What fighters do you admit to being biased for and against?

Like we are not tired of the Calzaghites....Or the Cotto avatar groupies.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Personally, I believe all time rankings to be useless. And yes, everyone's rankings are bias. As far as that poll, it doesn't mean ****. Many times I vote on those things just to see how everyone else is voting on the issue.

 

The same can be said for all the floyd lovers as well.

 

touche'

 

No, everyones rankings aren't biased. Just because you are, doesn't mean all others are. Objectivity exists, believe it or not. That may be your opinion, but it certainly has no factual basis. Even if one was biased, such limitations can be set aside for logic based thinking.

And you can click "View Poll Results" to see the vote. So considering the way you jump to defend Hopkins at every turn and ignore written and broadcasted facts sometimes to do it, I certainly find it difficult to believe that you just voted to see the results.

 

Everybody is clearly biased. There are few that are not. They are usually the dull and lame posters. Its no fun without the over the top biased. Thats what makes this site what it is. Being overzealous about your guy. If there was one common point of view, WTF are we doing here.

 

Thankyou. To be honset their his alot of cliques on this forumn.I mean your a floyd fan and I am a hatton fan so we won't obviously get on. But its only banter!

 

Trying to reach a consensual position that stands up to criticism and is validated by what ends up happening in the ring?

 

Like I said, you can set aside bias to use logical thinking based on what's in front of you.

Besides, you paint things into corners. You hate on the unbiased posters as lame and boring, then you ***** and yell at others who don't share your point of view, at least recently. So exactly what posters DO you like?

 

To be perfectly honest, I don't give a damn what you believe. If you want to go around making up all time greats lists filled with fighters who retired before you were even born, be my guest. Those lists are pointless and prove nothing.

 

no khan in your against list?:yep

i'm pretty objective to present fighters, what i have bias for are in regards to h2h rankings

bias for:

tyson (h2h beast, i laugh at you people who picks some fossil from the 20's-40's against the peak of heavyweight evolutuion)

Hearns

bias against:

hypejobs

hatton is slowly creeping into my against list for his refusal to acknowledge witter

 

Your not caring means very little. I merely pointed out the facts. You don't make lists, but you vote in polls about them (and this not the first time). You say it's to see the results of what others think, but there is a link directly under it saying view poll results. You're not stupid and certainly not blind. It's called logical inference. Whether you care or not doesn't effect it.

The lists may be pointless to you, but certainly not to others. Anything that gives context and involves research, critical thought and analysis on the history of this great sport or any other certainly has a point.

 

I cant lie, I used to be an even un biased poster. But I see ridiculous threads of all these older fighters that were good but not great beating todays guys with no real basis. I watch a whole lot of old fights and compare and I make educated assumptions 99 percent of the time. I just dwell on the flaws of the fighters that I think have been getting overrated in the past year. But all and all, I dont really give a crap what people say. I know that I am right about how the actually fight turns out and thats what seperates the bull****.

 

Well you can easily argue the point of view. And when someone disagrees, just keep cool like you used to. Some of them are a bit crazy. But that is usually because someone is pretending to be unbiased and go along with the established posters by picking the old guy when they have not really seen the other guy fight.

 

for calzage
against tyson