Re: Roach has to stop sparring after Khan hurts Pac?

Originally Posted by
Fenster

Originally Posted by
miles

Originally Posted by
Fenster

Originally Posted by
miles

Originally Posted by
Fenster

Originally Posted by
generalbulldog

Originally Posted by
Fenster

Originally Posted by
Mar
... I almost never believe camp reports, 90% of them are untrue. More important than fans believing this garbage is their attempt to get the other camp to believe it. If these guys win they had the greatest camp of their life, if they loose then they overtrained, had problems with weight insert whatever excuse you want. Not to mention khans bs is right up there with the crap haye and the mayweathers spew out of their mouths .
It's more like there is a certain truth to 90% of training reports.
Why would you want the other camp to think you are struggling? Do you think Margarito will stop training now he's heard Pac ain't looking good?
Mar's right 90% are usually untrue. Hatton would have been the winner against Pac if those reports that Pac looked bad and distracted were correct and that Hatton was in the best camp of his life, but it wasn't. Same thing with the training camp for preparing to fight Cotto where there was some typhoon in the Phillipines and Pac was distracted and camp couldn't start. He still went out to batter Miguel.
On another note, I thought it's kind of funny that Khan's fans seems to think it's really true about Pac getting beat up by Khan and that Manny couldn't lay a glove on him or even hurt him.

Really? Can you or Mar prove that for me?
My post had nothing to do with this report about Khan and Pac. I would bet there's a semblance of truth to most training reports, not that they are 100% truth.
Funny how the Khan haters are so quick to dismiss this report as bullshit.

Well, in response to your 'factometer' can you prove these kinds of rumours to be 90% true? You would need to do some research and provide some kind of methodology but I would be interested to see your results as you were throwing around numbers first. Or was it just in your own humble opinion, just like you are calling for Mar and GB's own actual research numbers?
I never said they were 90% true. Mar used that number first. Get your facts right.
You said this....
"It's more like there is a certain truth to 90% of training reports."
You said that. It wasn't Mar, it wasn't GB...that was you. My observations are on the money, you are just factually incorrect.

Originally Posted by
Mar
... I almost never believe camp reports, 90% of them are untrue.
That quote is from the 9th post on this thread. I made the 10th post. I was clearly responding to it.
So for the second time.. Get your fucking facts straight.
Yeah what Fen was trying to say is, actually it's probably more likely that there is an element of truth to 90% of training reports. He used the figure 90% because it was originally quoted by Mar. I'm pretty sure Fen doesn't really have a figure in mind. He just used the 90%, because Mar used it. IT was Fen's way of saying 'actually i think the opposite is more believable'
http://instagram.com/jonnyboy_85_/
Bookmarks