March 4th Shaping up well

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 06 Feb 2006, 10:17

He and Mick Sturbs are the same person i would say.

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 06 Feb 2006, 10:18

REAL_DEAL wrote:Hey boxingchat any chance of a promoter area pass for the 4th i think i have helped every boxer fighting on that card :P

WTF R U on about?

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 06 Feb 2006, 10:18

I'd love to do an IP address check on some of the freaks around here and find out what the story is. Mods is that possible? How about stopping people posting from multiple accounts? This place would be far better for it.

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 06 Feb 2006, 11:11

Probably gives some of them WBU titles because not many are talented enough for one of the big 3.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 06 Feb 2006, 11:44

nickd wrote:I'd love to do an IP address check on some of the freaks around here and find out what the story is. Mods is that possible? How about stopping people posting from multiple accounts? This place would be far better for it.

I would love to be a bit more certain with my thoughts on some of the characters here - some interesting IP addresses/matches. Although, I believe with some accounts (like an AOL for instance) that can be quite possible and still be two geniunely different people can be using different computers and still crop up as a match.

I think it was Hardhitters who told me that, after I Pm'd him asking him was there a problem cause he had a break from posting, but an IP matching his just created an account. It was all due to this AOL thing and HH was back on form after a holiday.

Its pretty much a given that Mick Sturbs is who everyone has accused Boxingchat/RubberJohnny and a few others of being in the past and its almost a given that Boxingchat is who he has been accused of. So in other words yes, Mick and Boxingchat are very likely to be the same poster.

Don't think he is the only one who has been arguing with himself though.

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 06 Feb 2006, 12:08

steve689 wrote:He and Mick Sturbs are the same person i would say.

Do all the checks you like, he ain't me.

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 06 Feb 2006, 12:10

stujones wrote:
nickd wrote:I'd love to do an IP address check on some of the freaks around here and find out what the story is. Mods is that possible? How about stopping people posting from multiple accounts? This place would be far better for it.
I would love to be a bit more certain with my thoughts on some of the characters here - some interesting IP addresses/matches. Although, I believe with some accounts (like an AOL for instance) that can be quite possible and still be two geniunely different people can be using different computers and still crop up as a match.

I think it was Hardhitters who told me that, after I Pm'd him asking him was there a problem cause he had a break from posting, but an IP matching his just created an account. It was all due to this AOL thing and HH was back on form after a holiday.

Its pretty much a given that Mick Sturbs is who everyone has accused Boxingchat/RubberJohnny and a few others of being in the past and its almost a given that Boxingchat is who he has been accused of. So in other words yes, Mick and Boxingchat are very likely to be the same poster.

Don't think he is the only one who has been arguing with himself though.

Pratt, you give me proof that I am one and the same and I will give £1,000 to your nominated charity. Stop talking bollocks.

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 06 Feb 2006, 12:11

WTF is Rubber Johnny anyway?

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 06 Feb 2006, 12:23

boxingchat wrote:WTF is Rubber Johnny anyway?

Rubber Johnny was a poster who had a few barney's with an old poster here, who was sure he knew his identity - and the guy never denied it.

I'm might be a pratt, but you have a short memory. Not so long ago, another poster brought up asking the question if you and he (Rubber Johnny) were the same and you asked exactly the same question.... you were told by another poster who Rubber Johnny was - did you forget?

As for proof, its not going to happen (hence my first line of my last post) - but I am not the only one have said in public that I believe you and him are the same... in this thread and in others. So its just not me who is talking bollocks.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 06 Feb 2006, 12:29

Boxingchat stick to the one account or fornicate off.

bugs · Post by **bugs** » 06 Feb 2006, 14:49

Pratt, you give me proof that I am one and the same and I will give £1,000 to your nominated charity. Stop talking bollocks.

I doubt you would pay it, I think you are Lirva as well

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 06 Feb 2006, 20:28

Too smart to be Livra.

