Where the **** does ESB come up with some of its writers? This is easily one of the worst articles on boxing I've ever seen. I'm not trying to be a dick, but damn. People actually read that **** and think that they've learned something.
Yeah, its the most biased, Peter hating **** i've ever seen, i was laughing the whole time i read it...:happy
I don't mind unpopular opinions, but that was just ****in' stupid. Every time ESB publishes on the those jokers the site's reputation goes down.
Exactly. Like when he said Ibriganov would control Peter using his jab. First of all, Ibriganov is a southpaw, secondly, his jab leaves a lot to be desired and honestly, he won't be able to do what he did against Briggs against Peter. His jab will come into play, but not nearly as much as his left hand and right hook. Either way, Peter stops Ibriganov. Even if I'm wrong, picking Povetkin, over Peter at this point in his career by an "EASY WIDE UD?" Come the **** on.
well, they allowed Jack Presscott to write an article so that opened the flood gates to all the rejects. But at the same time I think about half the guys he mentioned would beat Peter.
Wladimir Klitschko and Ruslan Chagaev are the two guys that I think would beat Samuel Peter. Other than that, I think he beats Oleg Maskaev, Sultan Ibragimov, Tony Thompson, Evander Holyfield, Sergei Lyakhovich, Lamon Brewster, Hasim Rahman, Alexander Povetkin, and Alexander Dimitrenko.
He acts like everyone is Ali when he says, WIDE UD. When you got two guys the same height, stature, and similar fighting styles, there won't be a WIDE UD. BTW, Peter is gonna knock Maskaev out.
Is it even a serious article? How could anyone pick glass-jawed Rahman to beat Peter? effin hilarious:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Those types of articles are the nature of the beast. This site has always been open to a wide range of content; if it's limited for the sake quality, then it also loses some of that open-market quality. Since all of the articles are open to comments, it's clear when some are given more criticism than others.