Jacopodb wrote: ↑05 Jan 2019, 10:29
Regardless of any possible outcome, you must grant me I brought some rather serious arguments
No, I must not. I found your arguments mostly specious, full of inappropriate comparisons and non-sequiturs, sloppy generalisations, silly equivocations, groundless assumptions, and the strong sense of someone manufacturing ever-more unlikely grounds to defend a position that was less than tenable, in a way that suggests either an unwillingness or inability to understand what you see in the ring.
Re: GGG vs Pavlik
Posted: 06 Jan 2019, 07:54
by apollo creed
Where is EO for this intriguing debate ? This is a 'GGG VS' thread and EO is missing here ! HELLO!
Jacopodb wrote: ↑05 Jan 2019, 10:29
Regardless of any possible outcome, you must grant me I brought some rather serious arguments
No, I must not. I found your arguments mostly specious, full of inappropriate comparisons and non-sequiturs, sloppy generalisations, silly equivocations, groundless assumptions, and the strong sense of someone manufacturing ever-more unlikely grounds to defend a position that was less than tenable, in a way that suggests either an unwillingness or inability to understand what you see in the ring.
Yeah, coming from someone who wrote being a "housebound dilettante" to bring a valid argument, it's like the pot calling the cattle black.
You're off-topic, dude (or "creature", if you prefer, for I don't even know whether you are a male or not), despite your sophisticated speech.
Moreover, your conceited attitude screaming "please, praise me!", makes your point even more parodistic.
Jacopodb wrote: ↑05 Jan 2019, 10:29
Regardless of any possible outcome, you must grant me I brought some rather serious arguments
No, I must not. I found your arguments mostly specious, full of inappropriate comparisons and non-sequiturs, sloppy generalisations, silly equivocations, groundless assumptions, and the strong sense of someone manufacturing ever-more unlikely grounds to defend a position that was less than tenable, in a way that suggests either an unwillingness or inability to understand what you see in the ring.
Yeah, coming from someone who wrote being a "housebound dilettante" to bring a valid argument, it's like the pot calling the cattle black.
You're off-topic, dude (or "creature", if you prefer, for I don't even know whether you are a male or not), despite your sophisticated speech.
Moreover, your conceited attitude screaming "please, praise me!", makes your point even more parodistic.
EO probably forgot about this 'GGG vs Pavlik' thread bc he'd have come in your help with some 'solid facts'.
No, I must not. I found your arguments mostly specious, full of inappropriate comparisons and non-sequiturs, sloppy generalisations, silly equivocations, groundless assumptions, and the strong sense of someone manufacturing ever-more unlikely grounds to defend a position that was less than tenable, in a way that suggests either an unwillingness or inability to understand what you see in the ring.
Yeah, coming from someone who wrote being a "housebound dilettante" to bring a valid argument, it's like the pot calling the cattle black.
You're off-topic, dude (or "creature", if you prefer, for I don't even know whether you are a male or not), despite your sophisticated speech.
Moreover, your conceited attitude screaming "please, praise me!", makes your point even more parodistic.
EO probably forgot about this 'GGG vs Pavlik' thread bc he'd have come in your help with some 'solid facts'.
A kind of help I surely don't need: again, I said I'd just pick Pavlik in a close decision over Golovkin, not that I would bet on Pavlik in a possible match-up with our eminent GGG... any coke-head Wall Street brocker could give me a more-solid helping hand...
Yeah, coming from someone who wrote being a "housebound dilettante" to bring a valid argument, it's like the pot calling the cattle black.
You're off-topic, dude (or "creature", if you prefer, for I don't even know whether you are a male or not), despite your sophisticated speech.
Moreover, your conceited attitude screaming "please, praise me!", makes your point even more parodistic.
EO probably forgot about this 'GGG vs Pavlik' thread bc he'd have come in your help with some 'solid facts'.
A kind of help I surely don't need: again, I said I'd just pick Pavlik in a close decision over Golovkin, not that I would bet on Pavlik in a possible match-up with our eminent GGG... any coke-head Wall Street brocker could give me a more-solid helping hand...
EO probably forgot about this 'GGG vs Pavlik' thread bc he'd have come in your help with some 'solid facts'.
A kind of help I surely don't need: again, I said I'd just pick Pavlik in a close decision over Golovkin, not that I would bet on Pavlik in a possible match-up with our eminent GGG... any coke-head Wall Street brocker could give me a more-solid helping hand...
So do you think EO is not so 'enlighten' ?
You mean "enlightened"..?: If so, I just think he's relatively enlightened, let's say this.
Re: GGG vs Pavlik
Posted: 06 Jan 2019, 11:12
by Jacopodb
Now, only to set things straight: if you won't give me the respect I deserve, at least grant me some sense of humour... As you can see, I took it no-less-humourously than anyone else, here.
A kind of help I surely don't need: again, I said I'd just pick Pavlik in a close decision over Golovkin, not that I would bet on Pavlik in a possible match-up with our eminent GGG... any coke-head Wall Street brocker could give me a more-solid helping hand...