Who cares whos who, I want to see these fights on March 4th when Nelson's experiance will probably beat Macca and Calzaghe expose Lacy.

lirva33 · Post by **lirva33** » 06 Feb 2006, 22:40

Lacy v Calzaghe - Lacy KO2
Nelson v Maccarinelli - Nelson KO5
Morris v O'Hara - Morris KO5
Alexander v McDonagh - Alexander Ko4
Barnes v Pryce - Price KO11

WayoftheCass · Post by **WayoftheCass** » 07 Feb 2006, 05:06

lirva33 wrote:Lacy v Calzaghe - Lacy KO2
Nelson v Maccarinelli - Nelson KO5
Morris v O'Hara - Morris KO5
Alexander v McDonagh - Alexander Ko4
Barnes v Pryce - Price KO11

The Lacy prediction is bold but may be worth a bet. I have never disputed Joe's ability but rather his heart. I can see this being sort of like Calzaghe-Mitchel in that its a war early. I'm going to give Joe the benefit of the doubt though and say that he and Lacy bring early firworks as both go for it but that neither gets blasted out. Instead Joe starts backing off from the 5th onwards when he realises that he's in with a younger and more pwerful guy and gets stalked down by the 7th or 8th. It really is a tough one to predict. We know that Lacy is the biz when its all going according to plan but not what happens when the other guy also bring the pain. Can't wait.
As for Nelson-Enzo....another tough one. Johnny is cetainly more vulnerable now than ever before but Maccarinelli is so untested. A knockout within 6 for the Welshman is something I can forsee. I don't know if Johnny is capable of being explosive anymore. I see him trying to outfox and frustrate Enzo but being stalked down. A real tough one.
As for Alexander-McDonagh. McDonagh has zero power yet is aggressive. Unless Wayne is shot to hell I think its a matter of time until he catches his opponent. I'll call it in 5 for the puncher.
Barnes-Price.........David looked totally shot when he lost his belt. His performance disturbed me and he obviously can't deal with a puncher. However I think he's got Price at the right time so I predict a slick Hare victory type display and a stoppage in 8th. Once again though its not a foregone conclusion. At least not on paper.
Should be a cracking night. Bring it on.

Lenny · Post by **Lenny** » 07 Feb 2006, 05:38

Lacy v Calzaghe - Keep changing my mind on this one but think in the end Lacy will just be too hungry and hit too hard for Joe, pretty much agree with your analysis WayoftheCass. Tough one to pick as it's a big step up in class for both of them.

Nelson v Maccarinelli - Like Enzo but I don't think he has fought anyone that will prepare him for Jonny. Think Nelson will look good as for him he has been active and facing tougher tests. Enzo hasn't fought anyone of any note for a while and I think this will effect him.

Morris v O'Hara - Am impressed with Morris and think he will box his way to a fairly easy UD here. Hopefully he will progress beyond domestic and European class and we can have another featherweight on the world scene.

Alexander v McDonagh - Wayne to find a punch from somewhere, at somepoint, to put McDonagh's lights out after being behind on points/

Barnes v Pryce - Still think Barnes has something to offer and if he puts his mind to it should easily outbox Pryce. Could stop him but Pryce is the last person you want to get in a war with

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 07 Feb 2006, 08:08

nickd wrote:Boxingchat stick to the one account or smeg off.

There you go again, Childhood issues still haunting you or something?

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 07 Feb 2006, 08:14

What? You were clearly posting as Mick Sturbs 'his' writing was remarkably in fact uncannily like yours as people have said. And then a moderator confirms it came from the same person. My point is as much as I disagree with you on occasions (make that always!) I like your input here so dont ruin it by posting dogshit from other accounts i.e. Mick Sturbs.

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 08 Feb 2006, 08:06

nickd wrote:What? You were clearly posting as Mick Sturbs 'his' writing was remarkably in fact uncannily like yours as people have said. And then a moderator confirms it came from the same person. My point is as much as I disagree with you on occasions (make that always!) I like your input here so dont ruin it by posting dogshit from other accounts i.e. Mick Sturbs.

1. His writing is like mine? What, in English?
2. Your Moderator is a liar because this is impossible as he is not I and only I have this computer and e-mail. So a bollocks statement again!
3. You disagree because you don't know shit.

ID your moderator and let him display the proof, I have nothing to hide.
Mick Sturbs usually spouts bollocks whereas I do not.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 08 Feb 2006, 08:21

stujones wrote:
Its pretty much a given that Mick Sturbs is who everyone has accused Boxingchat/RubberJohnny and a few others of being in the past and its almost a given that Boxingchat is who he has been accused of. So in other words yes, Mick and Boxingchat are very likely to be the same poster.

Don't think he is the only one who has been arguing with himself though.

Stu Jones is a moderator.

Now stick to the one account and we're all good! :)

I'll even forget that pathetic little outburst as Mick Sturbs we all know it was you. Even without the mod saying so it was blindingly obvious.

