BoxRec

fergusg wrote:

ikorolev wrote:

fergusg wrote:You didn’t answer the question. Would every single one of Gennady’s opponents be capable of utterly dominating Paul Smith or are you like me, and believe that he’d be competitive with most of them?

Geale, Rubio, Murray, Monroe and even Stevens would beat Smith. Pre-Golovkin Macklin would beat Smith. Rosado and Adama would likely beat Smith.

That's not what I asked. Would every single one of the men you mentioned utterly dominated Paul Smith?

Probably not, but most of them would win comfortably.

... and your point is ? Golovkin selects a best AVAILABLE opponent. Does Andre ?

fergusg wrote: Andre Ward has been lambasted for taking on a fight against a second-tier opponent

Smith isn't even in the top 30 in the world in SMW division, in fact he isn't even ranked in the top 5 British SMW's, a country of 65m people and under 70 profession super middleweights.

Even if you rate your "tiers" by ranking 1-10 tier 1, 11-20 tier 2, then Paul Smith is a fourth-tier opponent .

Golovkin by KO after a few rounds spent cutting the ring off and wearing Ward down.

fergusg wrote: At least you’ve met me half-way and supplied an acceptable answer, so I have to give you credit for that. Other people have embellished the situation to fulfil their agenda... and I'm glad you don't fall into that category.

Your original question was:

In the context of Paul Smith's performance against Arthur Abraham, are there that many Golovkin opponents that are considerably better than the hairy Brit?

Then three of us answered your question. Yes, most of GGG's last 10 opponents. Your original point appeared to be that Smith is competitive with GGG's opponents. Maybe someone will agree with you at some point, but so far it's not looking good. As ikorolev said, GGG has a miserable choice of opponents while there are many better opponents for Ward's comeback fight than Smith!

Fergus thread 101/The Cycle of Fergus

1. Fergus makes contentious point
2. Someone disagrees
3. Fergus asks them to 'prove it', usually demanding 'evidence' or stats that would be wholely unhelpful in an argument for 99 per cent of the boxing fan populace
4. Someone doesn't want to 'prove it' and explains why Fergus' stance is illogical
5. Fergus: Aha! You are twisting my words! Take care to read what I've actually written!
6. Someone else decides to post in another thread
7. Fergus has 'won the argument'.

No, this is what happened.

1. You said 'Paul Smith would be competitive with GGG's opponents'
2. Everyone disagreed.

Riddick Blowe wrote:Fergus thread 101

1. Fergus makes contentious point
2. Someone disagrees
3. Fergus asks them to 'prove it', usually demanding 'evidence' or stats that would be wholely unhelpful in an argument for 99 per cent of the boxing fan populace
4. Someone doesn't want to 'prove it' and explains why Fergus' stance is illogical
5. Fergus: Aha! You are twisting my words! Take care to read what I've actually written!
6. Someone else decides to post in another thread
7. Fergus has 'won the argument'.

The other day fergus told me my stats were "wrong", when I asked him which one, i got about 4 long posts with a lot of red text that i just skimmed to see what he disputed. Upon the 3rd time of asking which stats were wrong, he told me none of them were, it was just that he personally didn't like the way in which i used them.

To be fair to Fergus, at least his red quoted text make for an adequate troll warning, to avoid his long, boring, pointless posts.

Ricky_ wrote:
The other day fergus told me my stats were "wrong", when I asked him which one, i got about 4 long posts with a lot of red text that i just skimmed to see what he disputed. Upon the 3rd time of asking which stats were wrong, he told me none of them were, it was just that he personally didn't like the way in which i used them.

To be fair to Fergus, at least his red quoted text make for an adequate troll warning, to avoid his long, boring, pointless posts.

Uh-oh, prepare for Fergus to tell you what 'actually happened'.

fergusg wrote:When someone resorts to insults during a debate, it's often a sign they've "lost" the argument. So if anyone says something that’s supposed to annoy me, I’ve trained my brain to interpret their derogatory remark as though they're conceding "defeat."

And there's #7! Well done, you have successfully proven the cycle of Fergus. Now back to #1 in a different thread.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

fergusg wrote:When someone resorts to insults during a debate, it's often a sign they've "lost" the argument. So if anyone says something that’s supposed to annoy me, I’ve trained my brain to interpret their derogatory remark as though they're conceding "defeat."

And there's #7! Well done, you have successfully proven the cycle of Fergus. Now back to #1 in a different thread.

Fergus, I agree with others that your way of discussion is utterly annoying. This is a forum where people are supposed to enjoy a relaxed conversation, not follow some accounting rules.

Ricky_ wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:Fergus thread 101

1. Fergus makes contentious point
2. Someone disagrees
3. Fergus asks them to 'prove it', usually demanding 'evidence' or stats that would be wholely unhelpful in an argument for 99 per cent of the boxing fan populace
4. Someone doesn't want to 'prove it' and explains why Fergus' stance is illogical
5. Fergus: Aha! You are twisting my words! Take care to read what I've actually written!
6. Someone else decides to post in another thread
7. Fergus has 'won the argument'.

