"Joe Calzaghe would beat prime Michael Spinks"- Max Kellerman

heehoo · Dec 27, 2010

left right left said: ↑

Spinks would put a long term Jinx on that southpaw. :fire
Click to expand...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHjxgPeqKw[/ame]

Primadonna Kool · Dec 27, 2010

Michael Spinks was ****, and fought with his chin WAY up in the air.

BUMPY KNUCKLES · Dec 27, 2010

^^^^ u think calzaghe would be playing around like that ***** was .. no calzaghe would swarm mr spinks with more punches than hes ever seen and he wouldnt let up once.

BUDW · Dec 27, 2010

Spinks destroys calzaghe

heehoo · Dec 27, 2010

BUMPY KNUCKLES said: ↑

^^^^ u think calzaghe would be playing around like that ***** was .. no calzaghe would swarm mr spinks with more punches than hes ever seen and he wouldnt let up once.
Click to expand...

Marvin Johnson a *****?

Why should anybody take you seriously after reading that?

Shows how much you know.

Spinks crushes Calzaghe.

Sister Sledge · Dec 27, 2010

Spinks had the ability to outbox or outfight just about anyone. His boxing skills and ring gernalship are overlooked because of his awkwardness, but he was very good technically. JC would simply not be strong enough to beat Spinks. The only thing JC had on Spinks was spead. You have to be able to use that advantage effectively. I don't think JC could outbox Spinks or outfight him.

hussleman · Dec 27, 2010

Let Spinks hit Calfaggy with the "Spink Jinx" early in the first round, trust me Calfaggy would not be getting up!

RicardoTubbs210 · Dec 27, 2010

lol he also once was a rapper preaching wat he thinks of boxing
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uA8hcv1MzA[/ame]

des3995 · Dec 27, 2010

RicardoTubbs210 said: ↑

lol he also once was a rapper preaching wat he thinks of boxing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uA8hcv1MzA
Click to expand...

LOL.....not as bad as I expected it to be.

Farmboxer · Dec 27, 2010

Calzaghe was fantastic!

Clinton · Dec 28, 2010

bailey said: ↑

You are only admitting now as I have brought up former quotes that showed you were BENDING THE TRUTH. Having to admit it now

Your writing I wrote unbeateable wrecking ball, but I havent once wrote that you said Qawi was unbeateable, have I? No. Bending the truth again atsch

A couple does mean 2 dummy atsch, and I admitted that I was wrong and that one of the decisions was a draw not a loss. Clutching at straws again and attempting to bend the truth again . Shameful

I know, I brought up the quotes and explained early on it was me saying Spinks would be another American name to go with, and listed the American fighters Calzaghe beat. This was explained it was nothing to do with levels. Also Hopkins and Jones names are in there, along with others, not just Manfredo. So once again you are trying to bend the truth by missing out all of what was wrote :-(

And also wrote on the same quote you used to be a fan atsch

Totally exposed you again, a proven truth bender.
To think if you hadnt of called me out, I wouldnt have destroyed all your credibility and proven you as a truth bender. Now you are exposed to all of the ESB masses :hi:
Click to expand...

Ah,bailey the liar is back.Hi,dummy:hi:.After I had written Qawi was a wrecking ball this is your quote from contri 147:"Let's remember Qawi had beaten a few times before he fought Spinks so was an unbeatable recking ball."Those are your exact words.Not only are you a liar,but your grammar and spelling are useless.You also wrote Qawi lost a few(before Spinks)and then a couple after you "corrected" yourself.No reaching on my part,just another falsehood from you.And I wasn't bending the truth after correcting myself,which is hilarious because you had accused me of being unable to admit I was incorrect after you had "corrected" YOURSELF,haha.You grouped Spinks in with Manfredo(as well as the others)together as Americans.THAT'S WHAT YOU WROTE!I'm repeating this as you're just harping on and "clutching at straws" while you repeat nonsense just to distract from your lack of meaningful debate,haha.I'm certainly not trying to "bend the truth missing out on all that was said".And yes,I used to be a fan of Calzaghe's-which is the truth.However,without ever having met me,you keep mentioning that for the purpose of WHAT?-trying to discredit me without acknowledging the positives I've ALWAYS written about Calzaghe.Your credibility is long gone:hi:.And by the way,you've yet to give JUST ONE decent reason why prime JC would beat a prime Spinks.Yes,we all know Calzaghe was undefeated.Now just write the reasons that JC would have won a fantasy matchup.
Click to expand...

bailey · Dec 28, 2010

Clinton said: ↑

Ah,bailey the liar is back.Hi,dummy.After I had written Qawi was a wrecking ball this is your quote from contri 147:"Let's remember Qawi had beaten a few times before he fought Spinks so was an unbeatable recking ball."Those are your exact words.

