-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Swanson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Swanson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Not sure where the value lies with Loma-Campbell but why is the little mexican who chinned Selby a 5/2 shot against Charlie Edwards? If he was a 14-1-0 (11 KOs), 23-year-old Mexican I would consider backing him blind at those those odds (the strength-in-depth, for little men, in Mexico/South America and Asia is much stronger than Europe and USA). However, he has a couple of solid wins as well as a serious one over Selby (looked a right little hard bastard, vicious body shots).
Julio Cesar Martinez Aguilar - 5/2 (10 returns 35)
The “strength-in-depth, for little men, in Mexico/South America” is in the USA.
Registered Flyweights (the specific weight for this bout)
USA -
20
Latin America -
197
:)
This is really quite simple, most everyone already gets this but it seems you are behind in class so let me explain this very very simple thing.... the good Latin American fighters come to the USA. If there are any other very very simple things you need explained to you, don’t lie, stick to asking, it’s better for everyone.
Behind in class? I'm the muthafukkin Teacher.
Lets look at The Ring magazine top ten flyweights - 4 Japanese - 2 Latin Americans - 2 Brits - 1 South African - 1 Ukraine - 0 USA.
By your rationale, the two Latinos will have fought, be based, learnt their trade or ply their trade in the USA, right? They've had 48 fights between them, zero in the USA. Neither are based or live there. In fact, between the entire top ten a grand total of two fights have been in the USA.
So my question is - do you understand the meaning of "strength in depth?"
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Cards were hurrendous and I watched it on espn + and Tim Bradley was bumming Lima all the way through the fight
Americans are shit at commentary
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Cards were hurrendous and I watched it on espn + and Tim Bradley was bumming Lima all the way through the fight
Americans are shit at commentary
Fucking hell! Welcome home.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nxpTx0VDBKw
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Cards were hurrendous and I watched it on espn + and Tim Bradley was bumming Lima all the way through the fight
Americans are shit at commentary
Fucking hell! Welcome home.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nxpTx0VDBKw
You've not changes that avi for about 17 years
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Cards were hurrendous and I watched it on espn + and Tim Bradley was bumming Lima all the way through the fight
Americans are shit at commentary
Fucking hell! Welcome home.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nxpTx0VDBKw
You've not changes that avi for about 17 years
He still misses Ross.
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
You know what, I don't really remember much about Ross, I remember lyle tho, is he still around?
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
You know what, I don't really remember much about Ross, I remember lyle tho, is he still around?
Yes he is around.
Ross loved Fury and when Tyson went crazy/took drugs/blamed mental health/got suspended Ross tried to defend him.
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
You know what, I don't really remember much about Ross, I remember lyle tho, is he still around?
Yes he is around.
Ross loved Fury and when Tyson went crazy/took drugs/blamed mental health/got suspended Ross tried to defend him.
Ahh yes Ross and fury
To be honest I am enjoying the fury show a lot now, it would probably be interesting to read some of my posts about him from a few years ago, I bet my opinion was very different back then
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Swanson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Swanson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Not sure where the value lies with Loma-Campbell but why is the little mexican who chinned Selby a 5/2 shot against Charlie Edwards? If he was a 14-1-0 (11 KOs), 23-year-old Mexican I would consider backing him blind at those those odds (the strength-in-depth, for little men, in Mexico/South America and Asia is much stronger than Europe and USA). However, he has a couple of solid wins as well as a serious one over Selby (looked a right little hard bastard, vicious body shots).
Julio Cesar Martinez Aguilar - 5/2 (10 returns 35)
The “strength-in-depth, for little men, in Mexico/South America” is in the USA.
Registered Flyweights (the specific weight for this bout)
USA -
20
Latin America -
197
:)
This is really quite simple, most everyone already gets this but it seems you are behind in class so let me explain this very very simple thing.... the good Latin American fighters come to the USA. If there are any other very very simple things you need explained to you, don’t lie, stick to asking, it’s better for everyone.
Behind in class? I'm the muthafukkin Teacher.
