BoxRec

As much as I wanted Murray to win it, he clearly didn't.

Old Jack J wrote:As much as I wanted Murray to win it, he clearly didn't.

Clear to you, not to me.

Horse wrote:

CharlesListon wrote:There really wasn't.

There really, really was.

Wasn't. Thats the final word on it.

Horse wrote:

Old Jack J wrote:As much as I wanted Murray to win it, he clearly didn't.

Clear to you, not to me.

Clear he didn't. To everyone

The fact that you even have to argue whether there was an argument actually dilutes the fictional argument that there was an argument to be had in the first place which makes it even less of an argument every time you argue about the argument so if there was (there wasn't) an argument then you really need to stop arguing about the argument that nobody is arguing about apart from you.

CharlesListon wrote:Clear he didn't. To everyone

Not clear. End of story.

Old Jack J wrote:The fact that you even have to argue whether there was an argument actually dilutes the fictional argument that there was an argument to be had in the first place which makes it even less of an argument every time you argue about the argument so if there was (there wasn't) an argument then you really need to stop arguing about the argument that nobody is arguing about apart from you.

I don't get the logic.

I think you just wanted to say argument a lot.

Horse wrote:

CharlesListon wrote:Clear he didn't. To everyone

Not clear. End of story.

It's not the end of the story in fact I fear that any minute now falkor is going to fly past!

There must have been an RBR on this board? Would be interesting to see what we all said at the time, I genuinely can't remember...

Horse wrote:

CharlesListon wrote:Clear he didn't. To everyone

Not clear. End of story.

Yes, its exactly that. A story in your head.

The fact is he clearly lost.

CharlesListon wrote:Yes, its exactly that. A story in your head.

The fact is he clearly lost.

Nope, read the threads I posted.

I clearly win the argument, as usual.

Your posts were nonsensical.

It's why you often lose debates and arguments.

There is no sense of logic or fact in many of your thoughts.

You are humoured.

CharlesListon wrote:Your posts were nonsensical.

It's why you often lose debates and arguments.

There is no sense of logic or fact in many of your thoughts.

You are humoured.

You are wrong.

Stop digging.

You are.

You're the forum equivalent of an eastern european journeyman. One that has grubby shorts.

CharlesListon wrote:You are.

You're the forum equivalent of an eastern european journeyman. One that has grubby shorts.

No, I'm like Mayweather.

Horse wrote:

CharlesListon wrote:You are.

You're the forum equivalent of an eastern european journeyman. One that has grubby shorts.

No, I'm like Mayweather.

Yes. Floyd snr.
As he is now, complete with beard dandruff.

mickey1975 wrote:

Horse wrote:

Finn wrote:There was no argument for him beating AA.

Yes, there was.

There wasn't.

There was.

I had the fight even with AA winning thanks to the deduction if I remember correctly. It was a close fight.

I'm fed up of GGG's career and all the hyperbowl around him.

10 years a pro, HBO hype machine waxing lyrical about him for years, 34 & 0 now, won his first world title 5 years ago, turns 34 in a couple of months and he's still fought nobody at elite level.

Yawn at wasted talent.