Page 3 of 3
Re: Tim Witherspoon v Nigel Rafferty
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 02:24
by Collins2000
ERIC GUY wrote:MY point is, Eric, if you had even the slightest semblance of boxing awareness (stick to your anyone-can-hold-it camera),
I dont get that?? what do you mean? you can pm me if you like
Nah, let's have it in the open so we can all have a laugh.
![[icon_e_biggrin.gif] :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
Re: Tim Witherspoon v Nigel Rafferty
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 03:15
by bennie
ERIC GUY wrote:MY point is, Eric, if you had even the slightest semblance of boxing awareness (stick to your anyone-can-hold-it camera),
I dont get that?? what do you mean? you can pm me if you like
I bit there, Eric, because I thought my point about the 1980s heavies winning fights on sheer brute strength as opposed to any real boxing skill (as they do in every other weight) was fairly obvious. Look at the work ethic of Marvin Hagler round that same time!
I understand that you get around and the know the boxing game inside out. Boxing is all about making money. We both know that.
Re: Tim Witherspoon v Nigel Rafferty
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 05:57
by oliverfennell
I think Terry D should wade in with a bit of Dokes-love at this point
Back to the original point... why is this Rafferty-Witherspoon fight being repeatedly referred to as an exhibition? The EBF is unlicensed but it's always full-contact, as far as I know. If it was an exhibition, then why was there a points decision?
Re: Tim Witherspoon v Nigel Rafferty
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 07:57
by ERIC GUY
1 bit there, Eric, because I thought my point about the 1980s heavies winning fights on sheer brute strength as opposed to any real boxing skill (as they do in every other weight) was fairly obvious. Look at the work ethic of Marvin Hagler round that same time!
I understand that you get around and the know the boxing game inside out. Boxing is all about making money. We both know that.
Whats that got to do with my camera??
Re: Tim Witherspoon v Nigel Rafferty
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 11:56
by bennie
ERIC GUY wrote:1 bit there, Eric, because I thought my point about the 1980s heavies winning fights on sheer brute strength as opposed to any real boxing skill (as they do in every other weight) was fairly obvious. Look at the work ethic of Marvin Hagler round that same time!
I understand that you get around and the know the boxing game inside out. Boxing is all about making money. We both know that.
Whats that got to do with my camera??
I've tried apologising but you don't want to know so fornicate off.
Re: Tim Witherspoon v Nigel Rafferty
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 12:05
by mark thompson
Whats gone on in this thread ???
Bennie always comes across as very knowledgeable to me with some very good posts, but he seems to have lost it here

Re: Tim Witherspoon v Nigel Rafferty
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 12:07
by Coco
Lol that apology makes Gordon Brown look completely contrite!
Re: Tim Witherspoon v Nigel Rafferty
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 12:12
by mark thompson
Coco wrote:Lol that apology makes Gordon Brown look completely contrite!
That was a great apology
Re: Tim Witherspoon v Nigel Rafferty
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 18:52
by ERIC GUY
I've tried apologising but you don't want to know so eff off.
where have you apolagised, and dont be so rude,
Re: Tim Witherspoon v Nigel Rafferty
Posted: 23 Apr 2009, 03:34
by bennie
Sorry and sorry.
Re: Tim Witherspoon v Nigel Rafferty
Posted: 23 Apr 2009, 04:00
by Gone
ERIC GUY wrote:I've tried apologising but you don't want to know so eff off.
where have you apolagised, and dont be so rude,
What is it with people, so what is someone tells them to Eff off, calls them a w*nker, C8nt or anyother derogartory word, why do people get so offended. Is it just a way of getting people banned?
Re: Tim Witherspoon v Nigel Rafferty
Posted: 23 Apr 2009, 04:42
by ERIC GUY
apology not accepted,
Re: Tim Witherspoon v Nigel Rafferty
Posted: 23 Apr 2009, 07:02
by John
thread locked - move on