How can a certain group of posters, (you know who they are), be credible when...

As if you were watching Pernell or Camacho when they fought. Or Mosely foer that matter.atsch

Nice try Floyd.

 

Figures you'd come to defend Amsrerdam...:roll:

 

I just explained everything you insult me just for the hell of it. Nothing I said was out of bounds and I clarified the Mayweather situation as asked, as well as explained what the term 'supernatural' applies, with none of it being ridiculous, as it describes a specific type of fluid skilled fighter with amazing ability/multi-dimensional, that also produces something of a warriors mindset that brutalises or goes for the kill.

What can you call that I am stating that is ridiculous or out of bounds? You are in here arguing against me as I rate Mijares and Gamboa with the definition but apparantley excluded guys I didn't like, but just clarified that Mayweather at his best weight was indeed a prime example of the definition, but not in his later stages and what is hilarious, is that you did nothing but detest him in his later stages.

You're a ****ing moron, end of story. I can post something legitimate, with no bias and you will act like there is something wrong with it, or may actually believe there is something wrong with, in which I would be surprised because you don't know boxing and use this forum as a place to gripe and complain, rather than discuss boxing.

 

I caught Pernell at the tail end, but of course didn't watch Camacho live.

Do I have to have seen all of their fights live to accurately rate them? Well damn Lance, what's the point of being a boxing enthusiast and watching classic fights if you can't enjoy them just for being a fan that became a steady fan in the late 90's after those guys' best years.



I guess that makes anybody under 30's opinion invalid.:good

....What about guys who rate SRR on here as 'amazing', their opinion invalid because they didn't see him live? Well I hate to break it to you friend, but not many here are senior citizens.

 

Who cares what you explain? You? Danepugilist? Tffp? Your little buddies who back you no matter what? You're an inconsistent and hypocritical egomaniac who's exposing a lack of real knowledge more and more every day. You're opinion means ****, because you can't be irrational. You can't be unbiased.

So...in closing....go **** yourself (which you probably would if you could!!) :rofl

 

**** supernatural . . . I don't use that term. Did you see me mention the word supernatural in my post? i DON'T hype . . . bud.

 

Then what does that say about Calzaghe?

 

No, but watching tapes or youtube of boxers does not tell you what was going on in boxing at the time. You just try to impress everyone all too much. Go kiss your own ass as usual...go start another "band"

 

Exactly, no real response because you can't really respond, back to insults and personal bias against certain posters.

I 'can't be unbiased', why don't you read posts, Lance. You have a below average intellect.

 

He does not need defending - he can obviously stand on his own. I liked his explanation - obviously you dont, but instead of making a debate you resort to personal attacks. Why not debate this, instead of resorting to personal attacks?

I would have said the same if it was vice versa... or someone else - if he was worth it. I think you are...

 

That his resume isn't very great?

 

What kind of real responce are you expecting? Hell, YOUR reponce to me wasn't anything but you crying anyway?atsch

You have an ability to make it look like you are posting something relevent, I'll give you that, but when digging deeper, it's just you trying to sound like an expert. You're egomaniac opinion backed only by your own opinion or your little group of boyfriends who worship you.

 

I'm not trying to impress anyone, if I was, I would be trying to appear impartial to go along with the general consensus, instead, I post and rate what I like for the sake of discussion, many like my posts and like discussing boxing with me, plenty do not, who cares.

But basically, I have to know everything that was going on at those times to rate these guys ability level? Even if I fully understand the level of opposition they faced, have seen the majority of their fights(own many as well on DVD)and seek to learn as much as I can about them and not just their key opponents, but good 2nd tier opponents also?

And I stated they were supernatural, which for you would just mean pinnacle impressive fighters with fluidity, multi-dimensionality and warrior mindsets. Does this not apply to all that I mentioned?

If so, why even respond negatively if nothing is wrong with it? Grow up, idiot.

 

Debate what? His opinion that we all know he won't ever change? Yeah..you're doing a great job of NOT defending him.

 

Oh please....you're only a fan of the BEST boxers...listen only the BEST most diverse music (at least some threads in the lounge would suggect). atsch

You're a phony ****... but please, keep replying to me telling me how much better you are!