BoxRec

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

lurkyshaka wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: In all fairness anyone with a brain knows a high Ko % doesn't necessarily mean a fighter is physically strong. And likewise a low KO % doesn't necessarily mean a fighter isn't physically strong.

As i've already said while a big bench press on its own doesn't prove that Norris was stronger than Floyd, but when added to the other factors at play its fair to suppose he was indeed stronger than Floyd at 154. I base my thinking on several factors, not just Norris's bench press.

Dunno why you're getting so antsy about this minor side issue.

I'm not antsy about anything. Why in the world would you think you're making me nervous?

Not nervous, i meant impatient.

You spoke about people rushing to call you a moron when i don't think anyone had the intent, it seemed to be a fairly balanced and constructive thread.

You missed the point. It was about misconceptions. Are you telling me that my assertion that Norris didn't have a size advantage didn't drive people to check their statistics on the front page? I'm sure you did it yourself. You can't measure strength in the ring until you see it. Everyone in here is just making an assumption that I'm not willing to make.[/quote]

I can't speak for everyone else. But i myself didn't need to check the stats out, as i knew both Terry and Floyd's stats already. And from a variety of factors i came to the view that Terry would have been the stronger man physically. I didn't base my thinking on any one thing, but a combination of several factors.

Norris was taller but also more compact than Floyd.

He was a career super-welter as opposed to Floyd who obviously came up through the weights.

Terry was well known for strength in the gym, and while that isn't conclusive on its own its another indication.

And lastly from watching most of Terry's career it was clear to witness what a strong fighter he was at 154. He'd often physically shove and push his opposition around to make room to knock lumps out of them with combinations. I never saw Terry Norris physically mauled or outstrengthed, but i watched him manhandle plenty of his opposition.

Now not all seemingly obvious assumptions are true, and its fair enough to question things. Certainly not everything is as it may at first appear. But i think in this particular case its fair to conclude that Terry Norris was physically stronger than Floyd Mayweather after looking at all the evidence available.[/quote]


You can conclude anything you like, I wouldn't know that Norris was stronger than Floyd until I saw it. If he set out to prove he was, Mayweather's chances would dramatically improve.[/quote]

Well its bloody obvious that you, i, nor anyone else would 'know' for certain that Norris was stronger until we saw it actually happen. Obviously we can only speculate on these type of threads. But that being the case, it is logical to reckon that Norris would have been the stronger fighter based on the various factors i've mentioned.And while there are several reasons to suppose Norris would have been the stronger man, there is NO reason to think Mayweather would have been.

There is wild speculation and there is logical speculation, but no matter how much it irritates you its logical to speculate that Terry Norris would have been stronger than Floyd Mayweather.

loaded_gloves wrote:Oh god we've descended into name calling.

Saad, can you name me some deadly punchers who at the same seemed physically weak and frail?

I never said Norris was weak and frail. Mayweather is just much stronger than he gets credit for. Holyfield was much stronger than Tyson, their punching power wasn't in the same league. Guys like LaMotta, Antuofermo, Fullmer and many more were strong as hell and didn't punch particularly hard.

lurkyshaka wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

lurkyshaka wrote: In all fairness anyone with a brain knows a high Ko % doesn't necessarily mean a fighter is physically strong. And likewise a low KO % doesn't necessarily mean a fighter isn't physically strong.

As i've already said while a big bench press on its own doesn't prove that Norris was stronger than Floyd, but when added to the other factors at play its fair to suppose he was indeed stronger than Floyd at 154. I base my thinking on several factors, not just Norris's bench press.

Dunno why you're getting so antsy about this minor side issue.

I'm not antsy about anything. Why in the world would you think you're making me nervous?

Not nervous, i meant impatient.

You spoke about people rushing to call you a moron when i don't think anyone had the intent, it seemed to be a fairly balanced and constructive thread.

