Ah, so you did. I didn't notice that line, Random Capital Letter Boy.
spmado
BT Rep: +2
Ah, so you did. I didn't notice that line, Random Capital Letter Boy.
As long as I've got a face
You've got a place to sit
Use Logic Or STFU!
It was only pointed out to you twice, Missed The Point On Multiple Occasions No Reading Comprehension.....Boy.Originally Posted by Proper Bo
Ah, so you did. I didn't notice that line, Random Capital Letter Boy.
Next time I'll either quote it, post a link to it, have a large ass oval around it, highlight it in Re-Animator colored polka dots, post a smiley next to it that points to it saying, "Looky Here 'Toopid!", or all of the above.
spmado
BT Rep: +2
Indeed, next time I may even bother to read your posts properly.
As long as I've got a face
You've got a place to sit
Use Logic Or STFU!
Glad I could 'elp 'owt, 'tard.
Version Five
To answer a specific point isn't "nit-picking". It's answering a specific point.
Hatton didn't become a good fighter when he fought an American. He spent years becoming a good fighter before that. He dedicated his life to it and worked really hard to become a good fighter.
The people he fought to become a good fighter did the same, tho' perhaps not reaching the same heights.
The same goes for American boxers, they work their way through the ranks, gradually becoming better and better until they get to the top of their profession. A tiny minority of them.
The disrespect comes when people say "who has he fought". The answer being "decent fighters who you just happen not to have heard of".
Hatton, Calzaghe etc have no more need to prove themselves than some American fighter who has worked his way up thro' the ranks fighting other American fighters. They are unbeaten World Champions. It's up to someone else to prove they aren't up to it.
That's kind of the point of being unbeaten as a World champion. No-one has had the bottle, or ability, or work ethic to step into the ring with you and take your title.
Ali didn't do it. Haggler didn't do it. Hearns didn't do it. Frazier didn't do it. De La Hoya didn't do it. Tyson didn't do it. Leonard didn't do it. Duran didn't do it. The list goes on and on.
So far Hatton has done it. He has beaten everyone put in front of him. That doesn't make him one of the all time great fighters. Just someone who no-one else has been able to beat, at different weights.
Joe Calzaghe is the same. Just someone who no-one else put in front of him has been able to beat.
That's the disrespect issue.
Q - Who have you beaten?
A - So far, everybody.
MayWeather ftw
Use Logic Or STFU!
Ahhh yeah, it's nitpicking cuz you ignored the next sentence. Taking a tidbit of a post while disregarding the rest that clearly answers a point you posed after the fact is mental.To answer a specific point isn't "nit-picking". It's answering a specific point.
Hatton didn't become a good fighter when he fought an American. He spent years becoming a good fighter before that. He dedicated his life to it and worked really hard to become a good fighter.
The people he fought to become a good fighter did the same, tho' perhaps not reaching the same heights.
The same goes for American boxers, they work their way through the ranks, gradually becoming better and better until they get to the top of their profession. A tiny minority of them.
The disrespect comes when people say "who has he fought". The answer being "decent fighters who you just happen not to have heard of".
Hatton, Calzaghe etc have no more need to prove themselves than some American fighter who has worked his way up thro' the ranks fighting other American fighters. They are unbeaten World Champions. It's up to someone else to prove they aren't up to it.
That's kind of the point of being unbeaten as a World champion. No-one has had the bottle, or ability, or work ethic to step into the ring with you and take your title.
Ali didn't do it. Haggler didn't do it. Hearns didn't do it. Frazier didn't do it. De La Hoya didn't do it. Tyson didn't do it. Leonard didn't do it. Duran didn't do it. The list goes on and on.
So far Hatton has done it. He has beaten everyone put in front of him. That doesn't make him one of the all time great fighters. Just someone who no-one else has been able to beat, at different weights.
Joe Calzaghe is the same. Just someone who no-one else put in front of him has been able to beat.
That's the disrespect issue.
Q - Who have you beaten?
A - So far, everybody.
There is no disrespect in "who has he fought" cuz we don't know. It's a valid question. As a matter fact, this doesn't just go to your hometown boy. The same question was posed about Roy Jones Jr.
It just happened that everyone he fought (until the obvious) weren't that good.
We say "who's he fought" because either we don't know the fighters he's fought (thus knowing the level of competition he's gone up against).
or
we know the fighters he's fought and know they sucked to begin with. In this case we know them but are speaking rhetorically.
Thus undefeated in joeblowbumblefuck country means a little less than the undefeated I know in my own.
For instance, an undefeated brat basketball team would mean shit in the scheme of things.
Disrespect? I don't really give a fuck, tbh.
I jus' wanna see good fights.
Darth Monk Like.
"Who has he fought" is an entirely different thing to say than "He's fought nobody". Particularly when, as you say you have no knowledge of the people he has fought. The former can be an acceptable and reasonable question. The latter, given the circumstances is untennable. You cannot justify the position that you know nothing about his previous competition and at the same time say that they weren't any good.
What does
mean, btw.Thus undefeated in joeblowbumblefuck country means a little less than the undefeated I know in my own.
For instance, an undefeated brat basketball team would mean shit in the scheme of things.
You do not need to see my I.D.
μετά
BT Rep: +6
agreedAhhh yeah, it's nitpicking cuz you ignored the next sentence. Taking a tidbit of a post while disregarding the rest that clearly answers a point you posed after the fact is mental.
There is no disrespect in "who has he fought" cuz we don't know. It's a valid question. As a matter fact, this doesn't just go to your hometown boy. The same question was posed about Roy Jones Jr.
It just happened that everyone he fought (until the obvious) weren't that good.
We say "who's he fought" because either we don't know the fighters he's fought (thus knowing the level of competition he's gone up against).
or
we know the fighters he's fought and know they sucked to begin with. In this case we know them but are speaking rhetorically.
Thus undefeated in joeblowbumblefuck country means a little less than the undefeated I know in my own.
For instance, an undefeated brat basketball team would mean shit in the scheme of things.
Disrespect? I don't really give a fuck, tbh.
I jus' wanna see good fights.
Use Logic Or STFU!
So now "who has he fought" is okay and we've moved on to "he's fought nobody"?
Now you are arguing semantics. You also are just repeating what I've already said then saying I cannot justify my position when I said OR not AND.
To your last, I know next to jackshit about joeblowbumblefuck country. In some cases I do. I know Mexico tend to turn out some nice boxers.
Basketball doesn't have a great market in bratland like over here so there'd probably be less comp there for it.
I know that fighters in other countries tend to fight more often.
I also know that over here, because market conditions, we tend to draw the plethora of great boxers from the world.
The money is just too attractive. Now with globalization of PPV this won't matter.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks