Yes, taught to be. By three bans in fifteen years of posting while making yourself the first equal most complained about poster on the forum in ten of those years. You have been treated with kid gloves. That's over now.
In fact no, and I actually thought he'd been banned four times, but he says it's three so I tend to believe him.
I'm about 90 percent sure you've never been banned this side of the river, other than that I wouldn't like to say.
I was taught to be cautious somewhere else ,if you do not understand the allusion that tells me you were not. Some here like me ,some do not, that's the way of the world.Nineteen thousand ,three hundred and something likes indicates some find my content passably interesting Don't threaten me fella ,it makes you look small ,petty, and mean spirited. If you're going to ban me for making a repeat post 3 years later ,be up front and honest about it,don't manufacture an argument were none exists and for Gods sake don't pretend you're impartial and even handed that's an affront to my admittedly limited intelligence!
Honestly at this point I'd say that Walcott and Charles would confidently beat Usyk. Moore has a chance. Usyk is good but he's not great yet. He got caught waaaaay too much by Chisora and looked too ordinary for me to say with confidence that he beats all of Marciano's opponents. At least not on the schedule that Marciano fought. Usyk has been pro for almost the same amount of time that Marciano was and has only a 3rd of the fights. Higher activity might not be a bad thing for Usyk but nobody can say for certain that he would flourish.
This logic is small and petty. By your logic, if i provide you with a final warning, i'm being mean spirited. That it would be better just to remove you from the forum, without a final warning. That makes literally no sense. Not even two years later. I've already explicitly told you you won't' be banned from that. But that's the real problem here. These things, they just don't make it into your skull. It's impossible for you to understand, for some reason, what is being said to you about moderation. It always comes out twisted. I've never "pretended to be impartial", that's more fantasy, but i'm very happy with saying i've given you the benefit of the doubt over and over again. It's up to you. You can still post on this forum as "mcvey" if that's what you want. But you're right at the edge now - it took ten years. But you have to take a step back over this stuff, and round about now.
I'd say you're right,.Usyk is largely still unproven at heavy, he was less than impressive against Witherspoon and not totally convincing against Chisora .Walcott and Charles are a of level above Rollie. Lastarza being smaller and not a banger, and to my eyes at least, not as skilled I must pick Usyk. Marciano is not the subject we are discussing atm.
Yeah, this is a mountain and a molehill, but it's not about this. It's about what's occurred in the decade before that. I hope you can take it on board and alter your posting style, even if you consider it a terrible travesty of justice and your being inexplicably picked on. But do it anyway. That's the last I'll say on the matter. There will be no more small and petty warnings, so it really is entirely up to you from here in.
He beats Lastarza more than likely imo but I brought up Marciano and the others in reference to the post I was responding to.
I wouldn't pick an old Charles to beat Usyk, although I would pick a prime one to. He'd slipped too much by the time of the Marciano fight to beat Usyk IMO. At first, I was debating whether or not Usyk would beat Walcott in a chess-match, but then I pick the bigger, quicker, fighter with better footwork to win a decision. Sorry, that sounded like I was being facetious, but my line of thinking is that Usyk used those advantages to out-box Walcott, and I don't think Walcott is good enough to turn into a pressure fighter and beat Usyk that way. He could sucker Usyk into some great counters though, so you never know. I think the styles favour Usyk, and I'm more impressed with Usyk on film. Also, what do you define as great, rather than good? Because I find it difficult to see that Walcott ends up fitting into one category, but Usyk doesn't. They're very close in legacy IMO. I'd give Moore the best chance of beating Usyk. But I don't see why the Chisora fight matters here, at all. Usyk has had 350 amateur fights; seven title fights, all vs top opposition; had only fought once in a little under two years; sustained multiple injuries in that time; has been with five different trainers since his first title fight and is now 34 years old. Call me crazy, but I think it's possible we've seen his prime come and go. Not to mention, Usyk seems to fight to his level of competition. He looked like poor vs Rodriguez and Kniazev compared to how good he looked vs Głowacki. I think he's done a similar thing vs Witherspoon and Chisora. Even after taking that into account, Usyk still beat Chisora more clearly than most fighters around have done. Usyk was clearly much better at CW. Which is the weight he'd be fighting Charles and Walcott, who're both modern day crusierweight. Neither Walcott or Charles fight anything like Chisora. In fact, Marciano himself resembles Chisora way more than they do. Furthermore, Walcott and Charles have plenty of poor performances around the time they fought Marciano. Both were 2-2 of four going into their first fights with Marciano.I think we're supposed to be taking the crusierweight version of Usyk in this fight, buy McVey will have to confirm. But I agree, on the same schedule Marciano fought, Usyk probably picks up at least one loss. But Usyk's hardly a stranger to busy schedule TBF. He fought as an amateur all the time, all over the place, vs the best in the world with a very good record in the end. Plus, as a pro, he managed seven title fights in two years, which is about the same as Marciano did IIRC. In one offs, with Usyk at his best and the opponent's at the state they fought Marciano, I'd take Usyk over everyone he beat.