You missed the point. It was about misconceptions. Are you telling me that my assertion that Norris didn't have a size advantage didn't drive people to check their statistics on the front page? I'm sure you did it yourself. You can't measure strength in the ring until you see it. Everyone in here is just making an assumption that I'm not willing to make.[/quote]

I can't speak for everyone else. But i myself didn't need to check the stats out, as i knew both Terry and Floyd's stats already. And from a variety of factors i came to the view that Terry would have been the stronger man physically. I didn't base my thinking on any one thing, but a combination of several factors.

Norris was taller but also more compact than Floyd.

He was a career super-welter as opposed to Floyd who obviously came up through the weights.

Terry was well known for strength in the gym, and while that isn't conclusive on its own its another indication.

And lastly from watching most of Terry's career it was clear to witness what a strong fighter he was at 154. He'd often physically shove and push his opposition around to make room to knock lumps out of them with combinations. I never saw Terry Norris physically mauled or outstrengthed, but i watched him manhandle plenty of his opposition.

Now not all seemingly obvious assumptions are true, and its fair enough to question things. Certainly not everything is as it may at first appear. But i think in this particular case its fair to conclude that Terry Norris was physically stronger than Floyd Mayweather after looking at all the evidence available.[/quote]


You can conclude anything you like, I wouldn't know that Norris was stronger than Floyd until I saw it. If he set out to prove he was, Mayweather's chances would dramatically improve.[/quote]

Well its bloody obvious that you, i, nor anyone else would 'know' for certain that Norris was stronger until we saw it actually happen. Obviously we can only speculate on these type of threads. But that being the case, it is logical to reckon that Norris would have been the stronger fighter based on the various factors i've mentioned.And while there are several reasons to suppose Norris would have been the stronger man, there is NO reason to think Mayweather would have been.

There is wild speculation and there is logical speculation, but no matter how much it irritates you its logical to speculate that Terry Norris would have been stronger than Floyd Mayweather.[/quote]


How many times are you going to say the same thing? Why is it so important to you? I said I'm not sure that Norris would have an advantage in strength, never once did I say that Floyd would. You can post the same shit for the rest of your life and you will never change my mind. I just don't know and I certainly don't have an issue with you thinking he was.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:Oh god we've descended into name calling.

Saad, can you name me some deadly punchers who at the same seemed physically weak and frail?

I never said Norris was weak and frail. Mayweather is just much stronger than he gets credit for. Holyfield was much stronger than Tyson, their punching power wasn't in the same league. Guys like LaMotta, Antuofermo, Fullmer and many more were strong as hell and didn't punch particularly hard.

In terms of physical strength Tyson was fairly moderate for a HW of his era. In his comeback several guys were able to physically manhandle him a bit even though they weren't anywhere near his level and he eventually lowered the boom on most of them. Holyfield is physically about as strong as it gets. Even in his early leaner HW days he was able to hold his own with the larger Bowe. The only guy who ever appeared to really visibly show more strength opposite him was old Foreman, who as an old fat guy resembled the physique of a silverback even more than when he was a prime wrecking ball.

IKSRTFO wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:Oh god we've descended into name calling.

Saad, can you name me some deadly punchers who at the same seemed physically weak and frail?

I personally don't think Corrales was that physically strong. He proabaly couldn't bench press 180 yet he could crack at his weight. I also don't think Margarito was that physically strong because Mosley and Cotto, two smaller fighters had no problem pushing him around.

Mosley and Cotto are NOT smaller fighters than Margarito, they're just shorter. Margarito was 165 on fight night for Pacquiao, Mosley was 164 on fight night for Mora, Cotto hasn't weighed in secondarily since he was 157 for Corley at Light Welter.

Also, Cotto didn't push him around, even in the second fight he was fighting on the move, but doing more pivoting rather than backing up like in the first bout.

Mosley on the other hand caught a pretty drained Margarito, much like Mayweather and Pacquiao caught a drained and extra-drained Mosley with no stamina, although Shane did legit manhandle Margarito after the first couple rounds where their strength seemed roughly equal but with Shane's sharper punching making the rhythm of the fight.

