BoxRec

It's not fact, it's opinion.

He was shot [in my opinion] and using Nate Miller as an example of how not shot he was is completely flawed.

I said he LOOKED awful, not the fight was awful. If you're willingly going to just make up what I'n saying then go back to having silly little tantrums with that other forum bore GI.

orbtastic wrote:It's not fact, it's opinion.

He was shot [in my opinion] and using Nate Miller as an example of how not shot he was is completely flawed.

I said he LOOKED awful, not the fight was awful. If you're willingly going to just make up what I'n saying then go back to having silly little tantrums with that other forum bore GI.

It's a fact. I haven't made up a thing. You made a stupid post and I commented on it. Now you're expanding your dumb argument to include this.

Your opinion is wrong. 100%

A guy who is shot to bits can't wage a war for 12 rounds. Shane Mosley is shot to bits, Tommy Hearns was past his prime and still an elite Light Heavyweight. Great win for barkley, discrediting it is as pathetic as pretending there are only prime fighters and shot fighters.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

orbtastic wrote:It's not fact, it's opinion.

He was shot [in my opinion] and using Nate Miller as an example of how not shot he was is completely flawed.

I said he LOOKED awful, not the fight was awful. If you're willingly going to just make up what I'n saying then go back to having silly little tantrums with that other forum bore GI.

It's a fact. I haven't made up a thing. You made a stupid post and I commented on it. Now you're expanding your dumb argument to include this.

Your opinion is wrong. 100%

A guy who is shot to bits can't wage a war for 12 rounds. Shane Mosley is shot to bits, Tommy Hearns was past his prime and still an elite Light Heavyweight. Great win for barkley, discrediting it is as pathetic as pretending there are only prime fighters and shot fighters.

I don't think 'shot' is the right word, but Hearns didn't look right in the Roldan fight.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

orbtastic wrote:It's not fact, it's opinion.

He was shot [in my opinion] and using Nate Miller as an example of how not shot he was is completely flawed.

I said he LOOKED awful, not the fight was awful. If you're willingly going to just make up what I'n saying then go back to having silly little tantrums with that other forum bore GI.

It's a fact. I haven't made up a thing. You made a stupid post and I commented on it. Now you're expanding your dumb argument to include this.

Your opinion is wrong. 100%

A guy who is shot to bits can't wage a war for 12 rounds. Shane Mosley is shot to bits, Tommy Hearns was past his prime and still an elite Light Heavyweight. Great win for barkley, discrediting it is as pathetic as pretending there are only prime fighters and shot fighters.

I don't think 'shot' is the right word, but Hearns didn't look right in the Roldan fight.

His legs looked off after coming back to 60 from 75. But he certainly wasn't completely over the hill and unable to fight at all. That's the way he is being portrayed by Orbtstic to somehow diminish a big win Benn had over someone else. Hogwash

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
It's a fact. I haven't made up a thing. You made a stupid post and I commented on it. Now you're expanding your dumb argument to include this.

Your opinion is wrong. 100%

A guy who is shot to bits can't wage a war for 12 rounds. Shane Mosley is shot to bits, Tommy Hearns was past his prime and still an elite Light Heavyweight. Great win for barkley, discrediting it is as pathetic as pretending there are only prime fighters and shot fighters.

I don't think 'shot' is the right word, but Hearns didn't look right in the Roldan fight.

His legs looked off after coming back to 60 from 75. But he certainly wasn't completely over the hill and unable to fight at all. That's the way he is being portrayed by Orbtstic to somehow diminish a big win Benn had over someone else. Hogwash

orbtastic wrote:Barkley is Barkley and anyone with an ounce of skill usually beat him.

I've got more than an ounce of skill but don't think I'd have beaten Barkley!

coghaugen11 wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Barkley is Barkley and anyone with an ounce of skill usually beat him.

I've got more than an ounce of skill but don't think I'd of beaten Barkley!

Dear me, you talk about people being "genuinely retarded" and you write like that?

keithmoonhangover wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: I don't think 'shot' is the right word, but Hearns didn't look right in the Roldan fight.

His legs looked off after coming back to 60 from 75. But he certainly wasn't completely over the hill and unable to fight at all. That's the way he is being portrayed by Orbtstic to somehow diminish a big win Benn had over someone else. Hogwash

So Shane Mosley is shot to bits and has shown a distinct deterioration in his last few fights despite having what some people describe as a "good win" recently and "waged war" for 12 rounds with someone as limited as Mayorga who wouldn't have lived with him in his prime and you can't see it's remotely analogous?

Let's all go back in time and beat Barkley!

