Henry Maske- light heavyweights forgotten man and other forgotten European world champions

It will burn him not replying lol
He is still around

 

You have zero credibility.

You can have 2 completely different opinions on the same result, depending on what the subject is and who you’re debating with.

Where do you want me to start?

On a thread last year, you didn’t rate Toney’s rematch win over McCallum at MW, as you said that McCallum was past his best. When a poster told you that despite Mike being in his mid 30’s, he was still a great fighter, you didn’t agree and you wouldn’t rate it highly. Okay. No problem. That’s your opinion. But here you are hyping Tiozzo’s win over an even older version of Mike.

You also don’t rate Roy’s easy wins over Brannon and Lucas. In your opinion, Roy has a poor SMW resume and those wins aren’t to be respected. Yet here you are rating Tiozzo’s win over Lucas, despite the fact that Lucas lost to Brannon, and that Roy beat Lucas with absolute ease after playing basketball the same day. So which is it?

Another time, you rubbished Roy’s win over Julio Gonzalez. A poster gave his opinion that it was great how Roy had beaten him with ease. They told you that Gonzalez went on to beat Dariusz. Yet you rubbished the win by saying that he only beat Dariusz because he was shot.

You’ve also said numerous times that Dariusz was completely shot against Tiozzo.

You also don’t rate Roy’s win over Hill, on the grounds that he was faded, despite the fact that Hill went on to beat Tiozzo in a single round over 2 years later.

You’re on other thread telling us all how Andre Ward’s wins over Froch and Kessler weren’t great, on the grounds that they were tired and faded. Yet at the same time, you’re telling us all how Steve Collins has a great SMW resume, on the grounds that he beat Chris Eubank and Nigel Benn twice.

You’re all over the place.

You only use context when it suits.

 

Nothing.

He deserves respect.

It’s Bailey’s comments regarding his wins, which completely contradict what he’s wrote on different threads.

 

No.

They are nothing without context.

You are the one with the agenda.

 

You’re a source of entertainment.

It gives me pleasure watching you say 2 different things about the same thing, depending on what mood you’re in.

 

There is no distress.

It’s just funny seeing you rating some of his opponents and his wins highly, when you’ve rubbished other opponents wins over the very same fighters.

 

I don’t need to think long and hard about anything.

I just sit back and watch you contradict yourself and tie yourself up in knots.

 

I don’t in any way think that he’s terrible.

I haven’t got any issue with him at all.

He was a good fighter.

This is a good thread. And I don’t want to spoil it. But after years of debating Bailey, his comments make me laugh, because I know that they’re completely different to what he’s said in other threads. Again, it’s his agenda driven posting style that I scoff at.

To be honest, I shouldn’t have said anything. But when I see him writing things which contradicts everything he’s written previously, he leaves me shaking my head.

If a fighter he doesn’t like had the exact same resume, his comments would be completely different.

Yes, stats are stats.

They’re factual. But they don’t allow for circumstances and context, and you can manipulate them.

You can use a fighters age to say he’s either faded or experienced.

You can use a fighters previous losses to show him in a negative light, or you can say how he came back and carried on winning to show him in a positive light.

This is how he debates.

One minute Lucas is to be respected, the next minute he isn’t.

One minute Dariusz was completely shot against Tiozzo and it means nothing, the next minute it was a great win for Tiozzo.

He can either hype someone up or tear them down, working with the exact same information.

You’ll see for yourself if you keep debating him.