Margarito is legitimately strong and hard-chinned if nothing else due to the questions about his hands.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:Oh god we've descended into name calling.

Saad, can you name me some deadly punchers who at the same seemed physically weak and frail?

I never said Norris was weak and frail. Mayweather is just much stronger than he gets credit for. Holyfield was much stronger than Tyson, their punching power wasn't in the same league. Guys like LaMotta, Antuofermo, Fullmer and many more were strong as hell and didn't punch particularly hard.

In terms of physical strength Tyson was fairly moderate for a HW of his era. In his comeback several guys were able to physically manhandle him a bit even though they weren't anywhere near his level and he eventually lowered the boom on most of them. Holyfield is physically about as strong as it gets. Even in his early leaner HW days he was able to hold his own with the larger Bowe. The only guy who ever appeared to really visibly show more strength opposite him was old Foreman, who as an old fat guy resembled the physique of a silverback even more than when he was a prime wrecking ball.

Its got to hurt Holyfields case that he ate roids like candy, though.

Who is to say that Tyson didn't?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

lurkyshaka wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: In all fairness anyone with a brain knows a high Ko % doesn't necessarily mean a fighter is physically strong. And likewise a low KO % doesn't necessarily mean a fighter isn't physically strong.

As i've already said while a big bench press on its own doesn't prove that Norris was stronger than Floyd, but when added to the other factors at play its fair to suppose he was indeed stronger than Floyd at 154. I base my thinking on several factors, not just Norris's bench press.

Dunno why you're getting so antsy about this minor side issue.

I'm not antsy about anything. Why in the world would you think you're making me nervous?

Not nervous, i meant impatient.

You spoke about people rushing to call you a moron when i don't think anyone had the intent, it seemed to be a fairly balanced and constructive thread.

You missed the point. It was about misconceptions. Are you telling me that my assertion that Norris didn't have a size advantage didn't drive people to check their statistics on the front page? I'm sure you did it yourself. You can't measure strength in the ring until you see it. Everyone in here is just making an assumption that I'm not willing to make.[/quote]

I can't speak for everyone else. But i myself didn't need to check the stats out, as i knew both Terry and Floyd's stats already. And from a variety of factors i came to the view that Terry would have been the stronger man physically. I didn't base my thinking on any one thing, but a combination of several factors.

Norris was taller but also more compact than Floyd.

He was a career super-welter as opposed to Floyd who obviously came up through the weights.

Terry was well known for strength in the gym, and while that isn't conclusive on its own its another indication.

And lastly from watching most of Terry's career it was clear to witness what a strong fighter he was at 154. He'd often physically shove and push his opposition around to make room to knock lumps out of them with combinations. I never saw Terry Norris physically mauled or outstrengthed, but i watched him manhandle plenty of his opposition.

Now not all seemingly obvious assumptions are true, and its fair enough to question things. Certainly not everything is as it may at first appear. But i think in this particular case its fair to conclude that Terry Norris was physically stronger than Floyd Mayweather after looking at all the evidence available.[/quote]


You can conclude anything you like, I wouldn't know that Norris was stronger than Floyd until I saw it. If he set out to prove he was, Mayweather's chances would dramatically improve.[/quote]

Well its bloody obvious that you, i, nor anyone else would 'know' for certain that Norris was stronger until we saw it actually happen. Obviously we can only speculate on these type of threads. But that being the case, it is logical to reckon that Norris would have been the stronger fighter based on the various factors i've mentioned.And while there are several reasons to suppose Norris would have been the stronger man, there is NO reason to think Mayweather would have been.

