BoxRec

"Badou Jack, Nathan Cleverly getting closer to deal for Aug. 26 fight" (Source: The RING)

Badou Jack isn’t looking to slowly settle into his new weight.

The former super middleweight champion has been in talks for weeks ahead of a possible light heavyweight showdown against Nathan Cleverly. An industry source told RingTV.com that the sides are getting close to a deal, and the bout would take place on the Floyd Mayweather-Conor McGregor undercard on August 26 in Las Vegas.

The only undercard fight announced so far is Gervonta “Tank” Davis against a to-be-determined opponent in a junior lightweight title defense. Jack, like Davis, fights under the Mayweather Promotions banner.

Jack (21-1-2, 12 knockouts) vacated his 168-pound title following a January draw with James DeGale. The Swede had been sapping himself to make weight, but already feels great as he cuts into shape for his return to 175. The 33-year-old fought at light heavyweight early in his career, but made a name for himself as a super middleweight.

Cleverly (30-3, 16 KOs) made five defenses of his light heavyweight belt before Sergey Kovalev knocked him out in 2013. The Welshman then moved up to cruiserweight and eventually dropped a split decision to Tony Bellew, before settling back at 175 pounds.

Thoughts?

Enlightened-One wrote:Thoughts?

What's with the face?

Horse wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:Thoughts?

What's with the face?

I do that for all threads I create.

Enlightened-One wrote:I do that for all threads I create.

Why?

It makes it seem like you have a problem with it?

Horse wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:I do that for all threads I create.

Why?

It makes it seem like you have a problem with it?

No, it doesn't mean that I have a problem with anything.

I just automatically add the confused emoticon to my "Thoughts?" question out of habit. I guess it's my way of highlighting a question that attempts to ascertain other people's thoughts. It is not meant to cause offence to those that aren't overly sensitive.

Enlightened-One wrote:

Horse wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:I do that for all threads I create.

Why?

It makes it seem like you have a problem with it?

No, it doesn't mean that I have a problem with anything.

I just automatically add the confused emoticon to my "Thoughts?" question out of habit. I guess it's my way of highlighting a question that attempts to ascertain other people's thoughts. It is not meant to cause offence to those that aren't overly sensitive.

Why do you ask for people thoughts when you have already made up your mind on the matter?

It's about time Nathan was doing something. I was just thinking about him the other week. I hope they make that fight, it's a good match

Enlightened-One wrote:

Horse wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:I do that for all threads I create.

Why?

It makes it seem like you have a problem with it?

No, it doesn't mean that I have a problem with anything.

I just automatically add the confused emoticon to my "Thoughts?" question out of habit. I guess it's my way of highlighting a question that attempts to ascertain other people's thoughts. It is not meant to cause offence to those that aren't overly sensitive.

Do you add it because you're permanently confused?

lazboy wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

Horse wrote:Why?

It makes it seem like you have a problem with it?

No, it doesn't mean that I have a problem with anything.

I just automatically add the confused emoticon to my "Thoughts?" question out of habit. I guess it's my way of highlighting a question that attempts to ascertain other people's thoughts. It is not meant to cause offence to those that aren't overly sensitive.

Why do you ask for people thoughts when you have already made up your mind on the matter?

For the vast majority of the threads I create, the very first post only contains a verbatim quote, coupled with hyperlink, from an article that I find intriguing.

I nearly always refrain from articulating a personal opinion at this stage and I simply ask for other people’s thoughts about a situation that has only just been reported by the media.

If you’d reviewed my posting history then you would already know this, so your question is redundant.

Enlightened-One wrote:

lazboy wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: No, it doesn't mean that I have a problem with anything.

I just automatically add the confused emoticon to my "Thoughts?" question out of habit. I guess it's my way of highlighting a question that attempts to ascertain other people's thoughts. It is not meant to cause offence to those that aren't overly sensitive.

Why do you ask for people thoughts when you have already made up your mind on the matter?

For the vast majority of the threads I create, the very first post only contains a verbatim quote, coupled with hyperlink, from an article that I find intriguing.

