Radzhab Yusupovich Butaev vs. Eimantas Stanionis

Ennis resume is dog poo poo...so if you're saying it's better than Butaev & Stanionis, that's not saying much.

Again fights aren't won on paper but you got butth**t whenever I mentioned that so I'll just simply leave it be.

 

Butaev did fight Besputon who is pretty good.
Also James is decent.

 

I didn't get butth*rt.

I simply pointed out the absurdity of your comment. You suggested that Stan and Butaev would beat Ennis based on the fact that he has yet to fight anyone as good as either one of them. When I pointed out that they hadn't fought anyone as good as him, the flaw in your argument should have become painfully obvious.

If none of the three have a particularly stellar resume---and they don't---we have little else on which to base our opinion other than the "eye ball" test. My eyes tell me Ennis is the best of the bunch.

 

Are you talking about James? I think he tried to stay outside and box against Butaev but Butaev simply wouldn't let him and towards the end when his legs were gone he was a sitting duck. I think James is a good fighter but I agree he brawls to much for a guy that has physical advantages that should benefit him on tye outside.

 

Yes James.
He aint very good.

 

I guess that all depends on how you define good.

 

Really hyped for this fight! And I think Stanionis will surprise lot of peoples by winning via late stoppage!

 

You did get pain in your anal area.

Unfortunately you didn't

That's CAP! I never said that they would beat Ennis, I said that all of them (Ennis, Ortiz, Butaev, Stanionis) have fought no one so we don't know who would win.

But I said that none of them have fought anyone so what are you talking about.

Fights are NOT one on paper or with eyeball test, they are won in the ring...only casuals go with eyeball test.

 

1. First, don't flatter yourself--- I've debated far more capable posters on ESB than you could ever hope to be without so much as batting an eye, much less getting butth*rt.
   
   Second, backpedal much? You absolutely said you that you were "confident" that Ennis wouldn't beat Stan or Butaev because he had never fought anyone as good as either of them. Feel free to go back and review your original remarks.
   
   You're scrambling now---and embarrassingly so-- because I clearly demonstrated the obvious flaw in your rather pedestrian attempt at boxing logic: while Ennis has never fought anyone as good as Butaev and Stan, they have never fought as good as him.
   
   Again, and I'll say it very slowly this time since you're apparently having some difficulty comprehending the concept, what should we use to evaluate a prospective fight other than the eyeball test when:
   
   a) the fighters in question have thin resumes (a fact you just conceded in the case of Butaev, Stan, and Ennis) and b) the fighters in question haven't fought each other (as is the case with Ennis vs either Stan or Butaev)?
   
   Casual....please. I've likely been following the sport as long as you've been alive.

 

You are correct, but that was my response to the person saying Boots hasn't fought nobody like them. However, Boots has shown better skills than both of those fighters. Eventually these guys will meet up in a eliminator fight and prove who's who. My money is on Boots.

 

So glad Stan won. He could very well become a solid champ or contender for years to come.

 

Surrrrre

Cute.

You wrote:

To which I wrote (mocking you using the words "I feel confident")

and then I wrote:

Everything you wrote after that I'm not going to quote because well, it was all garbage.

 

Nice attempt at a sneaky slight of hand there.

Your comment about not knowing who'd win between Stan, Butaev, and Ennis did not follow your remark to me about being "confident" that Ennis wouldn't beat them in our back-and-forth.

In fact, it was posted in a reply to another poster after I'd already roasted you by demonstrating how ridiculous your original assertion was.

First you denied saying you were "confident" that Ennis wouldn't beat Stan and Butaev and now this little gem. You'll have to get up a lot earlier in the morning to get one over on me.

And let me translate your final remarks for you: "I can't possibly address your contention without acknowledging that my initial remark about Ennis was poorly considered/ bullsh*t, so I'll just avoid it like the plague."

But hey---thanks for playing!!

 

Huh?!?

Dude, let try this again. We do not know who will win between Ennis, Ortiz, Benn, Stanionis (Butaev lost tonight) because they all have fought nobodies.

Fights are not won on paper or with eyeball test because of intangibles that can happen in the ring. As a 60-70 year old man, you should know this.

 

I'm not even 50, guy.

Can I ask you an honest question: are you being deliberately obtuse just to jerk my chain?

If we are speculating on who might win between Ennis vs Butaev or Ennis vs Stan (prior to the Butaev fight since it hadn't occurred when we first began this) what the f*ck else do we have to base our opinions on other than the eyeball test when a) Ennis hasn't fought either one of them and b) by your own admission, none of them have a resume that can offer any real insight as to their future performance?

Is this truly that hard to understand or process? Honestly??