Joe Calzaghe is the 2nd most overrated fighter of all time. Rocky Marciano is no.1

[IamInuit]

Wow.... your response to my facts was, well....... overwhelming.
How do you respond to logic like that?

What facts would those be my friend?

Fact 1: The thread is 16 pages long. My personal contribution is but a small part. Thus, the assertion that I "spent 16 pages trolling" is false.

Fact 2: The assertion that I "avoided the first post that proved my premise of Froch being more likeable than Calzaghe as being false" is fatally flawed from the start. There is no "proving" one boxer being more or less likeable than another.

I would continue, but you get the point.
Enough facts for you....... my friend?

I dont care about that stuff man and never said you were trolling. Nor did I say Froch was less likeable or more likeable then Calzaghe. I think they are both a bit on the twat side.

I was asking for facts based on the title of the thread.

[TitoFan]

Wow.... your response to my facts was, well....... overwhelming.
How do you respond to logic like that?

What facts would those be my friend?

Fact 1: The thread is 16 pages long. My personal contribution is but a small part. Thus, the assertion that I "spent 16 pages trolling" is false.

Fact 2: The assertion that I "avoided the first post that proved my premise of Froch being more likeable than Calzaghe as being false" is fatally flawed from the start. There is no "proving" one boxer being more or less likeable than another.

I would continue, but you get the point.
Enough facts for you....... my friend?

I dont care about that stuff man and never said you were trolling. Nor did I say Froch was less likeable or more likeable then Calzaghe. I think they are both a bit on the twat side.

I was asking for facts based on the title of the thread.

Ok you're missing the boat here... but it's not worth having an argument about it.

The facts I was referring to were the ones responding to the baseless accusations Beanie leveled against me. Then, when I called him on it, he gave me a one-sentence response, obviously clueless about what I had just proven to him.

You're referring to the thread title. One, by the way, that I did not originate.
You want to argue about the thread title..... please argue with the originator.

Thanks,

[IamInuit]

Wow.... your response to my facts was, well....... overwhelming.
How do you respond to logic like that?

What facts would those be my friend?

Fact 1: The thread is 16 pages long. My personal contribution is but a small part. Thus, the assertion that I "spent 16 pages trolling" is false.

Fact 2: The assertion that I "avoided the first post that proved my premise of Froch being more likeable than Calzaghe as being false" is fatally flawed from the start. There is no "proving" one boxer being more or less likeable than another.

I would continue, but you get the point.
Enough facts for you....... my friend?

I dont care about that stuff man and never said you were trolling. Nor did I say Froch was less likeable or more likeable then Calzaghe. I think they are both a bit on the twat side.

I was asking for facts based on the title of the thread.

Ok you're missing the boat here... but it's not worth having an argument about it.

The facts I was referring to were the ones responding to the baseless accusations Beanie leveled against me. Then, when I called him on it, he gave me a one-sentence response, obviously clueless about what I had just proven to him.

You're referring to the thread title. One, by the way, that I did not originate.
You want to argue about the thread title..... please argue with the originator.

Thanks,

Yeah I suppose I lost the plot. When I asked for facts it was concerning the actual thread title. You thought I meant something else and answered in kind.

I get it now.