I nearly always refrain from articulating a personal opinion at this stage and I simply ask for other people’s thoughts about a situation that has only just been reported by the media.

If you’d reviewed my posting history then you would already know this, so your question is redundant.

I feel you should make more of an effort; using emotional intelligence, tact and tolerance when the board members oblige you with their thoughts, to have a discussion not a argument.

lazboy wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

lazboy wrote:
Why do you ask for people thoughts when you have already made up your mind on the matter?

For the vast majority of the threads I create, the very first post only contains a verbatim quote, coupled with hyperlink, from an article that I find intriguing.

I nearly always refrain from articulating a personal opinion at this stage and I simply ask for other people’s thoughts about a situation that has only just been reported by the media.

If you’d reviewed my posting history then you would already know this, so your question is redundant.

I feel you should make more of an effort; using emotional intelligence, tact and tolerance when the board members oblique you with their thoughts, to have a discussion not a argument.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice rather than becoming teary-eyed and emotional whenever someone addresses to your attempts to initiate conflict.

Enlightened-One wrote:

lazboy wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: For the vast majority of the threads I create, the very first post only contains a verbatim quote, coupled with hyperlink, from an article that I find intriguing.

I nearly always refrain from articulating a personal opinion at this stage and I simply ask for other people’s thoughts about a situation that has only just been reported by the media.

If you’d reviewed my posting history then you would already know this, so your question is redundant.

I feel you should make more of an effort; using emotional intelligence, tact and tolerance when the board members oblique you with their thoughts, to have a discussion not a argument.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice rather than becoming teary-eyed whenever someone responds to your attempts to initiate conflict.

This is the kind of stubborn arrogance that drove you to emotion resulting in your quitting the forum and the creation of subsequent hidden alias. Past behaviour is a good predictor of future behaviour, just like Conor McGreggor, you're a quitter and will most likely quit again if you are unable to adapt when things become too difficult. Heed my words....or do not it is your choice.

lazboy wrote: This is the kind of stubborn arrogance that drove you to emotion resulting in your quitting the forum and the creation of subsequent hidden alias. Past behaviour is a good predictor of future behaviour, just like Conor McGreggor, you're a quitter and will most likely quit again if you are unable to adapt when things become too difficult. Heed my words....or do not it is your choice.

What sort of response do you personally expect to receive when you make a blatant attempt to initiate conflict?

I rarely criticise anybody without provocation, but I guess you’re far too much of “LAZY BOY” to review my posting history to verify this pretty obvious fact!

People don’t like facts. They don’t appreciate their long-held misconceptions being undermined by someone that presents compelling evidence that conflicts with their preferred perception of reality. So they attack the person who conveys this information instead.

“Facts don't care about personal feelings” and I cannot be held responsible for other forum members being offended by the real-world situation.

Enlightened-One wrote:

lazboy wrote: This is the kind of stubborn arrogance that drove you to emotion resulting in your quitting the forum and the creation of subsequent hidden alias. Past behaviour is a good predictor of future behaviour, just like Conor McGreggor, you're a quitter and will most likely quit again if you are unable to adapt when things become too difficult. Heed my words....or do not it is your choice.

What sort of response do you personally expect to receive when you make a blatant attempt to initiate conflict?

I rarely criticise anybody without provocation, but I guess you’re far too much of “LAZY BOY” to review my posting history to verify this pretty obvious fact!

People don’t like facts. They don’t appreciate their long-held misconceptions being undermined by someone that presents compelling evidence that conflicts with their preferred perception of reality. So they attack the person who conveys this information instead.

“Facts don't care about personal feelings” and I cannot be held responsible for other forum members being offended by the real-world situation.

I don't think you should comment on people, what they do or do not like, I don't think you understand them, that is what my "review" of your posting history has made clear. As for Jack Cleverly fight, it's a good fight, I'd favour Jack.

lazboy wrote:As for Jack Cleverly fight, it's a good fight, I'd favour Jack.

I agree on this point.