If JMM beats Casamayor while Calzaghe beats up a faded legend, should JMM jump to #2?

Some of you guys in this thread need to get laid badly. LMAO

 

:rofl :good

 

YEAH! It's a close poll coz a lot of fans still thinks CASA is in his prime to justify that a win by JMM is ENOUGH to put him to #2 p4p!

 

If Bernard loses in a easily way to Pavlik (I fancy Hopkins to win though), would that affect things - perhaps not.

 

It took about 15 -20 minutes, whatever that has to do with things, and the only revision was to insert the contrasting line ( ...you're nothing but a ****) which I did about 15 or 20 mins later.

Only one of us (and YOU know which one) 'holds court'. The thread was about Joe Calzaghe's standing in the past 25 years.

There was NO poetry quoted in the thread.

(Strange, a guy who claims to be working on a Literature doctorate gets his knickers in such a knot about an apt quote to illustrate a point).

There was no wriggling out, as, I was never 'in'.

To continue to suggest I was, in spite of the evidence I pointed out, and your failure to address the evidence, makes you look, at a minimum, desperate, and at worst, foolish.

It's pretty clear who got embarrassed.

CHJ had you in a wind-up and you continued to engage him, as if he were serious.

The bit about Floyd's broken hand agains Cotto and your reaction to it was among the funniest posts I've read on this forum in years.


But rather than admit you'd been had, you chose to attack all those who were part of an essentially harmless prank, demonstrating the worst example of poor sportsmanship.

Your alter-ego, clone, friend, whatever he is (IF he exists) spouted pious and pompous shyte about snickering schoolchildren and "it's not funny" and such.

Reactions one might expect from someone horrified that they might look foolish, instead of acknowledging the prank when it was revealed, and maybe enjoying a laugh about it.


So don't talk about embarrassment.

You are so off-base on your perceptions of what actually went down in that thread.

 

You've said that very same thing before, only to resurrect matters six hours later. You've clearly demonstrated that you can't be trusted in this regard.

How does courage convictions enter into my ranking of a boxer's relative standing over the last 25 ?

I made a quick estimate on the spot to a poster who presented a list. I ruled out most of his list, but said there might be a couple more I hadn't thought of. My exact words were:

This content is protected

You're becoming truly pathetic.

As I just pointed out, I said about 5th. I gave it little thought. I perused your list and gave a considered answer to the question.

If someone else were to present me with another list, it might contain one or two more that I hadn't remembered or thought of.

(Lopez is an example of someone I hadn't considered, as I rarely follow the sport below featherweight)

So 7th to 13th is the answer to your question.

7th qualifies as about 5th.




Vague ?

Well this is scarcely an exact science.

If I wanted to set up more rigorous criteria and give points and such, I might narrow it down a bit more. But it would still be arbitrary.

You must have seen posts where the posters have stated so-and-so is in my top 30, or top 50 or whatever.

I'm familiar with Hearns' career. I have been following the sport since Ali-Liston (2), and so have caught all of Hearns' career as it happened. I don't consider his post 1983 work to be as good as what Joe has done in that same period.

I'm not using pound-for-pound terminology here. The debate centred on who was the greater boxer. Perhaps a trite point, as for many, pound-for-pound equates to greatness. As I've stated for years, I shy away from the term. However, I'm not dogmatic on the matter, and if we're talking about essentially the same thing in your understanding of the term, fine.

And as far as cases being made for the afore-mentioned fighters, we have to differ on that.

Oftentimes, the initial point of a thread gets side-tracked and takes on a whole new direction. Sometimes this is a pity. Other times it's a good thing.

Yet another summary, when the whole thread is there for any who care to read it.


At any rate, the opinions you expressed and the poll you created were perfectly legitimate in and of themselves.

I merely pointed out that there seemed to be a pattern in your thread-starting and posting that indicated a bias against Calzaghe. Taken together with the total body of your work, I suggested you might be a Calzaghe-hater.

You took far greater umbrage at this characterization than was necessary, perhaps because you saw it as a character flaw of some sort, when such terms are tossed around here all the time, and have a meaning that is perhaps found only on the forum.

Posters call other posters Floyd-lovers or oscar-lovers (in Presscott's case, oscarsexuals). I don't think anyone takes that to mean anything other than they have a bias in favour of a certain fighter.

(Even Presscott doesn't believe (I hope) that, BewareofDog jerks himself off to pictures of Oscar in fishnets)

The term nut-hugger is frequently used on here also. I doubt if anyone who uses the term believes that other posters hug the balls of whomever.

Similarly, I don't have any reason to suppose that you actually hate Calzaghe. I just believe (and other posters have said the same) that you have a bias against the guy.


And we all have our biases. Some we are aware of, and some we're blind to.

Your 'friend' made a thread with a single quote from you, which was fairly reasonable.

Actually, I could agree with most of it myself.

He then invited comment based on that quote.

The bias I allude to is the result of reading a good number of posts and threads.

We had left it a number of times. You keep coming back to it.

I'm fine leaving it here.

I expect we'll cross paths on many future threads.

It's possible (almost certain) that aside from Calzaghe, we agree on a great many more things than we disagree on. If you'll go back to my posts from about mid-August on (right after that unfortunate assumed resume thread), you'll find that there was no hostility towards you on my part. Quite the reverse.

Overall, your posts are a bit more erudite and analytical than much of what ends up on ESB.


Regards.


Cuchulain