My god... do you actually have the ability to comprehend anything?! The fail is starting to out weight the amusement. You're so dumb it's getting painful.
I never said I couldn't be on here as much as I wanted...
just that I found it amusing that you felt in a position to accuse me of being unemployed, despite the fact that you've been here for less time than I have and posted something like 6000 times more. Then there's the amount of time you've spent logged on here, which I'd wager is a
lot more than me. There's a 'time online' thread in the hidden boards if you feel the need to compare.
Back on subject (again
) -
I'm not sure why you want me to regurgitate the queensbury rules back to you. You can't hit with the thumb or inside of the glove. That's a fact, nobody is disputing what the rules say you moron (again, you seem to lack the ability to understand what is being said?
). What is just mere
opinion though is your assessment that Calzaghe prominently hits with the inside of his glove.
Wrong
He hits with the target area of the glove... the problem is that he doesn't turn his punches over - which isn't illegal. It's just not a textbook way to throw a punch and something he started doing to protect his bad hands as it places less stress on the joints, at the sacrifice of power.
This may confuse those ignorant of boxing, biased or simply unobservant I guess, but I can't help you there... so I won't worry about it.
It's easy for you to cry 'sheep sheep' over and over again, but the facts remain -
Calzaghe has never once been penalised for hitting with the inside of the glove. You cannot dispute that. Unless there has been a massive conspiracy going on for DECADES among st all of the organizations that Calzaghe has boxed for it would seem that your opinion has little backing it other than being a hater.
The
facts simply just don't support your opinion of him hitting with the inside of the glove all the time. Which is strange seeing as how 'you only deal in fact'
Hopkins has made a career of twisting or flat out breaking the rules... he used his head about as much as his fists and the fight against Calzaghe was no different. Strangely you don't seem to be complaining about that though. I can't think why? Is it jingoism or fanboyness? which one?
Thanks: 
Likes: 
Dislikes: 
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Originally Posted by Violent Demise
Now I feel bad. I realize now that I was way out of line when I called you a mindless sheep. There was no reason for me to insult the sheep like that. You ain't no sheep. Sheep is a fucking Mensa member when compared to you. Of course Calzaghe was never penalized a point. Why the fuck you think he spent damn near his whole career fighting at home? Think about it, stupid. I would tell you to read between the lines but reading is already a problem for you. How many champions have there been from Wales prior to Calzaghe? About 7, 8 maybe? 10 if you include the garbage that is Gavin Rees and The Human highlight knock out by machine Enzo Maccarinelli that managed to win titles during or after Calzaghe won his. Out of those champions how many were actually good? Not many. 2 of there best ones (the Great Jimmy Wilde and the not as great Freddie Welsh) were from early 1900. The rest were a bunch of barely mediocre fighters who were hard to get behind. Seriously who really gave a fuck about Robbie Regan, Howard Winstone or Barry Jones? So desperate for a good fighter they actually tried to make it seem like Steve Robinson was one just for defending against a couple of scrubs more than once. So when a fighter with talent (which Calzaghe did have) came along there no way in hell they would gonna do something silly like make him fight by the rules. knowing he could do what he wanted, Calzaghe never left home till he was pretty much forced too. The fact that i even had to explain this to you shows how ignorant you really are.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks