mickey1975 wrote: ↑10 May 2018, 12:03He’s never bottled anything. He was sniffed out of his head at the time. Loads going on behind the scenes with Ustinov. Loads.
More excuses. A sore ankle, a coke problem, 'behind the scenes' issues, too much uncastrated boar meat. Pull the other one mate, it's got bells on it.
Go watch AJ-Klitschko doc on iPlayer and remember who did the business first.
lol arnie might actually make some sense because the furys now him and have had him in camp before. and hes not threatning at all and has a nice looking record on the surface. although he was so laughable vs haye
mickey1975 wrote: ↑10 May 2018, 12:03He’s never bottled anything. He was sniffed out of his head at the time. Loads going on behind the scenes with Ustinov. Loads.
More excuses. A sore ankle, a coke problem, 'behind the scenes' issues, too much uncastrated boar meat. Pull the other one mate, it's got bells on it.
An interesting statistic for you to contemplate
You now have made exactly 675 posts mentioning the word 'Fury'
This in a total of 1757 total posts
This means a whopping *38%* of your posts mention Fury.
When we add in posts such as the above, where you discuss Fury but without happening to use his name, the figure is probably that 2 in every five of your posts on here referring to Fury.
Re: Tyson Fury comeback on TV?
Posted: 10 May 2018, 15:53
by Horse
Counter-puncher wrote: ↑10 May 2018, 15:41An interesting statistic for you to contemplate
You now have made exactly 675 posts mentioning the word 'Fury'
This in a total of 1757 total posts
This means a whopping *38%* of your posts mention Fury.
When we add in posts such as the above, where you discuss Fury but without happening to use his name, the figure is probably that 2 in every five of your posts on here referring to Fury.
Counter-puncher wrote: ↑10 May 2018, 15:41An interesting statistic for you to contemplate
You now have made exactly 675 posts mentioning the word 'Fury'
This in a total of 1757 total posts
This means a whopping *38%* of your posts mention Fury.
When we add in posts such as the above, where you discuss Fury but without happening to use his name, the figure is probably that 2 in every five of your posts on here referring to Fury.
Nice stats.
That weird Dutch guy was treated as a freak for a similar level of obsessiveness over Haye
The stats don't lie, this guy's a bloody weirdo. 40%?
Re: Tyson Fury comeback on TV?
Posted: 10 May 2018, 16:09
by Horse
Counter-puncher wrote: ↑10 May 2018, 15:57That weird Dutch guy was treated as a freak for a similar level of obsessiveness over Haye
The stats don't lie, this guy's a bloody weirdo. 40%?
mickey1975 wrote: ↑10 May 2018, 12:03He’s never bottled anything. He was sniffed out of his head at the time. Loads going on behind the scenes with Ustinov. Loads.
More excuses. A sore ankle, a coke problem, 'behind the scenes' issues, too much uncastrated boar meat. Pull the other one mate, it's got bells on it.
An interesting statistic for you to contemplate
You now have made exactly 675 posts mentioning the word 'Fury'
This in a total of 1757 total posts
This means a whopping *38%* of your posts mention Fury.
When we add in posts such as the above, where you discuss Fury but without happening to use his name, the figure is probably that 2 in every five of your posts on here referring to Fury.
What can I say. I'm a heavyweight fan and those figures aren't that surprising.
Out of interest how many threads have I started about Fury? He seems to be a pretty commonly discussed fighter on here in spite of his inactivity and I can't believe it's just me bringing his name up.
Counter-puncher wrote: ↑10 May 2018, 15:41An interesting statistic for you to contemplate
You now have made exactly 675 posts mentioning the word 'Fury'
This in a total of 1757 total posts
This means a whopping *38%* of your posts mention Fury.
When we add in posts such as the above, where you discuss Fury but without happening to use his name, the figure is probably that 2 in every five of your posts on here referring to Fury.
Nice stats.
That weird Dutch guy was treated as a freak for a similar level of obsessiveness over Haye
The stats don't lie, this guy's a bloody weirdo. 40%?
More excuses. A sore ankle, a coke problem, 'behind the scenes' issues, too much uncastrated boar meat. Pull the other one mate, it's got bells on it.
An interesting statistic for you to contemplate
You now have made exactly 675 posts mentioning the word 'Fury'
This in a total of 1757 total posts
This means a whopping *38%* of your posts mention Fury.
When we add in posts such as the above, where you discuss Fury but without happening to use his name, the figure is probably that 2 in every five of your posts on here referring to Fury.
What can I say. I'm a heavyweight fan and those figures aren't that surprising.
Out of interest how many threads have I started about Fury? He seems to be a pretty commonly discussed fighter on here in spite of his inactivity and I can't believe it's just me bringing his name up.
Well now, dirk, let's look at some comparisons, shall we?
You're suggesting that (a) as a fan of heavyweight boxing and (b) as Fury is a common topic, your huge proportion of Fury-related posts is statistically not very drastic
Let's take my statistics. Big fan of Fury, saw his first 7 fights live, shook his hand and got a photo of him
I have mentioned his name 457 times across 19905 posts
You are 38% more likely to post about Fury than someone who considers himself a fan of the big man.
Do you really think you can hide your pitiful obsession behind the idea Fury is a common topic so naturally you would mention him
frequently?
Shall I do a comparison of how often you mention Fury compared to, say, Froch? Yes, let's do that shall we. Back in a tick.