There is wild speculation and there is logical speculation, but no matter how much it irritates you its logical to speculate that Terry Norris would have been stronger than Floyd Mayweather.[/quote]


How many times are you going to say the same thing? Why is it so important to you? I said I'm not sure that Norris would have an advantage in strength, never once did I say that Floyd would. You can post the same shit for the rest of your life and you will never change my mind. I just don't know and I certainly don't have an issue with you thinking he was.[/quote]

So says you......who just keeps harping on about not knowing for sure. Talk about stating the f'kin obvious. Course we don't know for certain fact that Norris was stronger than Floyd, but its very safe to say he was.

You offer no logical talk to debate that view, you say you don't disagree with the view.....and yet you keep on trying to discredit that view based on 'not knowing' for sure.

You're clearly a disgruntled Mayweather fan whose just taken offense at Norris being perceived as stronger. You can't actually disagree with the view though on anything other than it not being a catagorically proven fact! In truth you've nothing relevant to say on the subject yet keep chipping in regardless just for the sake of argument.

I keep chiming in because you continuously quote me and regurgitate the same shit over and over again. I've remained consistent during the entire debate, I'm sorry if you're running on empty and have gotten "antsy".

All I pointed out is that it's a style matter that favors Norris more than the misconception that he is bigger or you making him out to be Lee Haney. Why that has you in an irrational state like a 13 year old girl that just got her first period is your problem.

I'm not a Mayweather fan at all, I'm a Norris fan. But whatever floats your bloat, retard.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I keep chiming in because you continuously quote me and regurgitate the same shit over and over again. I've remained consistent during the entire debate, I'm sorry if you're running on empty and have gotten "antsy".

All I pointed out is that it's a style matter that favors Norris more than the misconception that he is bigger or you making him out to be Lee Haney. Why that has you in an irrational state like a 13 year old girl that just got her first period is your problem.

I'm not a Mayweather fan at all, I'm a Norris fan. But whatever floats your bloat, retard.

Good god, you're as sharp as a bloody marble youth.

I NEVER at any point said Norris would have beaten Mayweather simply because he'd be the stronger man. That he would have been the stronger man is just one of the factors at play. Your 'retarded' attitude of point blank refusing to accept anything that hasn't been scientifically and catagorically proven is ludicrous.

Going by your ridiculous logic, you'd obviously refuse to accept an opinion that Lennox Lewis was stronger than Rocky Marciano simply because it hasn't been 'proven' as concrete fact.

What about Tyson over Carbajal?.....could we dare speculate that Mike would have been stronger?! Don't tell us, as its not actually been proven we should all hold our horses before we get ahead of ourselves...

lurkyshaka wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I keep chiming in because you continuously quote me and regurgitate the same shit over and over again. I've remained consistent during the entire debate, I'm sorry if you're running on empty and have gotten "antsy".

All I pointed out is that it's a style matter that favors Norris more than the misconception that he is bigger or you making him out to be Lee Haney. Why that has you in an irrational state like a 13 year old girl that just got her first period is your problem.

I'm not a Mayweather fan at all, I'm a Norris fan. But whatever floats your bloat, retard.

Good god, you're as sharp as a bloody marble youth.

I NEVER at any point said Norris would have beaten Mayweather simply because he'd be the stronger man. That he would have been the stronger man is just one of the factors at play. Your 'retarded' attitude of point blank refusing to accept anything that hasn't been scientifically and catagorically proven is ludicrous.

Going by your ridiculous logic, you'd obviously refuse to accept an opinion that Lennox Lewis was stronger than Rocky Marciano simply because it hasn't been 'proven' as concrete fact.

What about Tyson over Carbajal?.....could we dare speculate that Mike would have been stronger?! Don't tell us, as its not actually been proven we should all hold our horses before we get ahead of ourselves...

This whole thing started with me saying I'm not sure Norris was stronger than Mayweather. Ever since you've had a Midol moment and deteriorated further into the abyss with each ensuing post. Try and get on with your life little boy. You're ruining your own thread.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

lurkyshaka wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I keep chiming in because you continuously quote me and regurgitate the same shit over and over again. I've remained consistent during the entire debate, I'm sorry if you're running on empty and have gotten "antsy".