Lets look at The Ring magazine top ten flyweights -
4 Japanese -
2 Latin Americans -
2 Brits -
1 South African -
1 Ukraine -
0 USA.
By your rationale, the two Latinos will have fought, be based, learnt their trade or ply their trade in the USA, right? They've had 48 fights between them,
zero in the USA. Neither are based or live there. In fact, between the entire
top ten a grand total of
two fights have been in the USA.
So my question is - do you understand the meaning of "strength in depth?"
You and I are having two different conversations, mine, honest, yours, as usual addressing something I didn’t say. Because you are dishonest, every post. I shouldn’t need to quote myself to point out how you are being dishonest because it’s in the thread right above my post. But, since you are always a f’n liar. I’ll quote myself for your dumb ass to see. And quote you to show how you switched it because you are a f’n liar. Every, single, time.
You said, copy and paste by the way so don’t change things you f’n liar “(the strength-in-depth, for little men, in Mexico/South America and Asia is much stronger than Europe and USA”
And I said, copy and paste so don’t change things you f’n liar “The “strength-in-depth, for little men, in Mexico/South America” is in the USA.”
I’m addressing “little men” as the conversation you were having addressed. My comment is undeniable truth. The best from Latin America come to the USA. Fact.
So you change the conversation by narrowing it down, something dishonest people do. I didn’t need to change the conversation from “little men” the conversation you began, to a different one. You did. Because you are a f’n liar. It’s what liars do. So, when I correct you, please in the future, don’t bother with your dishonesty. Every person with an ounce of intelligence sees through all your BS.
As a bonus, your “strength-in-depth” that you ask if I know what it means. Well, no. Because strength-in-depth” is not a thing. I speak English. If you want to ask if I know what strength in depth means ask. Speak the language. If you wonder why I point out your poor English it’s because of you simply said “the strength in depth at flyweight is in Mexico/Latin America and Asia” in the beginning it wouldn’t have been so wildly inaccurate to the point of absurdity as you always do. And I think you make your messages wildly inaccurate to the point of absurdity on purpose. You know your boys will let you backtrack and change everything around. But I’m here to call you on your BS. Every time I see you lie I will point out it’s a lie. So every post you make I will be there with facts. And every post everyone will watch you change what you said. And eventually you will have to be honest.
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Ron, you called me a liar 19 times in that post. Impressive. All I did was provide facts and figures specifically applicable to FLYWEIGHT!!! The division my original post was about.
You've provided zero evidence, not even one example for clarification, just showed your normal Fenster fixation and childish pettiness. You didn't make a single comment about Edwards or Martinez.
However, even though I'm wasting my time, feel free to set the criteria? In the land of Ron, what weight constitutes "little men?" Who qualifies as "good Latin American fighters?" Do they have to reside in the States? Do they train there?
Provide an example of STRENGTH IN DEPTH? Facts? Figures? Data? Not Ron's fanatical patriotic, ethnocentric opinion.
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Ron, you called me a liar 19 times in that post. Impressive. All I did was provide facts and figures specifically applicable to FLYWEIGHT!!! The division my original post was about.
You've provided zero evidence, not even one example for clarification, just showed your normal Fenster fixation and childish pettiness. You didn't make a single comment about Edwards or Martinez.
However, even though I'm wasting my time, feel free to set the criteria? In the land of Ron, what weight constitutes "little men?" Who qualifies as "good Latin American fighters?" Do they have to reside in the States? Do they train there?
Provide an example of STRENGTH IN DEPTH? Facts? Figures? Data? Not Ron's fanatical patriotic, ethnocentric opinion.
The sad thing is you must have studied boxrec for a good 30 minutes to determine your facts 😁
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Ron, you called me a liar 19 times in that post. Impressive. All I did was provide facts and figures specifically applicable to FLYWEIGHT!!! The division my original post was about.
You've provided zero evidence, not even one example for clarification, just showed your normal Fenster fixation and childish pettiness. You didn't make a single comment about Edwards or Martinez.
However, even though I'm wasting my time, feel free to set the criteria? In the land of Ron, what weight constitutes "little men?" Who qualifies as "good Latin American fighters?" Do they have to reside in the States? Do they train there?
Provide an example of STRENGTH IN DEPTH? Facts? Figures? Data? Not Ron's fanatical patriotic, ethnocentric opinion.
