Page 2 of 4

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 16:38
by MachoTime
punchoutsb wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:
punchoutsb wrote:What is going on in the CS lately? Why so much vitriol lately, and some coming from recognizable posters?
Lately? That's all the CS has been for years :lol:

I respond in kind when people give me sh*t, but I just keep carrying on with my thoughts and opinions on the discussions. People can take my comments as they will, I think they're usually pretty solid.
As you can see I've been here for a long time--it's been getting worse lately IMO. I enjoy my fair share of spirited debate, but the past couple weeks it just seems people have been getting far more wound than usual.
You don't like Mayweather why are you complaining. Mayweather is garbage just admit it.

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 16:39
by Ossyrules
punchoutsb wrote:What is going on in the CS lately? Why so much vitriol lately, and some coming from recognizable posters?
Sorry if I'm one of these guys you talk of... I am a sucker for having a pop back if a troll like macho time gives me some.

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 16:41
by MachoTime
Ossyrules wrote:
punchoutsb wrote:What is going on in the CS lately? Why so much vitriol lately, and some coming from recognizable posters?
Sorry if I'm one of these guys you talk of... I am a sucker for having a pop back if a troll like macho time gives me some.
A troll? Yeah right. Your a bigshot englishmen who spends his days in the pub.

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 16:43
by punchoutsb
Ossyrules wrote:
punchoutsb wrote:What is going on in the CS lately? Why so much vitriol lately, and some coming from recognizable posters?
Sorry if I'm one of these guys you talk of... I am a sucker for having a pop back if a troll like macho time gives me some.
:yay:

Me too!

I'm not complaining, it was just more of an observation. It's always been there, but there seems to be more "big name non-troll account" posters involved lately.

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 16:47
by gilgamesh
punchoutsb wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:
punchoutsb wrote:What is going on in the CS lately? Why so much vitriol lately, and some coming from recognizable posters?
Lately? That's all the CS has been for years :lol:

I respond in kind when people give me sh*t, but I just keep carrying on with my thoughts and opinions on the discussions. People can take my comments as they will, I think they're usually pretty solid.
As you can see I've been here for a long time--it's been getting worse lately IMO. I enjoy my fair share of spirited debate, but the past couple weeks it just seems people have been getting far more wound than usual.
I guess. I never really care. The people that are constantly acting like morons I just don't hold their opinion on anything in all that high of regard so I don't really dwell on what they have to say about anything. I just move on to the next comment usually. Sometimes I feel the need to stop and comment on the error of their ways.

I don't have anything personal against anybody on any forum though, and frankly even the people that have previously been idiots can still redeem themselves in my eyes by NOT being an idiot tomorrow. They just seldom do that.

Oh well. There's always tomorrow...until there isn't.

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 16:51
by punchoutsb
gilgamesh wrote:
punchoutsb wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:
Lately? That's all the CS has been for years :lol:

I respond in kind when people give me sh*t, but I just keep carrying on with my thoughts and opinions on the discussions. People can take my comments as they will, I think they're usually pretty solid.
As you can see I've been here for a long time--it's been getting worse lately IMO. I enjoy my fair share of spirited debate, but the past couple weeks it just seems people have been getting far more wound than usual.
I guess. I never really care. The people that are constantly acting like morons I just don't hold their opinion on anything in all that high of regard so I don't really dwell on what they have to say about anything. I just move on to the next comment usually. Sometimes I feel the need to stop and comment on the error of their ways.

I don't have anything personal against anybody on any forum though, and frankly even the people that have previously been idiots can still redeem themselves in my eyes by NOT being an idiot tomorrow. They just seldom do that.

Oh well. There's always tomorrow...until there isn't.
:TU:

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 16:53
by MachoTime
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Some troll from the maxboxing days. You know you're dealing with a mentally ill individual when they bring up an 11 year old internet grudge. :lol:
You act like your something special. A Big Shot cause you have have 26000 thousand post. You sir are a douchebag.

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 16:54
by Ossyrules
MachoTime wrote:
Ossyrules wrote:
punchoutsb wrote:What is going on in the CS lately? Why so much vitriol lately, and some coming from recognizable posters?
Sorry if I'm one of these guys you talk of... I am a sucker for having a pop back if a troll like macho time gives me some.
A troll? Yeah right. Your a bigshot englishmen who spends his days in the pub.
Think you've been in the pub too long based on your posts!

Time to go to bed son

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 16:56
by MachoTime
Ossyrules wrote:
MachoTime wrote:
Ossyrules wrote:
Sorry if I'm one of these guys you talk of... I am a sucker for having a pop back if a troll like macho time gives me some.
A troll? Yeah right. Your a bigshot englishmen who spends his days in the pub.
Think you've been in the pub too long based on your posts!