All I pointed out is that it's a style matter that favors Norris more than the misconception that he is bigger or you making him out to be Lee Haney. Why that has you in an irrational state like a 13 year old girl that just got her first period is your problem.

I'm not a Mayweather fan at all, I'm a Norris fan. But whatever floats your bloat, retard.

Good god, you're as sharp as a bloody marble youth.

I NEVER at any point said Norris would have beaten Mayweather simply because he'd be the stronger man. That he would have been the stronger man is just one of the factors at play. Your 'retarded' attitude of point blank refusing to accept anything that hasn't been scientifically and catagorically proven is ludicrous.

Going by your ridiculous logic, you'd obviously refuse to accept an opinion that Lennox Lewis was stronger than Rocky Marciano simply because it hasn't been 'proven' as concrete fact.

What about Tyson over Carbajal?.....could we dare speculate that Mike would have been stronger?! Don't tell us, as its not actually been proven we should all hold our horses before we get ahead of ourselves...

This whole thing started with me saying I'm not sure Norris was stronger than Mayweather. Ever since you've had a Midol moment and deteriorated further into the abyss with each ensuing post. Try and get on with your life little boy. You're ruining your own thread.

The threads fine, most people have posted logical opinions and its been productive. Only you who decided to get on some ridiculous high horse over anyone daring to have opinions without absolute proof. Obviously all these type of threads should cease to exist in your blinkered mind, as any kind of speculation upsets you and we should only ever deal in totally proven facts.

To sum up......you have a problem with anyone suggesting Norris would have been stronger than Floyd Mayweather, even though all the available evidence points to that being the case...You're clearly not the full shilling

lurkyshaka wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

lurkyshaka wrote: Good god, you're as sharp as a bloody marble youth.

I NEVER at any point said Norris would have beaten Mayweather simply because he'd be the stronger man. That he would have been the stronger man is just one of the factors at play. Your 'retarded' attitude of point blank refusing to accept anything that hasn't been scientifically and catagorically proven is ludicrous.

Going by your ridiculous logic, you'd obviously refuse to accept an opinion that Lennox Lewis was stronger than Rocky Marciano simply because it hasn't been 'proven' as concrete fact.

What about Tyson over Carbajal?.....could we dare speculate that Mike would have been stronger?! Don't tell us, as its not actually been proven we should all hold our horses before we get ahead of ourselves...

This whole thing started with me saying I'm not sure Norris was stronger than Mayweather. Ever since you've had a Midol moment and deteriorated further into the abyss with each ensuing post. Try and get on with your life little boy. You're ruining your own thread.

The threads fine, most people have posted logical opinions and its been productive. Only you who decided to get on some ridiculous high horse over anyone daring to have opinions without absolute proof. Obviously all these type of threads should cease to exist in your blinkered mind, as any kind of speculation upsets you and we should only ever deal in totally proven facts.

To sum up......you have a problem with anyone suggesting Norris would have been stronger than Floyd Mayweather, even though all the available evidence points to that being the case...You're clearly not the full shilling

You make up something new in each retarded post. That's impressive, by next week you will have me killing JFK. Carry on little fella, carry on. But don't pretend this has anything to do with Norris/Mayweather. You're obsessed with trying to change my mind, hell, it's looking like you're obsessed with me. Stop pretending that trading insults and inventing statements that I've never made is "evidence". The only evidence here is that you're a spoiled little boy that has his fists balled up because I don't agree with you.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Its a little bit like Mayweather against Hearns. Norris obviously wasnt that good, but hes still a nightmare here and Id comfortably favour him.

Norris is all kinds of wrong for smaller, defensive guys. Great as he was (greater than Mayweather), Whitaker would not have beaten Norris either.

What about pound for pound who do U think wins Floyd or Terry?

It may be a Forrest-Mosley, Jones-Barrera situation, where one guy isnt as great but just has his mans number --- but Mayweather deserves more credit as a great boxer than those two (purely ability), so Im reluctant to guess.