The sad thing is you must have studied boxrec for a good 30 minutes to determine your facts 😁
You been let out of prison or forced off the rock and roll?
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
😝 Nah I still can't play on the Internet at work, just thought I missed you all so much I'd start playing with saddo on my phone
In between watching lesbian porn clips on xhampster
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
campbell showed he's a challenge for anyone at lightweight. scores were a bit wide
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TIC
campbell showed he's a challenge for anyone at lightweight. scores were a bit wide
For me Campbell won the first 3 rounds, and at least 1 other, probably 2
So I had it 7-5 plus the KD
One judge only gave him 1 round, and as Loma didn't throw a punch in the 1st it must have been that one
So it looks like Campbell, on a big bill in his own country, needed a knock out to get a draw
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TIC
campbell showed he's a challenge for anyone at lightweight. scores were a bit wide
For me Campbell won the first 3 rounds, and at least 1 other, probably 2
So I had it 7-5 plus the KD
One judge only gave him 1 round, and as Loma didn't throw a punch in the 1st it must have been that one
So it looks like Campbell, on a big bill in his own country, needed a knock out to get a draw
Scoring was strange so Loma brought his own judges just in case. Corruption in boxing is still going on.
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TIC
campbell showed he's a challenge for anyone at lightweight. scores were a bit wide
For me Campbell won the first 3 rounds, and at least 1 other, probably 2
So I had it 7-5 plus the KD
One judge only gave him 1 round, and as Loma didn't throw a punch in the 1st it must have been that one
So it looks like Campbell, on a big bill in his own country, needed a knock out to get a draw
People are complaining too much about the scorecards. I had it 9-3. It’s possible to give more rounds to Campbell, but it’s also possible to give even less rounds. There were two rounds I gave clearly to Campbell. Loma just got the better of him in most rounds. They weren’t all blowouts, but Loma just did better.
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Always reliable punch stats for the fight.
https://www.boxingscene.com/lomachen...-stats--142182
Lomachenko did some Harrison v Haye numbers in round one :S
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Ron, you called me a liar 19 times in that post. Impressive. All I did was provide facts and figures specifically applicable to FLYWEIGHT!!! The division my original post was about.
You've provided zero evidence, not even one example for clarification, just showed your normal Fenster fixation and childish pettiness. You didn't make a single comment about Edwards or Martinez.
However, even though I'm wasting my time, feel free to set the criteria? In the land of Ron, what weight constitutes "little men?" Who qualifies as "good Latin American fighters?" Do they have to reside in the States? Do they train there?
Provide an example of STRENGTH IN DEPTH? Facts? Figures? Data? Not Ron's fanatical patriotic, ethnocentric opinion.
The sad thing is you must have studied boxrec for a good 30 minutes to determine your facts 😁
Boxrec. Who is so accurate I am friends with 2 FLYWEIGHTS who aren’t listed, well, one is sort of but they have his name and record wrong FFS. He wants proof, look up Edgard Figueroa on Boxrec, you won’t find him, you can find Edgar Figueroa, but as I said, his record is wrong, like his name. I can easily get Edgard on here to verify all that I am saying. Or if people want a quicker verification they can look up Edgard on Facebook and have immediate proof. But, this is the difference between people in boxing and people that trust Boxrec FFS.
Now he wants me to define little men, everyone knows little men are below 160. It’s just Fenny’s typical distraction from him saying something we all know to be wrong so he changes it.
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
When you say "little men," it's anyone below 160? Everyone knows it? Whatdoyaknow! Learn something new everyday. Does that include 160? Fighters like Hagler, Hearns, Monzon, Toney, Hopkins, Roy, GGG, etc?
Feel free to provide an example of strength in depth? You've established we have anyone below 160 (or possibly 160) to work with? Cool.
Incidentally, the only great middleweight Latino I named - Monzon - fought just once in the States in a 100 fight career. He must have been crap, Ron.
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TIC
campbell showed he's a challenge for anyone at lightweight. scores were a bit wide
For me Campbell won the first 3 rounds, and at least 1 other, probably 2
So I had it 7-5 plus the KD
One judge only gave him 1 round, and as Loma didn't throw a punch in the 1st it must have been that one
So it looks like Campbell, on a big bill in his own country, needed a knock out to get a draw
People are complaining too much about the scorecards. I had it 9-3. It’s possible to give more rounds to Campbell, but it’s also possible to give even less rounds. There were two rounds I gave clearly to Campbell. Loma just got the better of him in most rounds. They weren’t all blowouts, but Loma just did better.
