I answered. You don't want to listen.
When you're ready to have a serious debate without the bullshit, get back to me.
End of story.
Printable View
I answered. You don't want to listen.
When you're ready to have a serious debate without the bullshit, get back to me.
End of story.
What am I not being serious about?
Tito got knocked down on numerous occasions. The higher calibre opponent you face the more likely you are to be knocked down, especially if that higher calibre opponent has serious power, therefore Shane KO's Tito on this basic but structually granite formula.
Tito was knocked down by far inferior fighters to Shane. Right?
I can't conclusively prove that Shane would KO Tito but the mathematics indicate it's a virtual certainty. Fact.
I'm just providing the results of the research.
You chose to ignore the FACTS about the Trinidad knockdowns EARLY in his career. The facts I put in front of your face. I will not answer the same questions twice. You keep asking the same question after you've been given an answer.... you do not deserve any more of my time. Now go play in the middle of the street.
Tito was stopped by Hopkins in his 41st fight and knocked down by Roy in his 45th.
Early, middle and late - in his career - Tito hit the deck. It's just an undeniable fact.
By that rationale I believe Mosely, who would have been one of the superior opponents Tito faced, had a strong mathematical chance of rendering him unconcious.
The Fenster never ignores facts. Fact.
Now you're starting to subtly change your tune, and looking ignorant in the process. The Hopkins and Jones Jr. knockdowns were very different from the knockdowns Trinidad suffered early in his career. The early ones were caused by lack of proper balance by Trinidad. The fact that he immediately bounced up (unhurt) and KO'ed the opponent (in each case) is proof of that. Only an idiot will continue to ignore that fact. Surely you're not an idiot, correct? The Hopkins and Jones Jr. knockdowns occurred late in each fight. Trinidad was clearly losing the fight and had been dominated in each case. Hence, the late knockdowns.
You started the argument by ignorantly saying Trinidad had a "china-chin". You've subtly eased off that, but still pursue the argument that since Trinidad suffered various knockdowns, Mosley would KO him. Faulty reasoning, for the reasons I've given above.
To this point, I've humored you and good-naturedly taken the bait you've hung out there, in the spirit of maintaining a good argument back and forth. But I will not answer your questions twice. I've already done that in this post, by once again explaining to you the nature of Trinidad's early knockdowns. Now... as the moderator you are... I expect you to be more of an example to our young, impressionable posters. But if you persist in your asinine arguments, in which you've proceeded to look like quite the fool, you're going to leave me no choice but to ignore your ass altogether.
You see... I only engage in intelligent arguments.
Now I'll get stuck in another marathon argument with Fenster and get blamed for another 15 pages of thread.
:thinking2:
You're giving him way too much credit there..Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
Are we talking about the same guy who likened boxing to a maths equation..?? Because 2+2=4 in boxing doesn't it? *facepalm*
It's like that argument about how fighter A beat fighter B and fighter B beat fighter C so that means fighter A will beat C. Doesn't quite work like that does it?
Anyway, using his nonsensical theory, his man-crush Joe Calzaghe would have been destroyed by better opposition if he faced them either in prime or at all. Having been knocked down by Byron Mitchell, decrepid Hopkins and Mummified Roy Jones means he would have been iced by Prime Eubank, Benn, Roy Jones (although that's obvious), Hopkins, Froch etc
Then again, FennyBoy might be on to something here..that doesn't sound so ridiculous after all... ;)
Well that wasn't predictable. Deary deary me....Quote:
Originally Posted by AlthugzYou're giving him way too much credit there..Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
Are we talking about the same guy who likened boxing to a maths equation..?? Because 2+2=4 in boxing doesn't it? *facepalm*
It's like that argument about how fighter A beat fighter B and fighter B beat fighter C so that means fighter A will beat C. Doesn't quite work like that does it?
Anyway, using his nonsensical theory, his man-crush Joe Calzaghe would have been destroyed by better opposition if he faced them either in prime or at all. Having been knocked down by Byron Mitchell, decrepid Hopkins and Mummified Roy Jones means he would have been iced by Prime Eubank, Benn, Roy Jones (although that's obvious), Hopkins, Froch etc
Then again, FennyBoy might be on to something here..that doesn't sound so ridiculous after all... ;)
Argument? What argument did I start?Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
I merely gave a scientfic presentation based on emperical evidence that the the laws of physics suggesst that Tito's china-chin - based on the indisputable fact that he's hit the canvas early, middle and late in his career - gets shattered by Shane Mosley's powerful whacking fists. Nothing more, nothing less.
