BoxRec

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑17 Jul 2019, 20:18

oogiebe wrote: ↑17 Jul 2019, 19:59
I would have Whitaker over FMJ. But I'm a bit biased. EO going "off the rails" on another thread that has me literally crying with laughter. Classic EO.

Once again, you attack me for responding to something that you asked and then you refrain from addressing what I wrote.

Instead you falsely claim that I’ve gone “off the rails”, when all I did was precisely answer the question you posed.

Am I wrong? Then prove otherwise!

Off the rails. Yes.

oogiebe wrote: ↑17 Jul 2019, 20:19

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑17 Jul 2019, 20:18
Once again, you attack me for responding to something that you asked and then you refrain from addressing what I wrote.

Instead you falsely claim that I’ve gone “off the rails”, when all I did was precisely answer the question you posed.

Am I wrong? Then prove otherwise!

Off the rails. Yes.

Case in point.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑17 Jul 2019, 20:38

oogiebe wrote: ↑17 Jul 2019, 20:19
Off the rails. Yes.

Case in point.

The kid is a looney tune.

EO directly quote Saads/Onetime/Thurmans comment, which was specifically about Pernells activity levels - activity levels that have been objectively evidenced by compubox.

EO attempts to mock Onetime/Thurman, calling him naive regarding compubox figures and their ability to predict winners of fights.

Alone that statement is valid however it was not said in a vacuum. It's a discussion, as he directly commented on Thurmans comments re Pernells activity levels and context is applied and apparent.

Once his mistake is realised....and that's assuming he realises he's made a mistake. He reverts back to argue that his comment was said in a vacuum. That no context should be applied to it. That his quoting Saad/Onetimes/Thurmans comment meant nothing. Why then did he comment on Onetimes post?

He owes Onetime/Thurman an apology.

Surely a Draw was in Order when Perez[531] WP Agbeko[528] well over a Thousand punch's landed only 3 punch's separate the two at the end must have been some Ledgendary judging going on that fight

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑17 Jul 2019, 18:13

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑16 Jul 2019, 17:39

Those stats indicate that activity wouldn't be a reason for defeat. I don't expect you to apologize every time you're wrong or misinterpret something. That would take up all your time, but I accept your apology all the same. Better luck next time kid, I have faith you'll pop that cherry trying to correct me someday.

CompuBox stats are intriguing but any knowledgeable and passionate die-hard fan of the sport of boxing will surely realise they’re utterly irrelevant in terms of scoring bouts or for prediction purposes.

I hope you sincerely believe otherwise and can provide a moderately intelligent counter argument?

I’d actually be sincerely impressed if you managed to do this.

I've bolded the unnecessary words here to remind everyone what a pompous word-waster you are

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑18 Jul 2019, 03:46

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑17 Jul 2019, 18:13
CompuBox stats are intriguing but any knowledgeable and passionate die-hard fan of the sport of boxing will surely realise they’re utterly irrelevant in terms of scoring bouts or for prediction purposes.

I hope you sincerely believe otherwise and can provide a moderately intelligent counter argument?

I’d actually be sincerely impressed if you managed to do this.

I've bolded the unnecessary words here to remind everyone what a pompous word-waster you are

Utterly irrelevant for prediction purposes? Nonsense. Can we not use data to better inform predictions such as: A is a fighter who struggles with volume punchers. B is a fighter whom, evidenced by compu box data, throws a high volume of punches.

Compubox has its place. It’s an information resource. More information, generally a better prediction.

it can't just be a 'fan', it can't just be a 'knowledgeable fan', it can't even just be a 'knowledgeable passionate fan', no, that too, would be insufficient, that wouldn't produce nearly enough of the 'wall of words' effect we are seeking, oh no, because nobody on this forum, not a single member, not a single solitary member, not one single forum poster or member, would possibly understand and comprehend the word 'fan', oh no, that wouldn't be amply sufficient for our purposes, so, without further ado, ladies and gentlemen, I bring to you, without further delay or cavilling or hedging, brought to you on the boxrec forum for the delectation of its members, and posters, I bring to you:

'knowledgeable and passionate die-hard fan '

because the word 'fan' on its own, it simply wouldn't tell the tale would it?

and 'die hard'? well surely we all need explaining that 'die hard' also means 'passionate', how on earth could we possibly understand the word 'fan', without also being told a fan is a 'passionate die-hard fan'

thanks for the clarification, EO, not a single one of us would have known what the fvck you were saying, without all of those extremely relevant words you added to 'fan'.

Pernell Whitaker was a great boxer that will be missed by many.

CompuBox is flawed and only deeply appreciated by similarly flawed individuals.

Criticising the validity of CompuBox is almost certainly not synonymous with criticising Pernell Whitaker’s legacy.

You criticized your own lack of comprehension.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑18 Jul 2019, 08:33 You criticized your own lack of comprehension.

You criticised your own lack of intellect.

dude nobody with your sh1tty writing style can say sh1t about anyone else's intellect

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑18 Jul 2019, 09:12

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑18 Jul 2019, 08:33 You criticized your own lack of comprehension.

You criticised your own lack of intellect.

I didn't criticize anything. Then again, you're obviously clueless as to what I was saying. Typical for you Fergus. You should stick in the shallow end of the pool.