BoxRec

boxing_rocks wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: To be honest, we’re all human and prone to making mistakes, so I don’t judge GGG for some of his inconsistencies

That is so f*cking laughable. Golovkin is one of top 5 in the world in what he does, and you are nobody. He is so lucky that you are not judging him

You always seem to make unfounded and often derogatory assumptions, based on minimal information, about many fighters (not named Golovkin), without examining all the facts or even making an effort to research the validity of your claims.

It seems that you and I are destined to be polar opposites, regardless the topic under discussion, due to our different approach to qualifying our opinions.

Enlightened-One wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: To be honest, we’re all human and prone to making mistakes, so I don’t judge GGG for some of his inconsistencies

That is so f*cking laughable. Golovkin is one of top 5 in the world in what he does, and you are nobody. He is so lucky that you are not judging him

You always seem to make unfounded and often derogatory assumptions, based on minimal information, about many fighters (not named Golovkin), without examining all the facts or even making an effort to research the validity of your claims.

It seems that you and I are destined to be polar opposites, regardless the topic under discussion, due to our different approach to qualifying our opinions.

Prove me wrong if I am.

boxing_rocks wrote:Prove me wrong if I am.

What's that supposed to mean?

You're no longer capable of discussing the topic of this thread, as you'd prefer me to trawl through hundreds of your nonsense posts to quantify and quote your slanderous derogatory claims?

Whenever we disagree about something, I always pull you up about your unfairly critical and insulting claims with cold hard facts.

So there's no need for me to perform a detailed lengthy post-mortum analysis of your forum posting history.

We all know his resume is not that great, and we all know why. Another redundant thread from a redundant troll

Purse Bid Shakedown wrote:We all know his resume is not that great...

The first post on this thread was merely a list of facts supplied by universally-considered reliable third-party sources. So if you believe that Golovkin's resume is "not that great", then that's fine by me.

Purse Bid Shakedown wrote:... and we all know why. Another redundant thread from a redundant troll

So you believe that a person presenting a list of facts in an objective and logical manner warrants insulting accusations of being a "troll"?

Enlightened-One wrote:

Purse Bid Shakedown wrote:We all know his resume is not that great...

The first post on this thread was merely a list of facts supplied by universally-considered reliable third-party sources. So if you believe that Golovkin's resume is "not that great", then that's fine by me.

Purse Bid Shakedown wrote:... and we all know why. Another redundant thread from a redundant troll

So you believe that a person presenting a list of facts in an objective and logical manner warrants insulting accusations of being a "troll"?

You are the only one thinking that you are presenting "facts in an objective and logical manner". Most of us think that your manner is misleading and provocative, i.e. you are troll.

boxing_rocks wrote:You are the only one thinking that you are presenting "facts in an objective and logical manner". Most of us think that your manner is misleading and provocative, i.e. you are troll.

Challenge the facts not the person presenting them. Insulting me on a personal level does not render my opinion and also the facts that I supply as redundant or inaccurate.

Let me be perfectly clear, I don't care about your feelings and nor do I want to know about your subjective emotions. You're not one of my friends or family members, which means I'm under no obligation to give a damn if you feel that the facts listed in my technically-accurate posts offend you personally.

I only want to talk about the facts of the subject matter being discussed, such as highlighting things that are and aren't provable, whilst challenging accusations that have been leveraged and endorsing those accusations that are supportable.

If you find my approach to using this forum deeply-offensive, then report me to a forum moderator and use the available website technologies to ignore my posts.

People are allowed to have different opinions to those that you hold, especially when they submit compelling arguments supported by quality evidence.

So the only person that seems to be behaving like a stereotypical "troll" is you, because your insults aren't warranted.

Enlightened-One wrote:

Purse Bid Shakedown wrote:We all know his resume is not that great...

The first post on this thread was merely a list of facts supplied by universally-considered reliable third-party sources. So if you believe that Golovkin's resume is "not that great", then that's fine by me.

Purse Bid Shakedown wrote:... and we all know why. Another redundant thread from a redundant troll

So you believe that a person presenting a list of facts in an objective and logical manner warrants insulting accusations of being a "troll"?

I believe this is a troll

his hard-core fans are a tad stupid... and those are the people I'm trying to offend.

Plus you're fergusg. That alone makes you a troll. Having more accounts doesn't help.

Purse Bid Shakedown wrote: I believe this is a troll

his hard-core fans are a tad stupid... and those are the people I'm trying to offend.

Plus you're fergusg. That alone makes you a troll. Having more accounts doesn't help.

Your cherry-picked and carefully-selected quote is merely an extract of several words from a much longer sentence, which is part of a detailed post whereby the statement I made can easily be justified by the preceding posts in that particular thread.

