One day, the British people whose progenitors didn't get free hundreds of years back will have their guns returned to them and make a constitutional Republic right here on this tiny island. Assuming they're not all living under Shariah by then.
Yea, we absolutely are, and I've been to Iraq three times and Afghanistan once. Afghans are literally too poor to intimidate. To them, what's the worst that could happen? They die? Good, they'll be glad when they don't have to deal with the everyday **** they do. Guns or not, if you can fight, people will take notice and soon after will be stacking the deck in their favor, either by jumping you with multiple guys, knuckle dusters, knives/shanks, all of the above, the list is endless. But you can't fault them for it. In the end it was you that went home the loser, if you went home at all, regardless of the circumstances.
Back to boxing for a moment. You're looking to build a great two-weight résumé from 168-175. I got two batches of names to add real substance to the championship end, but you can only take one batch. You can have 2009 Kessler + 2011 Froch + 2012 Dawson + 2017 Kovalev. Or... You can get you two of the biggest busts and embarrassments of the last era, a.k.a. Lucian Bute and Andre Dirrell, and throw in an inconsistent James DeGale (the kind of guy to get his face busted twice in a row while going 0-1-1 with a coupla rugged but unspectacular contenders) while you're at it. What's your pick? [url]http://i.imgur.com/RDkNPxf.gif[/url] This thread's been genuine laugh-out-loud material.
I kept reading the posts after this one, but this is the post where I started to get frustrated with the nature of this conversation. Does Ward put offense before defense or not? How the hell does Dirrell have anything to do with Ward putting defense first or offense first? I need some form of definition for what is a brawler and boxer respectively because what youse guys are talkin about just does not fit what I know of as the mark, or giveaway, whatever you call it. Which, not to get too distracted, but my version is historically correct...it's where I got the mentality from. So if we're to use the terms to mean anything other than a boxer is a pugilist who exalts defense above all else and a brawler is a pugilist that exalts offense over all else that's fine by me but I'd feel kind of ashamed if I didn't mention that is the historical definition going back to the ancient pymacha. Some very aggressive fighters are boxers and some very relaxed fighters are brawlers and I think that's what's been confused. I've never thought of Dre as an offense first kind of fighter, aggressive sure but he uses an aggressive defense with rather pocket offense. Ward doesn't exactly load from behind himself, but I'd hear the argument if you endeavoured to make one, like I said I think this may be for a battle of terms more than anything and I'm not real sure what you'd define a brawler as. That said, what you're talking about makes sense to me as in I understand what you mean, but it doesn't make any sense to me as in I don't see how you think the points you're making reflect your overarching point; Ward is a brawler. Seems like everything you've said is a whole lot of non-points, no offense, I just don't get it. What's with this idea that a person has to perform a physical action against the right name or type of fighter to prove they're proficient at said action? Seems like convoluted triangle theory to me. I don't think you can explain Marciano, or Tyson, or Foreman by pointing out the styles of fighters they fought. I'm pretty sure to explain Marciano's game you've to use terms like kinematic chain and line of sight, or at the very least talk about the crouch and making himself smaller to stretch out his opponent. I don't see how Tyson's opposition's style of fighting explains what peek-a-boo is, and I'm pretty sure to explain Foreman you're going to need to talk about ring placement and posture more than Ali and his Rope-A-Dope That said, I don't understand how Ward's resume says anything about his style of fighting.
LOL, man even with the mentally fragile turds in there, give me Froch's group all day. He and Kessler have more than enough balls to get their group by. Actually, hands down that group. Between Froch and Kessler's toughness and Dawson and Kovalev's talent and natural ability - and Kessler's, you got one hell of a shot at having an untouchable fighter. Bute, Dirrell, and DeGale have all the ability in the world but are mental and emotional clams.
He never did clearly define boxer/brawler, be it in classical terms or his own idiosyncratic terms, so I just ran with the definitions that seemed to be implied by his posts. 'Boxer' = outfighter, 'brawler' = infighter. I'm not sure what term he'd apply to what Ward was doing in the 8th, bobbing and weaving in front of Kovalev in the medium range, slipping shots and whipping his own in. Yeah. Ward can't outfight because he never proved it against Lucian Bute or Andre Dirrell (of all people). He only proved it against these other quality guys. The "right name or type of fighter" thing comes in if we're talking about a guy's ability to change his style up in response to a name/type that might be able to offset his usual schtick, but friend bailey doesn't even seem to care for the idea of versatility. According to him, Ward can't be good at both 'boxing' and 'brawling' and transition smoothly between them, he can only be good at one and suck at the other. So his contention is that Ward can't box period - [url]he previously built a thread around the theory, and refused to heed any sensible contribution folks made to that[/url].
Youre saying its OK the break the rules then ? As l your fighter doing it. This was a blatant hatchet job. Ward knew he had cart blanche Weekes wouldn' t see any any fouls on his part Not one warning