the only bits you got right in that statement are the 1st "nowhere near as good as SRL" and the last "got a lot to learn":deal now thomas,im not calling you here,there are a lot of more,how can i say:think verbally gifted,better literature and cleverer folk on here than this lowly plasterer. but **** me,how much boxing do you watch,if you watch a lot,**** me,watch closer,cos most of that is bollocks what you have wrote:deal
:nono now thats not nice,im not bright,but brighter than khan,and i called him a runner:nono theres a massive difference in stepping back and/or moving your head and throwing shots to running backwards and covering up,:bartwatch and learn and you shall see young skywalker:worm
atsch I am not a fanatic of Khan. I am just expressing my point og view, and if you can't explain to me and refute my points without resorting to childish insults then Im not gona take you or your posts serious now GTFO
your points were already answered by quite a few people and your points were deemed as poor, comparing khan to what srl done is baffling and the debate was over with, your digging your grave here just leave it get on with something else
:huh So according to you if you even mention SRL in a debate about whether Khan was running or not but express how much better SRL is than Khan and will probably never be on the same level as SRL = an automatic debate loss, please explain to me this. And please explain to me where any of the points I made were actually addressed further than 'Khan is a runner, end of debate' 'you wrong Im right' type posts.