Always fancied a WBC, WBA or IBF belt on my mantlepiece :)

orbtastic wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
His legs looked off after coming back to 60 from 75. But he certainly wasn't completely over the hill and unable to fight at all. That's the way he is being portrayed by Orbtstic to somehow diminish a big win Benn had over someone else. Hogwash

So Shane Mosley is shot to bits and has shown a distinct deterioration in his last few fights despite having what some people describe as a "good win" recently and "waged war" for 12 rounds with someone as limited as Mayorga who wouldn't have lived with him in his prime and you can't see it's remotely analogous?

Shane Mosley is unable to throw a punch. Thomas Hearns was. There is nothing remotely similar to the two men at that phase in their career.

Mosley/Mayorga was a war?

Just a give it a rest, you're embarrassing yourself.

coghaugen11 wrote:Let's all go back in time and beat Barkley!

Always fancied a WBC, WBA or IBF belt on my mantlepiece :)

You may as well thrash a legend while you're at it. Hearns was barely able to stand upright.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

orbtastic wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

So Shane Mosley is shot to bits and has shown a distinct deterioration in his last few fights despite having what some people describe as a "good win" recently and "waged war" for 12 rounds with someone as limited as Mayorga who wouldn't have lived with him in his prime and you can't see it's remotely analogous?

Shane Mosley is unable to throw a punch. Thomas Hearns was. There is nothing remotely similar to the two men at that phase in their career.

Mosley/Mayorga was a war?

Just a give it a rest, you're embarrassing yourself.

Oh right so Mosley was winning? It was a one-sided affair was it?

The reason Hearns had a phonebooth brawl with Barkley is because Barkley is limited as hell and Hearns' legs were so gone he just sat on the ropes and threw uppercuts while Barkley mauraded forward. You're using it as some example of how shot he wasn't yet the reason he "waged war" is because his legs were gone because he was shot and someone as limited as Barkley just traded with him. Contrast it with their first fight where Hearns used his movement and jab.

orbtastic wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

orbtastic wrote: So Shane Mosley is shot to bits and has shown a distinct deterioration in his last few fights despite having what some people describe as a "good win" recently and "waged war" for 12 rounds with someone as limited as Mayorga who wouldn't have lived with him in his prime and you can't see it's remotely analogous?

Shane Mosley is unable to throw a punch. Thomas Hearns was. There is nothing remotely similar to the two men at that phase in their career.

Mosley/Mayorga was a war?

Just a give it a rest, you're embarrassing yourself.

Oh right so Mosley was winning? It was a one-sided affair was it?

The reason Hearns had a phonebooth brawl with Barkley is because Barkley is limited as hell and Hearns' legs were so gone he just sat on the ropes and threw uppercuts while Barkley mauraded forward. You're using it as some example of how shot he wasn't yet the reason he "waged war" is because his legs were gone because he was shot and someone as limited as Barkley just traded with him. Contrast it with their first fight where Hearns used his movement and jab.

Shane/Mayorga was boring as hell. That isn't what most of us would classify as a war.

It may just be a diction issue with you. Now we can add war with shot on the list of words you don't understand in regards to Boxing.

As for your second paragraph, you're still entirely wrong. Nothing you can possibly say will change that. Hearns wasn't shot to bits in the fight, period.

Yeah, you are certainly a dict.

At what point would you say Saad was "shot"?

orbtastic wrote:Yeah, you are certainly a dict.

At what point would you say Saad was "shot"?

After the Qawi fights he was no longer world class. Hearns was never uncompetitive in a fight and he never lost to a fighter that wasn't championship caliber. Ali was shot to bits against Holmes. Marvin Hagler was past his best against Ray Leonard.

It isn't hard little buddy. Everyone is wrong pretty often, maybe not as pathetically as you are here, but it happens to the best of us. Get on with your life.

I’m a big fan of Nigel. Yes he made big tactical errors early on in his career. But he was an excellent fighter and became much better as he matured.

Beating Barkley in 1 round is a hell of an achievement no matter how you look at it. McClellan might get overrated by some because of his power but he really was a formidable fighter who would have tested any middleweight in history.

Benn’s durability and stamina waned in fights because he put so much in early on. I think over 10 rounds he’d have a great chance of upsetting Toney. I wouldn’t make him favourite but he’d have a real chance.

Ezzard wrote:I’m a big fan of Nigel. Yes he made big tactical errors early on in his career. But he was an excellent fighter and became much better as he matured.

Beating Barkley in 1 round is a hell of an achievement no matter how you look at it. McClellan might get overrated by some because of his power but he really was a formidable fighter who would have tested any middleweight in history.

Benn’s durability and stamina waned in fights because he put so much in early on. I think over 10 round she’d have a great chance of upsetting Toney. I wouldn’t make him favourite but he’d have a real chance.

Perfect summary.