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 08 Feb 2006, 08:32

nickd wrote:
stujones wrote:
Its pretty much a given that Mick Sturbs is who everyone has accused Boxingchat/RubberJohnny and a few others of being in the past and its almost a given that Boxingchat is who he has been accused of. So in other words yes, Mick and Boxingchat are very likely to be the same poster.

Don't think he is the only one who has been arguing with himself though.

Stu Jones is a moderator.

Now stick to the one account and we're all good! :)

Well come on then Stu Jones let's see the proof and then I will accept your apology and may even help Nick wipe the egg of his face.

And if you think I can be bothered to have two names to argue with you lot you are sadly deluded.

Pathetic!

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 08 Feb 2006, 10:18

Boxingchat and Nick.

I categorically stated that I (and the other mods) have NO proof that you are one and the same. We are all entitled to our opinion, my OPINION is that you probably (not definately, I have never said definately) are the same. I am not the only mod/poster to have this view. Although, most who have said it on the forums have added a phrase like "probably", or "in my view" - not yes, you and him are the same.

I will (and I hope so will all the other poster's/mods) appologies for my wrong statement if you can provide proof that you and Mick are not the same, but just like proving that you are the same it is impossible to prove your not. Anyone can say they only have one account and even give out phoney details.

Anybody can be economical with the truth, like when you said if Sports Network have dropped a bollock and deserve to be criticised, then you will do it about them (as well as other promoters).

Mick Sturbs · Post by **Mick Sturbs** » 08 Feb 2006, 20:14

stujones wrote:Boxingchat and Nick.

I categorically stated that I (and the other mods) have NO proof that you are one and the same. We are all entitled to our opinion, my OPINION is that you probably (not definately, I have never said definately) are the same. I am not the only mod/poster to have this view. Although, most who have said it on the forums have added a phrase like "probably", or "in my view" - not yes, you and him are the same.

I will (and I hope so will all the other poster's/mods) appologies for my wrong statement if you can provide proof that you and Mick are not the same, but just like proving that you are the same it is impossible to prove your not. Anyone can say they only have one account and even give out phoney details.

Anybody can be economical with the truth, like when you said if Sports Network have dropped a bollock and deserve to be criticised, then you will do it about them (as well as other promoters).

fornicate Im famous

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 09 Feb 2006, 04:15

Mick Sturbs wrote:
stujones wrote:Boxingchat and Nick.

I categorically stated that I (and the other mods) have NO proof that you are one and the same. We are all entitled to our opinion, my OPINION is that you probably (not definately, I have never said definately) are the same. I am not the only mod/poster to have this view. Although, most who have said it on the forums have added a phrase like "probably", or "in my view" - not yes, you and him are the same.

I will (and I hope so will all the other poster's/mods) appologies for my wrong statement if you can provide proof that you and Mick are not the same, but just like proving that you are the same it is impossible to prove your not. Anyone can say they only have one account and even give out phoney details.

Anybody can be economical with the truth, like when you said if Sports Network have dropped a bollock and deserve to be criticised, then you will do it about them (as well as other promoters).
smeg Im famous

You are a C U N T. The End.

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 09 Feb 2006, 06:16

nickd wrote:
Mick Sturbs wrote:
stujones wrote:Boxingchat and Nick.

I categorically stated that I (and the other mods) have NO proof that you are one and the same. We are all entitled to our opinion, my OPINION is that you probably (not definately, I have never said definately) are the same. I am not the only mod/poster to have this view. Although, most who have said it on the forums have added a phrase like "probably", or "in my view" - not yes, you and him are the same.

I will (and I hope so will all the other poster's/mods) appologies for my wrong statement if you can provide proof that you and Mick are not the same, but just like proving that you are the same it is impossible to prove your not. Anyone can say they only have one account and even give out phoney details.

Anybody can be economical with the truth, like when you said if Sports Network have dropped a bollock and deserve to be criticised, then you will do it about them (as well as other promoters).
smeg Im famous
You are a C U N T. The End.

So there you have it, not only is Nickd full of shot but he tells lies too!

I await your full written apology by return if indeed you are man enough.

J · Post by J » 09 Feb 2006, 08:36

telling lies by definition is deliberately telling untruths, nick merely voiced an opinion he believed to be true, so as far as he is concerned this isnt lying.

so did you just tell a lie about nick lying then...you get my point.

just to clarify, and if we all had to apologise every time we got something wrong we would have asight full of no boxing content an full of humble pie.

get over it move on.