You are right Loma deserved to win fairly clearly
There's something fishy tho no? and really there's little debate to have about the fight other than that
P. S. 9-3 is harsh, Campbell was 3 nil up
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Vasyl Lomachencko 116
Luke Campbell 111
Campbell should aim for a rematch with Linares
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
When you say "little men," it's anyone below 160? Everyone knows it? Whatdoyaknow! Learn something new everyday. Does that include 160? Fighters like Hagler, Hearns, Monzon, Toney, Hopkins, Roy, GGG, etc?
Feel free to provide an example of strength in depth? You've established we have anyone below 160 (or possibly 160) to work with? Cool.
Incidentally, the only great middleweight Latino I named - Monzon - fought just once in the States in a 100 fight career. He must have been crap, Ron.
I also do not agree that "small men are people under 160". May be related to location. In Japan, people with a weight of about 160 people are considered large
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TIC
campbell showed he's a challenge for anyone at lightweight. scores were a bit wide
For me Campbell won the first 3 rounds, and at least 1 other, probably 2
So I had it 7-5 plus the KD
One judge only gave him 1 round, and as Loma didn't throw a punch in the 1st it must have been that one
So it looks like Campbell, on a big bill in his own country, needed a knock out to get a draw
People are complaining too much about the scorecards. I had it 9-3. It’s possible to give more rounds to Campbell, but it’s also possible to give even less rounds. There were two rounds I gave clearly to Campbell. Loma just got the better of him in most rounds. They weren’t all blowouts, but Loma just did better.
You are right Loma deserved to win fairly clearly
There's something fishy tho no? and really there's little debate to have about the fight other than that
P. S. 9-3 is harsh, Campbell was 3 nil up
I had Campbell clearly won round one and gave him round two but it was close. There was one more round that was clearly Campbell. I can’t remember which one. So two rounds were clearly Campbell, but a few others were close.
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TIC
campbell showed he's a challenge for anyone at lightweight. scores were a bit wide
For me Campbell won the first 3 rounds, and at least 1 other, probably 2
So I had it 7-5 plus the KD
One judge only gave him 1 round, and as Loma didn't throw a punch in the 1st it must have been that one
So it looks like Campbell, on a big bill in his own country, needed a knock out to get a draw
People are complaining too much about the scorecards. I had it 9-3. It’s possible to give more rounds to Campbell, but it’s also possible to give even less rounds. There were two rounds I gave clearly to Campbell. Loma just got the better of him in most rounds. They weren’t all blowouts, but Loma just did better.
You are right Loma deserved to win fairly clearly
There's something fishy tho no? and really there's little debate to have about the fight other than that
P. S. 9-3 is harsh, Campbell was 3 nil up
I had Campbell clearly won round one and gave him round two but it was close. There was one more round that was clearly Campbell. I can’t remember which one. So two rounds were clearly Campbell, but a few others were close.
If you can be arsed watch round 3 again, i think it was a Campbell round and to score it to loma would be very kind
Not that it even matters, as all agree loma more than deserved the win
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Baal
Vasyl Lomachencko 116
Luke Campbell 111
Campbell should aim for a rematch with Linares
IMO Campbell was on the wrong end of a bad decision on the linares fight
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
I hate things like this. Martinez was clearly on his way to stopping Edwards and then he hits him when he was done. There was no reason he needed to do that.
Edwards made a Hollywood performance out of it rolling around like that because he knew his only chance was a disqualification. He either wouldn't have been able to get up or didn't want to. If Martinez hadn't landed that last punch he'd have won the belt. Edwards won't fight him again.
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
I hate things like this. Martinez was clearly on his way to stopping Edwards and then he hits him when he was done. There was no reason he needed to do that.
Edwards made a Hollywood performance out of it rolling around like that because he knew his only chance was a disqualification. He either wouldn't have been able to get up or didn't want to. If Martinez hadn't landed that last punch he'd have won the belt. Edwards won't fight him again.
