Marquez-Naz? Why did Marquez blatantly refuse to fight Naz? Fact.

[AdamGB]

Your agenda is that you want us to circle jerk about how 'special this little naz cunt fella' was'.

And it's a FACT that you went from saying a KO loss for JMM was guaranteed to saying that you never said JMM would definetly lose.

JMM has fought all comers over his career, turning down a certain date once is not the same as continuely avoiding a fight all together.

After his humiliating, 12 round shut out embaressment loss (the one that DID stop him EVER being a great) I'm sure that Hamed could have pursued another fight with the likes of JMM (who in your words was a nobody compared to Hamed) but instead he chose not to, sulking off without even retiring properly. Fact

This was because a GUARANTEED 2nd hiliarious, embarassingly one sided beat down to only the 2nd elite he'd faced would have deleted any legacy he had. Fact

But this is besides the point, you don't actually want to discuss the fighters who Hamed should have fought... All that will keep you happy is a circle jerk over the goblin fella.

I looked up 'fact, discuss' in the dictionary and it just said 'verb: humoring and agreeing with a hamed fan boy'

[Fenster]

Adam GB,

"fanboy" "agenda" "circle jerk" "naz is a cunt" "goblin" "guaranteed humiliating 2nd loss" "Marquez fights all-comers" etc

What are you talking about?

None of these points have a single thing to do with the original question. You either have an opinion on why Marquez ducked Naz, at this particular time, or you don't. It really is that simple.

Even if Marquez believed he would suffer a devastating KO loss inside 60 seconds he would still have gone on to be great.

Is that not a perfectly reasonable assumption? Marquez greatness would not be defined by a KO loss to Naz. That's all i'm saying.

[AdamGB]

Pfff, come on Fenster. Don't try and be cute... It doesn't suit you, you're asking loaded questions, inferring things or just flatout stating bollocks in the same sentances as your redundant question. That's why you're getting more than just one answer.

Keep repeating the same patter and maybe you'll get me to inadvertantly say what you want...

I agree with one thing you've said. A fighter with a great legacy is a fightet with a strong enough record that a single loss doesn't destroy it. If your legacy is sensationaly, devistatingly, stunningly damaged by a single loss then you can't have been that good,

Jmm has fought several good or flat out great fighters, his record is rich enough that he can afford a loss and still have plenty of change left over.

Its a shame a single loss bankrupt your boy's credibility though.

I shouldn't be too cruel, seeing as it's your birthday:
Why did Marquez duck Hamed? He was fearful of Hameds masterful boxing skills and physical prowess. Boy, that little Naz fella was something special









Whatever happened to him?

[ruthless rocco]

what year is it? i loss track about everything here in saddo..
who's gonna be Naz next opponent?

hamed buffet.jpg

he's going for that KO in under 60 seconds.

[Master]

Fenster, what started out as a recycled thread that you started for a laugh, I bet you are now regretting it.

[Fenster]

Fenster, what started out as a recycled thread that you started for a laugh, I bet you are now regretting it.

Regretting? You spell it - L.O.V.I.N.G. Fact.

Never in a million did I think I'd get longevity from this topic again. Awesome.

[AdamGB]

LOVING, told you he just wanted a bit of a gayfest over goblin boy.
Seriously though, you like your threads like your boxers - full of words, low on substance and totally deluded.

[Althugz]

Seriously though, you like your threads like your boxers - full of words, low on substance and totally deluded.

I agree, that's why he's a massive Joe Calzaghe fan.

Christ, I can't believe this obvious wind-up thread has gone 80+ posts...

Very good, Fenster, very good - hats off. Cheap though, Adam is easy bait.

[TitoFan]

Adam GB,


Even if Marquez believed he would suffer a devastating KO loss inside 60 seconds he would still have gone on to be great.

Is that not a perfectly reasonable assumption? Marquez greatness would not be defined by a KO loss to Naz. That's all i'm saying.

Wow dude. You are one SICK, WARPED puppy. How on EARTH do you get "Even if Marquez believed he would suffer a devastating KO loss inside 60 seconds" from your bullshit quotes on a previous post?!? You just gave us the rope to hang you with. All I see in Marquez's (and his corner) quotes are BUSINESS concerns. Nothing more. In addition.... JMM has all the right in the world to refuse a fight on Naz's terms. Why should he yield to that clown?

You, sir, are a MASTER at the art of twisting logic to make it suit your sick agenda. Listen to your f*cking self, for crying out loud. Are you this way in real life? What you're doing here is a classic case of the backhanded compliment. Oh sure...... JMM is an all-time great. And would've STILL been an all-time great had he suffered a devastating KO loss inside 60 seconds to the EVEN GREATER NAZ!!! Just stop it bro!! I'm busting a kidney here laughing so hard. You even dress it up for us: Devastating KO loss inside 60 seconds You give us a time and everything.

"Marquez's greatness would not be defined by a KO loss to Naz." That's f*cking brilliant, bro!! Forget the KO part..... that's a foregone conclusion. What's being debated here is whether Marquez would still be considered an all-time great. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Bro, if you're not some sleazy, ambulance-chasing lawyer........ you've totally missed the boat. I gotta hand it to you, bro. The true mark of a delusional lunatic is that he has totally convinced himself that what he's saying is the absolute truth. No "I think"........ no "I firmly believe"....... no "I strongly feel"...... none of that crap. It's the DAMN TRUTH..... but I'm throwing you guys another statement (like a smokescreen), so we can debate THAT.

F*cking unbelievable........

[CutMeMick]

Simple question with a simple answer.

All I need is a yes or no answer.


When the fight was ORIGINALLY on the table did Naz turn it down?

[CutMeMick]

End of the thread.

[Violent Demise]

Simple question with a simple answer.

All I need is a yes or no answer.


When the fight was ORIGINALLY on the table did Naz turn it down?

Yes. For 2 straight years

[AdamGB]

Seriously though, you like your threads like your boxers - full of words, low on substance and totally deluded.

I agree, that's why he's a massive Joe Calzaghe fan.

Christ, I can't believe this obvious wind-up thread has gone 80+ posts...

Very good, Fenster, very good - hats off. Cheap though, Adam is easy bait.

Obvious wind up thread? Bait? Jesus... You don't say. It's not like several posters had said this BEFORE I EVEN STARTED POSTING.

I might have noticed.

Honestly, I'm just enjoying explaining to Fenster why Hamedis garbage, if thinking I'm wound up or that I didn't know Fenster was fishing help you get over the rod calzaghe shoved up your arse then good for you.

Even talking about him in a thread about how bollocks hamed was? Pathetic, you are truely infatuated with him.

[Mattyhitman]

lmao !, been off the forum for a few days, I really cannot believe that Fenster has managed to goad the lot of you into 6 page's

Kudo's Fenster

Shame on the rest of you

[AdamGB]

I know... Nobody even suspected he was fishing!
The guy puts Derren Brown and Paul Mckenna to shame, a master of the mind.

He should help Hamed with that NLP book 'I can think you thin'.