Click to expand...

Which is further proof that I
This content is protected
Qawi was an unbeatable recking ball.
Another time you are found to be bending the truth :-(

Not only are you a liar,but your grammar and spelling are useless.
Click to expand...

Dont worry yourself there, this isnt a formal letter, and just shows that you are looking to pick holes in a debate you are losing.

You also wrote Qawi lost a few(before Spinks)and then a couple after you "corrected" yourself.
Click to expand...

I know. I openly said I thought Qawi had lost a couple of times, but that I was wrong, one of the fights I thought he lost was a draw. So what??
In fact here is a copy of what I wrote

This content is protected
atsch.

So??? Reaching again

No reaching on my part,just more falsehoods from you.And I wasn't bending the truth after correcting myself,which is hilarious because you had accused me of being unable to admit I was incorrect after you had "corrected" YOURSELF,haha
Click to expand...

Not sure which part you are writing about here. But I have no problem admitting to a mistake, which I did.
I stand corrected for thinking a draw had been a loss until I checked it out on Boxrec. For that you call me a liar atsch. OK

You grouped Spinks in with Manfredo(as well as the others)together as Americans.THAT'S WHAT YOU WROTE!
Click to expand...

Yes. Lets look at exactly what was written again

This content is protected

This content is protected

Then you wrote

This content is protected

Taken from you quote #164
I then wrote

This content is protected

Taken from quote #166
Never denied this and explained why, but you still go on about it. Why? Trying to bend the truth, to make it sound something different to what it is atsch. Fail

.And yes,I used to be a fan of Calzaghe's-which is the truth.
Click to expand...

This content is protected

Taken from your quote #169.
So you dont like him but you dont hate him but you used to be a fan atsch

However,without ever having met me,you keep mentioning that for the purpose of WHAT?-trying to discredit me
Click to expand...

Read above, you have done that to yourself. Constantly trying to bend the truth

And by the way,you've yet to give JUST ONE decent reason why prime JC would beat a prime Spinks.Yes,we all know Calzaghe was undefeated.Now just write the reasons that JC would have won a fantasy matchup.
Click to expand...

Calzaghe had a great chin and would have been able to take Spinks shots, even when being put down Calzaghe has never in 46 fights been seriously hurt. Knowing Spinks has power Calzaghe wouldnt leave himself open for Spinks.
Spinks wasnt the fastest of fighters and I have no doubt Calzaghe would have out bowed Spinks for a UD.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Click to expand...

Clinton · Dec 28, 2010

bailey said: ↑

Which is further proof that I
This content is protected
Qawi was an unbeatable recking ball.
Another time you are found to be bending the truth :-(

Dont worry yourself there, this isnt a formal letter, and just shows that you are looking to pick holes in a debate you are losing.

I know. I openly said I thought Qawi had lost a couple of times, but that I was wrong, one of the fights I thought he lost was a draw. So what??
In fact here is a copy of what I wrote

This content is protected
atsch.

So??? Reaching again

Not sure which part you are writing about here. But I have no problem admitting to a mistake, which I did.
I stand corrected for thinking a draw had been a loss until I checked it out on Boxrec. For that you call me a liar atsch. OK

Yes. Lets look at exactly what was written again

This content is protected

This content is protected

Then you wrote

This content is protected

Taken from you quote #164
I then wrote

This content is protected

Taken from quote #166
Never denied this and explained why, but you still go on about it. Why? Trying to bend the truth, to make it sound something different to what it is atsch. Fail

This content is protected

Taken from your quote #169.
So you dont like him but you dont hate him but you used to be a fan atsch

Read above, you have done that to yourself. Constantly trying to bend the truth

Calzaghe had a great chin and would have been able to take Spinks shots, even when being put down Calzaghe has never in 46 fights been seriously hurt. Knowing Spinks has power Calzaghe wouldnt leave himself open for Spinks.
Spinks wasnt the fastest of fighters and I have no doubt Calzaghe would have out bowed Spinks for a UD.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Click to expand...