I do know Norris is at least a live handful for Mayweather...at least.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:It may be a Forrest-Mosley, Jones-Barrera situation, where one guy isnt as great but just has his mans number --- but Mayweather deserves more credit as a great boxer than those two (purely ability), so Im reluctant to guess.

I do know Norris is at least a live handful for Mayweather...at least.

No doubt he would be, Terry is probably a little faster and a much bigger hitter. I also think he would be on point to stick to a strategy in a fight so big. Floyd's longer arms would pose a problem, but nothing that drastic. If you're talking Mayweather at 130 he wasn't nearly as reluctant as he is now and he hit hard enough to get Terry out of there. I'd still slightly favor Norris, but not with the same certainty I'd have at 54.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

lurkyshaka wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: This whole thing started with me saying I'm not sure Norris was stronger than Mayweather. Ever since you've had a Midol moment and deteriorated further into the abyss with each ensuing post. Try and get on with your life little boy. You're ruining your own thread.

The threads fine, most people have posted logical opinions and its been productive. Only you who decided to get on some ridiculous high horse over anyone daring to have opinions without absolute proof. Obviously all these type of threads should cease to exist in your blinkered mind, as any kind of speculation upsets you and we should only ever deal in totally proven facts.

To sum up......you have a problem with anyone suggesting Norris would have been stronger than Floyd Mayweather, even though all the available evidence points to that being the case...You're clearly not the full shilling

You make up something new in each retarded post. That's impressive, by next week you will have me killing JFK. Carry on little fella, carry on. But don't pretend this has anything to do with Norris/Mayweather. You're obsessed with trying to change my mind, hell, it's looking like you're obsessed with me. Stop pretending that trading insults and inventing statements that I've never made is "evidence". The only evidence here is that you're a spoiled little boy that has his fists balled up because I don't agree with you.

I couldn't give a toss what you think. In fact i'd be genuinely concerned if you agreed with me, cos you're a sandwich short an make no mistake....lol

But i like that your stupidity is highlighted for others to see cos you've acted like a f*ckwit from just about the get go on this particular thread.

I've made nothing up. You have a problem with a view that Norris would have been physically stronger because its not been catagorically proven. A read through your comments on the thread will verify this. And such is your stubborn and foolish stupidity, you cannot even bring yourself to acknowledge the evidence that is available to back up the view that Norris would have been the physically stronger man.

And its not only me you've argued against on the thread. Its not only me who you've insulted on the thread. But we already know you're delusional so you keep telling yourself you're correct

lurkyshaka wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

lurkyshaka wrote: The threads fine, most people have posted logical opinions and its been productive. Only you who decided to get on some ridiculous high horse over anyone daring to have opinions without absolute proof. Obviously all these type of threads should cease to exist in your blinkered mind, as any kind of speculation upsets you and we should only ever deal in totally proven facts.

To sum up......you have a problem with anyone suggesting Norris would have been stronger than Floyd Mayweather, even though all the available evidence points to that being the case...You're clearly not the full shilling

You make up something new in each retarded post. That's impressive, by next week you will have me killing JFK. Carry on little fella, carry on. But don't pretend this has anything to do with Norris/Mayweather. You're obsessed with trying to change my mind, hell, it's looking like you're obsessed with me. Stop pretending that trading insults and inventing statements that I've never made is "evidence". The only evidence here is that you're a spoiled little boy that has his fists balled up because I don't agree with you.

I couldn't give a toss what you think. In fact i'd be genuinely concerned if you agreed with me, cos you're a sandwich short an make no mistake....lol

But i like that your stupidity is highlighted for others to see cos you've acted like a f*ckwit from just about the get go on this particular thread.

I've made nothing up. You have a problem with a view that Norris would have been physically stronger because its not been catagorically proven. A read through your comments on the thread will verify this. And such is your stubborn and foolish stupidity, you cannot even bring yourself to acknowledge the evidence that is available to back up the view that Norris would have been the physically stronger man.