That looked like real pain from Edwards. No way was that acting. Faking was Montell Griffin against Roy Jones.
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
I hate things like this. Martinez was clearly on his way to stopping Edwards and then he hits him when he was done. There was no reason he needed to do that.
Edwards made a Hollywood performance out of it rolling around like that because he knew his only chance was a disqualification. He either wouldn't have been able to get up or didn't want to. If Martinez hadn't landed that last punch he'd have won the belt. Edwards won't fight him again.
That looked like real pain from Edwards. No way was that acting. Faking was Montell Griffin against Roy Jones.
No way was that acting? He wasn't being asked to perform Hamlet, he just looked hurt and rolled around a bit. Toddlers can pull that one off. If it really hurt he wouldn't have been rolling around on the floor. I'd love to see them fight again because he'd get blown out in a couple of rounds again but he won't take it.
-
Re: Lomachenko v Campbell - 31/8/19 UK
Vasyl Lomachenko next fight: Josh Warrington welcomes bout – ‘I’d be a massive, massive underdog… but he’s no spring chicken’
Josh Warrington has stated that he would be willing to welcome Vasyl Lomachenko back to featherweight, should the pound-for-pound king confirm a drop down.
In the aftermath of his win over Luke Campbell to unify three of the four lightweight belts, Loma discussed the option of moving to super-featherweight or even all the way back to featherweight next year.
https://talksport.com/wp-content/upl...60&quality=100
If he does so, Leeds’ IBF world champion would relish the opportunity to test his skills and defend his belt against the 31-year-old Ukrainian phenom.
Warrington told a small group of reporters, including talkSPORT.com: “People have said to me, ‘Would you take that opportunity?’
“And they seem a bit surprised when I said, ‘Yeah, why wouldn’t I?’
“I’d be a massive, massive, massive underdog and I wouldn’t be f***ing daft, I’d be fighting one of the sport’s greats, but why wouldn’t I want to test myself?
https://talksport.com/wp-content/upl...08&quality=100
“He’s a fantastic champion and a multi-weight champion, of course I’d want to have a go. He’s not a spring chicken and he’s not getting any younger.
“I’m not saying he’s past it or he’s on the slide because he looked red-hot against Luke Campbell.
“It was fascinating to watch, as a boxing fan, how he implemented his game plan, he just changed what he had to do to break Luke Campbell down.
“It was unbelievable, but if he came back to featherweight I’d put my hand up.”
Warrington’s desire to jump into a massive test against Lomachenko may be viewed as reckless by some, however, the 28-year-old has clearly grown somewhat frustrated by certain aspects of the sport in recent months.
At the start of 2019, he seemed destined to unify against a fellow featherweight world champion this year, but big fights have sadly eluded him owing to a variety of reasons.
“You think everybody will want that opportunity,” he explained.
“Don’t get me wrong, challengers want that opportunity because they want to have a go and try to get the gold, but the other champions are not always as enthusiastic as I am.
“A real legacy is defending your belt against as many other champions as you can. My first defence was against Carl Frampton then I had to fight my mandatory but after that if I could have had Leo Santa Cruz, Oscar Valdez and Gary Russell Jr I would, in any order.
“I was speaking to Frank about the next fight and he was telling me the other fighters don’t want it. I was almost in tears to be honest, I was proper down because I’d told my fans we’d done Leeds and we’d do America now. Frank said, ‘Josh, it’s not happening.’
“I was on my hands and knees but he said, ‘What more can I do?’ I was thinking, ‘Why do they not want the fight?’
“I don’t want to have 20 defences just to pad out my record and get paydays. Get me the big fights against the champions.
“Fighting the big names does something to me, when my back’s against the wall and people say I can’t.
“If I can go on and win another world title then feed me whoever you want. Feed me your Mick Conlans, feed me your up-and-coming prospects but let me have an opportunity to win another world title.
“For me to go to my grave a unified champion, I can live off that for the rest of my life. But I don’t want to come to the end of my career and wonder what if.
“As a featherweight your career moves fast, you fight two or three times a year if you’re lucky.
“The big fights take a lot of preparation and planning and I just want them now while I have momentum.”
https://talksport.com/sport/boxing/6...achenko-fight/
