Most people are of the opinion that if anybody deserved to win Taylor-Wright it was Winky, and I like Taylor! McClellan was more impressive against a stationary target, or another puncher type. Wright it seems can handle damn near anybody with the same successful approach he always uses. By the way, what the hell do you mean by "he has already lost"? A loss in the past disqualifies him from winning tonight?
I didn't read his post either. However, I think you're a dick so I said it. Not just in this thread either - You seem to go from place to place insulting people for no point. Random insults, for **** all. I think Sweet Pea is a good poster, however, I rarely agree with what he thinks, so I'm not defending him because I like him - ****, I'm not defending him at all. I'm having a go at you, because you're a **** :good
what!? i haven't insulted anyone for weeks (except for maybe pimp c, younghypnotic and jack presscot)
Sweet Pea's problem is that he just doesn't respect other's opinions. If you have a view different from his, he'll call you out immediately (probably calling you a moron in the process). If you support your claims with evidence that he doesn't find suitable, he'll insult you even more. Yup.
Shane waits for you to get close then throws with all his might? What herbs are you smoking? Shane took 5 rounds because his speed and skill are superior to Wrights. Plus Wright was ****ing about alot and 5 rounds is the best you could give to Shane. G Man loses because technically he isn't that good. He sense of range, his timing, his body of work defensively and offensively just isn't on par with Shanes or Wrights. Wright would pretty much pick off everything G has to offer and then score repeatedly with the jab. Sure G has a power chance but on his night Gs power would be irrelevent, just like Shanes, Jermaines and Titos was. Four 2 or 3 rounds G is really dangerous.
Yeah, we are seeing different things. One day, we'll throw some tape on the big screen, sip on some rum and I'll explain what I mean in detail.
In case you don't recall, McClellan was also "capable of being beaten", as Nigel Benn proved, and that dosen't mean that Benn's way was the only way to beat McClellan. It's also no shame that Shane Mosley gave Wright some trouble in that second fight, as Shane is a real good fighter. If anything, fighting a guy who gives you trouble and makes you struggle and STILL coming out on top like Winky did speaks better for him than some guy who blows everyone away with power and then folds when he fights the first guy who really contests him. I'm sorry about the tragedy of Gerald McClellan, and I mean no disrespect, but an argument can be made that that's exactly what happened to him when he fought Benn. There was no plan "B". Winky, on the other hand, has become more aggressive in his style (while it still consists pretty much of a high guard and a machine gun right jab). Again, Winky would have jabbed the living daylights out of Gerald, and beaten him on points, and that's exactly what he will do to Bernard Hopkins tonight.
The thing is, you often have trouble discerning between the comments people make when they're serious and the comments that people make when they're obviously saying it just to get a rise out of everyone. And for the latter, you fall right into their traps by telling them how big of an idiot they are, etc.
Yup. And it's fun because you totally overreact when it was obvious to everyone else that I was joking just to get a rise out of you...
More like Alfred "I'm the biggest ******* in the history of refereeing" Asaro proved:good There is clear evidience that that piece of **** ALTERED THE OUTCOME of that fight. If he hadnt pulled the stunts he did, GM finishes Benn in round 1. I dont fault Benn, he fought gamely and did come back, AFTER BEING ALLOWED TO by the worst referee in the history of sport. Based on what we saw tonight vs Hopkins, my inclination that G-man knocks him out late is looking better and better:good