You're intentionally trying to misrepresent my words and take them out of their true context in an attempt to cause offence, which can be classed as stereotypical behaviour of a "troll".

And if you're convinced that I have contravened the rules of the forum, by possessing multiple accounts, then report me to a moderator.

Get me banned, if you believe I deserve it, but I'd like the forum moderator to review the "fairness" of your insults.

Are you gonna cry to a mod to delete your new account ferg? Like you did last time?

Maybe the posters here were too tough on you.

crusader wrote:Are you gonna cry to a mod to delete your new account ferg? Like you did last time?

Maybe the posters here were too tough on you.

Explain?

"He asked for his acccount to be deleted"

Were people too hard on ya ferg? Did you get your courage back?

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... 857&hilit=

crusader wrote:"He asked for his acccount to be deleted"

Were people too hard on ya ferg?

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... 857&hilit=

I still don't know what you're talking about, but I'm not interested in discussing your irrational ramblings.

If you'd like to refrain from behaving like a "troll" and return the conversation to the subject matter that you're clearly unable to discuss, then I may engage with you.

Okay then ferg

Maybe you'll prove tougher this time and won't go crying to a mod again

Sooner or later he will cry to the mods, the other day ferg made a post saying how he was winding up some posters so I called him a troll, his excuse was pathetic as it always has been, the worst part is he actually thinks he is knowledgable

I must admit, I’m a little surprised about the amount and also the severity of the hatred I’ve received for quoting the Ring and BoxRec’s evaluation about the calibre of GGG’s opponents since 2011.

It’s not as if anyone has directly addressed my interpretation of BoxRec’s resume information or has questioned the accuracy of the Ring Magazine's divisional ratings of these opponents.

If I’ve learned one thing by creating this thread, is to expect to receive an enormous amount of abuse if you have the sheer audacity to post factually-based comments about Gennady Golovkin (no matter how innocuous or unquestionable in nature) that doesn’t lavish copious amounts of praise on him!

interesting debate . regarding the ability of ggg i think the opinion of his peers is going to be more valid than most. there are very few fighters, whether retired or current that have anything bad to say about him. every interview i have heard with other pro's has them saying what a beast he is and they all seem to hold him in high regard.

when mayweather flat out refuses to entertain the possibility of a fight you know he must be the real deal. regarding resumes ,boxing politics has always had a huge influence in this regard . whilst i do not like this , i understand the reasoning behind any management team wanting to extend the max earning potential of their fighter while keeping them as healthy as possible all the way to retirement.

no point having the best resume in the world if you are a drooling cabbage ten years after retirement.

Enlightened-One wrote:I must admit, I’m a little surprised about the amount and also the severity of the hatred I’ve received for quoting the Ring and BoxRec’s evaluation about the calibre of GGG’s opponents since 2011.

Nah, you are getting it for being a hypocrite and troll.

boxing_rocks wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:I must admit, I’m a little surprised about the amount and also the severity of the hatred I’ve received for quoting the Ring and BoxRec’s evaluation about the calibre of GGG’s opponents since 2011.

Nah, you are getting it for being a hypocrite and troll.

You're unable to effectively challenge my opinions, so you resort to personal insults.

Enlightened-One wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:I must admit, I’m a little surprised about the amount and also the severity of the hatred I’ve received for quoting the Ring and BoxRec’s evaluation about the calibre of GGG’s opponents since 2011.

Nah, you are getting it for being a hypocrite and troll.

You're unable to effectively challenge my opinions, so you resort to personal insults.

No, you are unable to comprehend that people are effectively challenging your opinions. Take your meds or seek help to have those prescribed to you.

boxing_rocks wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote: Nah, you are getting it for being a hypocrite and troll.

You're unable to effectively challenge my opinions, so you resort to personal insults.

No, you are unable to comprehend that people are effectively challenging your opinions. Take your meds or seek help to have those prescribed to you.

OK, if what you say is true, please quote any of the posts on this thread that I failed to address?

Syntax Error wrote:Thoughts: A masterclass in copying & pasting someone else's work.

The story is Canelo and Martinez need to grow a pair. Neither wanted to get knocked out by GGG.

GGG is the most ducked fighter in the past 20 years.

pound per pound wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:Thoughts: A masterclass in copying & pasting someone else's work.

The story is Canelo and Martinez need to grow a pair. Neither wanted to get knocked out by GGG.

GGG is the most ducked fighter in the past 20 years.

i agree

hard to get decent fights on if you're avoided

why isnt this guy banned. this is just absurd. imagine using all that time, to try to get a reaction from strangers on the net. get help dude. asap !
objective... lmao

Butterbean wrote:why isnt this guy banned. this is just absurd. imagine using all that time, to try to get a reaction from strangers on the net. get help dude. asap !
objective... lmao

Explain