More excuses. A sore ankle, a coke problem, 'behind the scenes' issues, too much uncastrated boar meat. Pull the other one mate, it's got bells on it.
An interesting statistic for you to contemplate
You now have made exactly 675 posts mentioning the word 'Fury'
This in a total of 1757 total posts
This means a whopping *38%* of your posts mention Fury.
When we add in posts such as the above, where you discuss Fury but without happening to use his name, the figure is probably that 2 in every five of your posts on here referring to Fury.
What can I say. I'm a heavyweight fan and those figures aren't that surprising.
Out of interest how many threads have I started about Fury? He seems to be a pretty commonly discussed fighter on here in spite of his inactivity and I can't believe it's just me bringing his name up.
It is quite mystifying that he's so often a subject of discussion considering his main occupation is sitting on his ass these days. I'm about as much a fighter as he is lately.
Re: Tyson Fury comeback on TV?
Posted: 10 May 2018, 16:30
by Counter-puncher
So, dirk, you mention Froch in a mere 5% of your posts.
And Mayweather, the greatest boxing talent, earner and highest profile boxer of our generation, you mention in 6%
Shall I do some more comparisons, dirk, compare you to a random sensible poster like boxerbeetle?
Shall I give you the figures that make a mockery of the idea you're only talking about Fury because he is a popular discussion, this boxer Fury of whom you speak 7 times more often than the biggest boxing star of our generation? It might be fun.
Re: Tyson Fury comeback on TV?
Posted: 10 May 2018, 16:35
by Boxerbeetle
I would actually like to see my stats. Calzaghe would probably be my most mentioned boxer even though he’s been retired for a decade
You now have made exactly 675 posts mentioning the word 'Fury'
This in a total of 1757 total posts
This means a whopping *38%* of your posts mention Fury.
When we add in posts such as the above, where you discuss Fury but without happening to use his name, the figure is probably that 2 in every five of your posts on here referring to Fury.
What can I say. I'm a heavyweight fan and those figures aren't that surprising.
Out of interest how many threads have I started about Fury? He seems to be a pretty commonly discussed fighter on here in spite of his inactivity and I can't believe it's just me bringing his name up.
It is quite mystifying that he's so often a subject of discussion considering his main occupation is sitting on his ass these days. I'm about as much a fighter as he is lately.
Your stats don't look too good either mate.
Nearly 1/20 of your posts mention Fury
Which means:
Dirk posts about Fury about 8 times more frequently than someone who *really really hates* Fury
Food for thought, there, dirk.
Perhaps the word 'pathological' is one you have heard before.
As in 'dirk posts about Fury so frequently it verges on the pathological'
Pathological types cut a sad figure, dirk.
Re: Tyson Fury comeback on TV?
Posted: 10 May 2018, 16:42
by Counter-puncher
Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑10 May 2018, 16:35
I would actually like to see my stats. Calzaghe would probably be my most mentioned boxer even though he’s been retired for a decade
You posted on 792 posts Fury-related- 6% of your posts. That would seem a fairly normal figure for a prominent current boxer, like dirks 5 or 6 for Froch-Mayweather
Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑10 May 2018, 16:35
I would actually like to see my stats. Calzaghe would probably be my most mentioned boxer even though he’s been retired for a decade
You posted on 792 posts Fury-related- 6% of your posts. That would seem a fairly normal figure for a prominent current boxer, like dirks 5 or 6 for Froch-Mayweather
159 for Calzaghe, as it happens
Hmmm interesting.
I suppose if we’re getting into the nitty gritty, we should account for Tyson being part of a wider boxing lineage - dirk could also be referring to Hughie or Peter (unlikely, admittedly). And who could ever forget the John Partridge/Fury thread, fvck knows how that legendary meandering shambles skewed some of the stats.
Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑10 May 2018, 16:35
I would actually like to see my stats. Calzaghe would probably be my most mentioned boxer even though he’s been retired for a decade
You posted on 792 posts Fury-related- 6% of your posts. That would seem a fairly normal figure for a prominent current boxer, like dirks 5 or 6 for Froch-Mayweather
159 for Calzaghe, as it happens
Hmmm interesting.
I suppose if we’re getting into the nitty gritty, we should account for Tyson being part of a wider boxing lineage - dirk could also be referring to Hughie or Peter (unlikely, admittedly). And who could ever forget the John Partridge/Fury thread, fvck knows how that legendary meandering shambles skewed some of the stats.
Fortunately dirk didn't post on the partridge thread, so drilling down on the numbers would be easier.
If I could be arsed. He may mention Hughie Peter or John or even Billy, in some posts. Let's call it 2%. We all know who forms the bulk of them.
You posted on 792 posts Fury-related- 6% of your posts. That would seem a fairly normal figure for a prominent current boxer, like dirks 5 or 6 for Froch-Mayweather
159 for Calzaghe, as it happens
Hmmm interesting.
I suppose if we’re getting into the nitty gritty, we should account for Tyson being part of a wider boxing lineage - dirk could also be referring to Hughie or Peter (unlikely, admittedly). And who could ever forget the John Partridge/Fury thread, fvck knows how that legendary meandering shambles skewed some of the stats.
Fortunately dirk didn't post on the partridge thread, so drilling down on the numbers would be easier.
If I could be arsed. He may mention Hughie Peter or John or even Billy, in some posts. Let's call it 2%. We all know who forms the bulk of them.
Enough stats for one night, I’m going to read the Partridge thread again, it’s been nearly a year since I last read it and I’m already grinning in anticipation