Time to go to bed son
Im real Butthurt. Why don't you go ( ) off EO.

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 17:01
by MachoTime
You guys get along.

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 17:02
by Ossyrules
Ok you're done now melt. You've become too boring to respond too. Come back soon and be more interesting when you do

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 17:05
by crusader
How much does Cotto even have left at this point? He hasn't fought in about 2 years and will be 38 next year. I certainly wouldn't be confident about him beating a guy like Lemieux.

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 17:06
by gilgamesh
crusader wrote:How much does Cotto even have left at this point? He hasn't fought in about 2 years and will be 38 next year. I certainly wouldn't be confident about him beating a guy like Lemieux.
I wouldn't have picked him to beat Lemieux 2 years ago frankly (at least not if the fight were at the full 160 pounds), and I wouldn't pick him to beat Lemieux now.

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 17:06
by MachoTime
Ossyrules wrote:Ok you're done now melt. You've become too boring to respond too. Come back soon and be more interesting when you do
Really. Why are your responding. Go drink some more beers at the pub.

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 17:07
by SaadOffTheDeck
crusader wrote:How much does Cotto even have left at this point? He hasn't fought in about 2 years and will be 38 next year. I certainly wouldn't be confident about him beating a guy like Lemieux.
I said assuming he's the same. If he's shot he might lose to kamegai. The cotto that fought Alvarez wouldn't have a problem with lemieux. What has David really done? I don't get it.

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 17:10
by Ossyrules
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
crusader wrote:How much does Cotto even have left at this point? He hasn't fought in about 2 years and will be 38 next year. I certainly wouldn't be confident about him beating a guy like Lemieux.
I said assuming he's the same. If he's shot he might lose to kamegai. The cotto that fought Alvarez wouldn't have a problem with lemieux. What has David really done? I don't get it.
Lemieux is the middleweight wilder. Real poor "boxer" but the big punch is his leveller. Cotto in any kind of shape with something left in the tank should really stand him on his head. Now I'd be afraid he's slowed down too much and would be caught at some point to change the tide of the fight

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 17:11
by SaadOffTheDeck
Ossyrules wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
crusader wrote:How much does Cotto even have left at this point? He hasn't fought in about 2 years and will be 38 next year. I certainly wouldn't be confident about him beating a guy like Lemieux.
I said assuming he's the same. If he's shot he might lose to kamegai. The cotto that fought Alvarez wouldn't have a problem with lemieux. What has David really done? I don't get it.
Lemieux is the middleweight wilder. Real poor "boxer" but the big punch is his leveller. Cotto in any kind of shape with something left in the tank should really stand him on his head. Now I'd be afraid he's slowed down too much and would be caught at some point to change the tide of the fight
I don't consider lemieux to be a devastating puncher. Agreed that his boxing ability is of the wilder variety.

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 17:17
by crusader
I'd say he's a big hitter--big enough to trouble Cotto. The KO of Stevens is as devastating as anything Wilder has done...

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 17:19
by MachoTime
SaadOffTheDeck, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.
Loser.

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 17:20
by SaadOffTheDeck
I've never seen wilder hit anyone with 20 or 30 flush power shots.

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 17:23
by crusader
Stevens got slept by one left hook and it was only the third round of the fight.

If you've never seen Wilder tee off on opponents with 20-30 power shots you haven't seen the 11 round Duhaupas fight. He hit Stiverne with loads of shots too.

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 17:24
by MachoTime
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I've never seen wilder hit anyone with 20 or 30 flush power shots.
I'm glad you have me on ignore Mayweather Nutthugger so I don't have to waste my time time with you. While your add it go drop another hit of acid. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 17:25
by SaadOffTheDeck
So he knocked Stevens cold with one shot? No accumulation at all? Cmon. I think I had the duhaupas fight on for a few rounds and turned it off. So no, can't say as I did. But if this is what he's done to merit all the hype, I still don't get it.

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 17:26
by crusader
Stevens had been fighting back and was in the fight until the KO. It's not at all like he had been ground down in those 2.5 rounds and was clearly on the way out.

Re: Miguel Cotto at 168

Posted: 06 Aug 2017, 17:32
by SaadOffTheDeck
crusader wrote:Stevens had been fighting back and was in the fight until the KO. It's not at all like he had been ground down in those 2.5 rounds and was clearly on the way out.
True, it's also not like he wasn't landing bombs the whole fight. He tattooed that last guy whose name I forget. He can punch, but his power is overrated. Not as much as vitali, more like tua.