I never claimed it to be a certainty. Although the mathematical evidence strongly suggests it is a certainty. Even though it's not. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterArgument? What argument did I start?Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
I merely gave a scientfic presentation based on emperical evidence that the the laws of physics suggesst that Tito's china-chin - based on the indisputable fact that he's hit the canvas early, middle and late in his career - gets shattered by Shane Mosley's powerful whacking fists. Nothing more, nothing less.
I never claimed it to be a certainty. Although the mathematical evidence strongly suggests it is a certainty. Even though it's not. Fact.
To provide "scientific presentation" you must have something larger than a pea-sized brain.
Fact.
Also, if you're going to base anything on "empirical evidence".... learn how to spell it first.
Fact.
You're a joke, kid. I'm beginning to wonder who you had to blow to become moderator.
Saddo must've been in the mood for a sick joke.
Fact.
Tito, you seem to be resorting to the insults again and then become a grammar Nazi. I know from experience that it is difficult to spell correctly when drunk. Not easy at all and empirical is a pretty long word.
Fensters argument is a sound one. Tito got knocked down a lot and Mosley tended to knock down a lot of opponents. It's logical to suggest that Trinidad might be put down by Mosley or even stopped.
Oh, c'mon. You too? Hey... I'm aware anything can happen in a professional prizefight. All we can have are opinions. I just don't like the way Fenster expresses his... and he obviously doesn't like the way I express mine. Are you going to jump to his defense, too? You're a veteran and have been here awhile. You know I'm not the only one Fenster rubs the wrong way. And while you're accusing me of insulting him... can you also see the condescending way he writes his posts? If you're going to get in the middle of the fray, try to be objective. And give me a break, ok?
I don't understand. You are the one who is saying that another poster is mentally challenged and has literacy issues.
It is a valid point that a fighter who has been known to hit the canvas could well do so against another legendary fighter. It's a simple and logical argument to make.
Fenster's bluster amuses me more than anything but reading through the later stages of this thread it is that argument that is more in tune with my own perceptions.
Shane Mosely a class act??? Margarito a cheating bum???Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
You forget that Mosely was using ped's the the night of his greatest triumph over De laHoya. How many more fights was he juiced for??? If either of these two fighters are a "cheating bum " its Mosely. Tony Margarito was "accused" of trying to load his gloves and was banned on suspicion alone. When the CSAC were asked to produce the "illegal wraps " they claimed Margarito had the embarassingly stuttered " Errrr we mislaid them we dont know where they are" Sure a commission LOSES the only evidence they claim to have to ban a guy from earning a living for nearly 2 years :rolleyes::rolleyes:Mosely was PROVEN to have used ped's and lied about it. If anyone should be banned its Mosely The way he fought against Margarito he was probably juiced up to the gills AGAIN. Instead of Hall of Fame Mosely should be in the Hall of Shame
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Which is fine, Miles. I have no problem seeing the possibility of a knockdown during the fight. And it would be a formidable fight. Two future HOF'ers in their prime... who wouldn't want to see that? No one has a crystal ball to say how it would turn out with 100% certainty. That's what opinions are for. No issues here.
Agreed it is a cracking matchup. There are no certainties in boxing. A Mosley win by stoppage is only a possibility and likewise Tito could decision him. You never know.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Which is fine, Miles. I have no problem seeing the possibility of a knockdown during the fight. And it would be a formidable fight. Two future HOF'ers in their prime... who wouldn't want to see that? No one has a crystal ball to say how it would turn out with 100% certainty. That's what opinions are for. No issues here.
Thank you miles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Any sane thinking individual can recognise the merit of my logical argument. This TitoFan fellow gets upset very easily and takes umbrage with anything The Fenster says. Very strange.
This isn't up to your normal standard of quality trolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
You have any thoughts of your own? Or do you get them from sucking on Fenster's dick?
No offense, of course.
I wish Shane all the luck and here is hoping that is new lady won't take him for all his worth, last thing I want to see is a 44 year old Shane fighting again.
Even though he needed the money he should have retired before the Pacquiao fight.
His career took an ugly shift after that.
I know he is still a partner with GBP, only because he holds shares.
I can only wonder if he would have been more financially secure in the future had he not left GBP the way he did in pursue of the Pacquiao fight.