallum would possibly be the foil for Hearns at 154. Steward has said that McCallum gave him the toughest challenge while sparring at Kronk.

 

Stonehands. Peace. I'm pretty sure your not looking for a reply on your previous post, because I have no motivation to do so. We have drifted away from boxing enough on this thread. It takes one to back off, and I've decided to do so. Simply to take the heat out of the situation.

 

Semantics. I was extremely impressed with Foreman's force of will. It was incredible. Boxing may in the end be really about the imposition of will. Anyway... it was my opinion. It was not an "argument".

And you say it is "water under the bridge" and yet it is you who bring it up here. Was it resolved or was it not? I thought it was a miniscule thing that was over... and yet you dug it up again here.

 

Sure, all done... one more shot at Sweet Diapers though, because he has gone back on his word...

 

Yeah, those wars between both around 84/85 in the Kronk were no run of the mill sparring sessions. Steward said the sparring between McCallum and Hearns were the best sessions of combat he's even witnessed at the Kronk.

 

What's this --? I thought you took your ball and went home crying already.

 

Stonehands. I have one problem with yourself, and that problem is nothing.

How you seen Calzaghe v Kessler going next week?.

 

Stonehands. I should not have brung it back up. When it happened a while back, the slight problem between us was rather brief and tidied up as quickly as it developed.

It was resolved.

Book closed.

 

Pea. Its time to call the peace. Deep down, this aint my game, and its not Stonehands' game. And I hope its not yours. Boxing is what we all have in common.

This decent thread has drifted into the unknown. While you may well feel you have to defend yourself, someone has to give ground.

I got involved, big mistake.

 

Could I beat who? Who cares!
Your forgot the "e" at the end of hypocrite.

You are opening yourself up to myriad beatings, and I suspect that your youthfulness does not allow you to see this...but in the name of goodwill and fellowship I will give Robbi a nod and refrain from an assault.

Enquirer pointed out your 'alter ego' (which was juvenile) on the general forum and I think that I remember you acting the same out here a while back. It appears that you have tried to be more serious and thoughtful in your posts in the classic forum. I'll give you that.

Perhaps you can get over this and continue on the better path you have tread as of late. We'd all be better for it. As for me, I see no need to rehabilitate. We should all challenge each other in the name of quality control and that includes combating bias when it seems to be the case. I welcome it because it forces me to consider that possibility of my own bias and either amend a position or clarify an argument.

 

Yeah, they are the best from the general forum. They do creep in here from time to time, but sadly not enough for my liking.

 

Anybody care to do an analysis of how pernell goes the distance in this fight (whilst actively trying to win) given all the disadvantages he faces ? Thanks....

 

Hearns Ko 2 Whitaker.