In all seriousness what makes Mayweather greater/better than Calzaghe p4p

its a thread directly named calzaghe and may. DO you think I should be writing about Pacman or someone else in this thread? ha! wrong.

I notice you havent commented on me writing about Mayweather....so in reality it IS YOU who has reacted to JUST the calzaghe part that BELONGS here!

And you reacted to ONLY MY POST out of 30 different contributors. Ha! Why not answer the others who disagree with you?

you need to get a grip my friend. But there is a way to put your mistake right. The only way you can now prove that you were not reacting to MY justified post, is by not answering me, or saying "sorry G, I did select just you out of the 30-40 contributors here, my mistake". Lets see if you can do that.

 

its becos MOney made world class guys look amatuer...Hatton, etc.

whereas joe struggled with actualy world class, really draweing with some of them. If Joe had been facing several elites like money, instead of waiting 10 years for one to injured in kessler and then challenge them in wales...at several points the luck would go againt him and he would pick up several losses.

This is probably why he hid behind a worthless title for so long, to keep the competition at level of nobodies, bums, weakling and crippled retirees and then occasionally make a valid defence every 5 years.

Joe is the absolute bottom of a hof category, getting in through the backdoor by dint of hiding in the weakest division behind the weakest title, which anyone of eubank, benn, collins, watson, froch could have done.

 

Nothing apart from actual achievements

 

I can guarantee any thread Calzaghe's name is mentioned in you will be all over. I can't say the same about Mayweather.

You know you're obsessed. Why deny it?

 

It’s nearly time to edit your post again Herol.

You know, so it doesn’t come off sounding so stupid to all that read it.

 

you took the third option of denying you made a mistake,i didnt expect that.

clue - if you are calling out someone for mentioning calzaghe in a calzaghe thread then the issue is you.

 

Oscar was 34.

 

I hope you're being deliberately obtuse as failing that you might have serious comprehension issues - it's not that you are talking about Calzaghe in a Calzaghe thread that I was commenting on. It's that you're totally incapable of not commenting on any thread in which his name is mentioned. Hopefully the penny will drop now but feel free to respond with a typically asinine reply.

 

actually it is - you are directly trying to pull me up for commenting on calzaghe in a calzaghe/mayweather thread. I am sorry if this bothers you but I'm not going to put up my Ghostbusters review instead just to please you.

NO - I will stick to the topic. You should too, and everyone else. there are no exceptions, we all should.

 

I'm saying there is a topic you're guaranteed to comment on every time. Are you really going to embarrass yourself with a denial of the very obvious fact you compulsively comment on every Calzaghe related thread?

 

We all want the Ghostbusters review instead Herol!!

 

but you are, in actual fact, complaining about me talking about calzaghe, in a calzaghe thread.

you are clearly and blatantly saying that me using the word calzaghe, in a calzaghe thread, is something you are objecting to.

Then you using the projection of that view "you are posting in many calzaghe threads and I object to it"

you cant have the 2nd without the first, because if you had zero objection to me posting in any single calzaghe thread, you'd have no basis for objecting to all of them.

You MUST object to ONE in order to be able to project it to all. With zero objection that you now pretend you claim, you cannot hold objection to any.

I take it you wont see that for a few pages.

 

As much as you enjoy these exchanges, you do realise you're ill right? You can deflect all you want but your obsession with a now fairly long retired fighter is as creepy as ****.

 

why is explaining your mistake, "deflecting" to you?