So do you think EO is not so 'enlighten' ?
You mean "enlightened"..?: If so, I just think he's relatively enlightened, let's say this.
ok I won't disagree with you.
'Relatively Enlighten One' could be a more appropriate name.
adislav123 wrote: ↑07 Jan 2019, 17:19
Back from the dead after a week and that shithouse is still goin' full retard on the same thread
Amazing, isn't it? It's like the most posts for a thread in BoxRec history! (I'm sure it's not, but shvt!)
I reckon that there are people trying to unload their own frustrations on the first passerby, and boxing arguments are just another excuse to do so.
Even if one's arguments are valuable, falling-from-grace is never justified.
adislav123 wrote: ↑07 Jan 2019, 17:19
Back from the dead after a week and that shithouse is still goin' full retard on the same thread
Amazing, isn't it? It's like the most posts for a thread in BoxRec history! (I'm sure it's not, but shvt!)
I reckon that there are people trying to unload their own frustrations on the first passerby, and boxing arguments are just another excuse to do so.
Even if one's arguments are valuable, falling-from-grace is never justified.
Amazing, isn't it? It's like the most posts for a thread in BoxRec history! (I'm sure it's not, but shvt!)
I reckon that there are people trying to unload their own frustrations on the first passerby, and boxing arguments are just another excuse to do so.
Even if one's arguments are valuable, falling-from-grace is never justified.
Not sure I know your point.
There's people that went a little off-topic on me, because I dared to disagree, perhaps.
I reckon that there are people trying to unload their own frustrations on the first passerby, and boxing arguments are just another excuse to do so.
Even if one's arguments are valuable, falling-from-grace is never justified.
Not sure I know your point.
There's people that went a little off-topic on me, because I dared to disagree, perhaps.
ok, got it. I just think this topic is way overcooked at this point. If posters aren't debating with facts, as you lay out, then sometimes it's best to just move on.
oogiebe wrote: ↑08 Jan 2019, 10:32
Not sure I know your point.
There's people that went a little off-topic on me, because I dared to disagree, perhaps.
ok, got it. I just think this topic is way overcooked at this point. If posters aren't debating with facts, as you lay out, then sometimes it's best to just move on.
I thought this was a recent poll and Ikoralev had returned. He was unshakable in his conviction that GGG would kill anybody and would get enraged if you dared to question Golovkin’s invincibility.
I wonder what happened to him.
Pavlik Vs Kovalev now would be a great fight! And i mean now, Kelly is absolutely huge he would struggle to get down to cruiser even! or kelly vs ward??
I thought this was a recent poll and Ikoralev had returned. He was unshakable in his conviction that GGG would kill anybody and would get enraged if you dared to question Golovkin’s invincibility.
I wonder what happened to him.
Pavlik Vs Kovalev now would be a great fight! And i mean now, Kelly is absolutely huge he would struggle to get down to cruiser even! or kelly vs ward??
Jermain Taylor, who lost to Pavlik, went supermiddleweight and faced big-bad Froch: Taylor often outboxed Froch, within the rounds, thanks to his own superior handspeed, and was ahead on scorecards before getting eventually TKOed in the 12th round, because he had no more beer in the keg, and that's when Froch finally took advantage of his own greater size and strenght: that was ballsy from Taylor, nevertheless.
That's why I have a lot of respect for Taylor and Pavlik, and, in perspective, I don't see Golovkin making it (at least not easy) vs those two.
Pavlik, despite years and years of hard training, is a clear ectomorph: ectomorphs are less-eager to put up muscular mass, because of their thinner skeleton. J. Taylor, as well as B. Hopkins, is a mesomorph, therefore capable to support a more-important muscular mass: that pretty much tells the tale.
Re: GGG vs Pavlik
Posted: 12 Jan 2019, 09:19
by greg
Jacopodb wrote: ↑12 Jan 2019, 09:04Pavlik, despite years and years of hard training, is a clear ectomorph: ectomorphs are less-eager to put up muscular mass, because of their thinner skeleton. J. Taylor, as well as B. Hopkins, is a mesomorph, therefore capable to support a more-important muscular mass: that pretty much tells the tale.
..that video sure as hell proves a lot of the above:
Jacopodb wrote: ↑12 Jan 2019, 09:04Pavlik, despite years and years of hard training, is a clear ectomorph: ectomorphs are less-eager to put up muscular mass, because of their thinner skeleton. J. Taylor, as well as B. Hopkins, is a mesomorph, therefore capable to support a more-important muscular mass: that pretty much tells the tale.
..that video sure as hell proves a lot of the above:
Yeah, he gets back inside the ring with all that meat, he wouldn't even be able to throw a punch: he's clearly no more a professional athlete.
Ronaldo Nazario and Pato were pumped almost like that, while still being active professional athletes: Pato had bones-distortion, Ronie's joints just snapped: broke his anterior cruciate ligament alone, by just doing a fake.
You box with what Pavlik has put on, your joints will arguably snap like old Ronaldo's...