No truth bending on my part.But you?-lying yet again.But you are consistent as you keep repeating yourself over and over,even highlighting in red type-thereby thinking that that itself might prove your point better,haha(PS,it doesn't,especially seeing how you continually repeat yourself).That wasn't the only reason I was calling you a liar.Can you POSSIBLY translate,"Let's remember Qawi had beaten a few times before he fought Spinks so was an unbeatable recking ball,"after I had written Qawi was a wrecking ball.JUST TRANSLATE,FFS.I'm not "picking holes in a debate" that I'm most certainly NOT losing.And you're the one who failed and is still going on about the grouping thing-as they're all Americans.There is nothing in my contris that indicates I'm "bending the truth" no matter how hard you've tried.And once again for the umpteenth time because I think you are either drunk or just silly:I USED TO BE A FAN OF CALZAGHE'S BUT AM NOT ANYMORE.I DON'T LIKE HIM,BUT DON'T HATE HIM.EITHER WAY,HE WAS A TERRIFIC FIGHTER.I've no idea why that is so diffucult for you to understand and believe,as you keep harping on it to try(however,pathetically) to discredit me,haha.You're the "truth bender" as you don't even know me but have issues with my honesty!Shame on you.And you can't fathom that you're lying about that?Good job and very logical!Funny ****.As for JC and Spinks,even though Joe had better handspeed,Michael had very good handspeed-especially for such a big lightheavyweight.He also had a terrific chin at lightheavy.He had every other single physical advantage(except,of course,the aforementioned handspeed)over JC,and Joe's only other advantage was workrate.But then again,Michael's stamina was brilliant,also,as he went 15 quite convincingly.If Joe were to ever get into punching range against Michael,he'd have to deal with a great puncher at 175 with a crushing right hand-a punch that has put Calzaghe down on more than one occasion by punchers that weren't as big or good as Spinks.Plus,Joe,as well as Michael,had a high boxing I.Q.But Joe was never known for his great defense.And obviously,Spinks' resume at 175(or overall,for that matter)is clearly superior to Joe's.See you in a day or 2.Bye-bye.
Click to expand...

Thread Stealer · Dec 28, 2010

Why do people argue with trolls?

bailey · Dec 28, 2010

Clinton said: ↑

No truth bending on my part.But you?-lying yet again.But you are consistent as you keep repeating yourself over and over,even highlighting in red type-thereby thinking that that itself might prove your point better,haha(PS,it doesn't,especially seeing how you continually repeat yourself).That wasn't the only reason I was calling you a liar.Can you POSSIBLY translate,"Let's remember Qawi had beaten a few times before he fought Spinks so was an unbeatable recking ball,"after I had written Qawi was a wrecking ball.JUST TRANSLATE,FFS.I'm not "picking holes in a debate" that I'm most certainly NOT losing.And you're the one who failed and is still going on about the grouping thing-as they're all Americans.There is nothing in my contris that indicates I'm "bending the truth" no matter how hard you've tried.And once again for the umpteenth time because I think you are either drunk or just silly:I USED TO BE A FAN OF CALZAGHE'S BUT AM NOT ANYMORE.I DON'T LIKE HIM,BUT DON'T HATE HIM.EITHER WAY,HE WAS A TERRIFIC FIGHTER.I've no idea why that is so diffucult for you to understand and believe,as you keep harping on it to try(however,pathetically) to discredit me,haha.You're the "truth bender" as you don't even know me but have issues with my honesty!Shame on you.And you can't fathom that you're lying about that?Good job and very logical!Funny ****.As for JC and Spinks,even though Joe had better handspeed,Michael had very good handspeed-especially for such a big lightheavyweight.He also had a terrific chin at lightheavy.He had every other single physical advantage(except,of course,the aforementioned handspeed)over JC,and Joe's only other advantage was workrate.But then again,Michael's stamina was brilliant,also,as he went 15 quite convincingly.If Joe were to ever get into punching range against Michael,he'd have to deal with a great puncher at 175 with a crushing right hand-a punch that has put Calzaghe down on more than one occasion by punchers that weren't as big or good as Spinks.Plus,Joe,as well as Michael,had a high boxing I.Q.But Joe was never known for his great defense.And obviously,Spinks' resume at 175(or overall,for that matter)is clearly superior to Joe's.See you in a day or 2.Bye-bye.
Click to expand...

I highlighted parts that proved you were bending the truth. You were completely exposed and will now have to live with that moniker.
Point proven :hi:

Log in or Sign up

"Joe Calzaghe would beat prime Michael Spinks"- Max Kellerman

heehoo TIMEXICAH! Full Member

Primadonna Kool Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

BUMPY KNUCKLES Guest

BUDW Boxing Addict Full Member

heehoo TIMEXICAH! Full Member

Sister Sledge Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

hussleman Boxing Junkie Full Member

RicardoTubbs210 Member Full Member

des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Farmboxer VIP Member Full Member

Clinton Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

Clinton Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Thread Stealer Loyal Member Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

"Joe Calzaghe would beat prime Michael Spinks"- Max Kellerman

heehoo TIMEXICAH! Full Member

Primadonna Kool Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

BUMPY KNUCKLES Guest

BUDW Boxing Addict Full Member

heehoo TIMEXICAH! Full Member

Sister Sledge Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

hussleman Boxing Junkie Full Member

RicardoTubbs210 Member Full Member

des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Farmboxer VIP Member Full Member

Clinton Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

Clinton Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Thread Stealer Loyal Member Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member