The other day fergus told me my stats were "wrong", when I asked him which one, i got about 4 long posts with a lot of red text that i just skimmed to see what he disputed. Upon the 3rd time of asking which stats were wrong, he told me none of them were, it was just that he personally didn't like the way in which i used them.

To be fair to Fergus, at least his red quoted text make for an adequate troll warning, to avoid his long, boring, pointless posts.

fergusg wrote: You can’t have your cake and eat it!

Only 1 lol for that? Surely that quip is worth at least 10, so here's another 9:

Fergus, you don't seem to think it's fair that you're being criticised for being difficult in debate. So maybe we can settle this with a 'stat', as I know you love those.

How about a poll on Boxrec that says 'How reasonable is Fergus in debate compared to other Boxrec posters?'

We could have some fair options, like 'He knows his stuff but is a bit picky about trivial details' and 'He is entirely reasonable, I don't see the fuss' among others.

If the results suggest you are unreasonable, will you concede that it's true and perhaps modify your approach?

fergusg wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Fergus, I agree with others that your way of discussion is utterly annoying. This is a forum where people are supposed to enjoy a relaxed conversation, not follow some accounting rules.

Fair enough. You bulldoze others if their opinions disagrees with yours, but when I get involved in a discussion with you, you criticise me because I’m "not enjoying a relaxed conversation."

You can’t have your cake and eat it!

I only bulldoze idiots like Brut who use insults as arguments. I often disagree with you, but I don't think I tried to "bulldoze" you. The problem is: when you posts fill the whole screen, many of us lose any desire to read the whole thing. Learn to express yourself concisely.

fergusg wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:Fergus, you don't seem to think it's fair that you're being criticised for being difficult in debate. So maybe we can settle this with a 'stat', as I know you love those.

How about a poll on Boxrec that says 'Is Fergus more annoying to debate with than most other Boxrec posters?' If the results suggest you are, will you concede that it's true and perhaps modify your approach?

I’ll meet you halfway. I will adopt a gentle approach to my discussions on this forum until someone starts becoming aggressive with me… and then I can resort to type and undermine them using irrefutable facts and logic, as I have done to you earlier on today.

How about that? Is that a decent compromise?

Fergus, what have you got against the poll idea? You shouldn't have anything against it really, considering you believe you debate in a reasonable manner. Please also see my edit above. We can have very fair poll options and a fair question.

fergusg wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:Fergus, what have you got against the poll idea? You shouldn't have anything against it really, considering you believe you debate in a reasonable manner. Please also see my edit above. We can have very fair poll options and a fair question.

You can create a poll if that enriches your life somewhat, but regardless the outcome, I promise to modify my approach to this forum, by becoming far gentler in my posts… until someone attacks me personally, which is when I’ll resort to type by arguing using irrefutable facts and logic.

See, this is the problem. You view your 'irrefutable facts and logic' as the solution to the proceedings when others sometimes find your 'irrefutable facts and logic' a bit less factual and logical than you do.

Fergus is one of the most annoying posters to debate with from my experience, mainly because he continually distorts what people have said, uses specious logic, ignores points others make that hurt his position, and is quite self-congratulatory when in fact his posts are filled with fallacy and evasion and he hasn't come close to winning an argument. He seems to think he's clever but anyone who is remotely discerning should be able to see past his tactics.

In sum, he's a very dishonest debater and for that reason I now avoid protracted discussion with him.

If GGG fights Ward in Vegas next year, the odds would probably be:

Ward -180, GGG +150

This is my rough estimate.

However we arent getting this fight next year, and probably not for 2 yrs but it will inevitably happen. GGG is just trying to get paid first beating up smaller men.

crusader wrote:Fergus is one of the most annoying posters to debate with from my experience, mainly because he continually distorts what people have said, uses specious logic, ignores points others made that hurt his position, and is quite self-congratulatory when in fact he's employed fallacy after fallacy and hasn't come close to winning an argument.

He's a very dishonest debater and for that reason I now avoid protracted discussion with him.

Brut is basically the same.

I avoid protracted debate with him too and typically swerve threads altogether if he's started them. He's probably the most abrasive poster here and the forum would benefit from his removal.

Fergus is very very very annoying in most of the threads. But I have seen many reasonable posts from him.

Also His long text of explanatory is quite boring to read, making points that extend to 4-5 lines which could have been 1 line..

*Out of topic: Also He must be a huge hardcore Nerdy type of boxing fan :geek2: :geek2: :geek2:

ikorolev wrote:I only bulldoze idiots like Brut who use insults as arguments. I often disagree with you, but I don't think I tried to "bulldoze" you. The problem is: when you posts fill the whole screen, many of us lose any desire to read the whole thing. Learn to express yourself concisely.

Brut only hurl insults when they are hurled at me first, if you don't like it then don't dish it out. The problem is just as Ferg stated it, "you can't dispute with logic so you resort to hurling insults, y'all do it all the time with me, go back and look and time after time you will see someone say something derogatory towards me but when I strike back y'all run to the ModerHATERS and get me banned.

That's the history of people like you, especially you, Vicky and few others that I keep tabs on. I actually count on every time I reply to you that you will come back with something insulting or derogatory to say to me, of which 99% of the time y'all usually do.

Don't dish it if you can't take it.