And its not only me you've argued against on the thread. Its not only me who you've insulted on the thread. But we already know you're delusional so you keep telling yourself you're correct

Yeah, you certainly act like you don't care what I think.

Keep telling yourself that little one, you live for my words.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

lurkyshaka wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: You make up something new in each retarded post. That's impressive, by next week you will have me killing JFK. Carry on little fella, carry on. But don't pretend this has anything to do with Norris/Mayweather. You're obsessed with trying to change my mind, hell, it's looking like you're obsessed with me. Stop pretending that trading insults and inventing statements that I've never made is "evidence". The only evidence here is that you're a spoiled little boy that has his fists balled up because I don't agree with you.

I couldn't give a toss what you think. In fact i'd be genuinely concerned if you agreed with me, cos you're a sandwich short an make no mistake....lol

But i like that your stupidity is highlighted for others to see cos you've acted like a f*ckwit from just about the get go on this particular thread.

I've made nothing up. You have a problem with a view that Norris would have been physically stronger because its not been catagorically proven. A read through your comments on the thread will verify this. And such is your stubborn and foolish stupidity, you cannot even bring yourself to acknowledge the evidence that is available to back up the view that Norris would have been the physically stronger man.

And its not only me you've argued against on the thread. Its not only me who you've insulted on the thread. But we already know you're delusional so you keep telling yourself you're correct

Yeah, you certainly act like you don't care what I think.

Keep telling yourself that little one, you live for my words.

I certainly live to laugh and you've provided me with plenty.
You ever thought of becoming a jester?

lurkyshaka wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

lurkyshaka wrote: I couldn't give a toss what you think. In fact i'd be genuinely concerned if you agreed with me, cos you're a sandwich short an make no mistake....lol

But i like that your stupidity is highlighted for others to see cos you've acted like a f*ckwit from just about the get go on this particular thread.

I've made nothing up. You have a problem with a view that Norris would have been physically stronger because its not been catagorically proven. A read through your comments on the thread will verify this. And such is your stubborn and foolish stupidity, you cannot even bring yourself to acknowledge the evidence that is available to back up the view that Norris would have been the physically stronger man.

And its not only me you've argued against on the thread. Its not only me who you've insulted on the thread. But we already know you're delusional so you keep telling yourself you're correct

Yeah, you certainly act like you don't care what I think.

Keep telling yourself that little one, you live for my words.

I certainly live to laugh and you've provided me with plenty.
You ever thought of becoming a jester?

My daddy can beat up your daddy.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

lurkyshaka wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Yeah, you certainly act like you don't care what I think.

Keep telling yourself that little one, you live for my words.

I certainly live to laugh and you've provided me with plenty.
You ever thought of becoming a jester?

My daddy can beat up your daddy.

....meanwhile somewhere out there a village is missing you

lurkyshaka wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

lurkyshaka wrote: I certainly live to laugh and you've provided me with plenty.
You ever thought of becoming a jester?

My daddy can beat up your daddy.

....meanwhile somewhere out there a village is missing you

A looper, you know, a caddy, a looper, a jock. So, I tell them I'm a pro jock, and who do you think they give me? The Dalai Lama, himself. Twelfth son of the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald... striking. So, I'm on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He hauls off and whacks one - big hitter, the Lama - long, into a ten-thousand foot crevasse, right at the base of this glacier. Do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-lagunga. So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.

so this is how lasting friendships are forged...

Bowing out of inane discussions is far from my strength.

DaveBoyMorrison wrote:so this is how lasting friendships are forged...

and

A looper, you know, a caddy, a looper, a jock. So, I tell them I'm a pro jock, and who do you think they give me? The Dalai Lama, himself. Twelfth son of the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald... striking. So, I'm on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He hauls off and whacks one - big hitter, the Lama - long, into a ten-thousand foot crevasse, right at the base of this glacier. Do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-lagunga. So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.