Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1

[TitoFan]

I did.
In my own, subtle, humorous way.



I debunked several of his myths in the span of 2-3 posts awhile back.

[Master]

I did.
In my own, subtle, humorous way.



I debunked several of his myths in the span of 2-3 posts awhile back.

Yet he conveniently missed them and went off in his own posts of wisdom.

[Fenster]

I did.
In my own, subtle, humorous way.



I debunked several of his myths in the span of 2-3 posts awhile back.

Yet he conveniently missed them and went off in his own posts of wisdom.

It wont get any better for you asking him for help.

He makes you look sharp.

[Master]

I did.
In my own, subtle, humorous way.



I debunked several of his myths in the span of 2-3 posts awhile back.

Yet he conveniently missed them and went off in his own posts of wisdom.

It wont get any better for you asking him for help.

He makes you look sharp.

Must be great living in your world where everything you say is right.

[Fenster]

Don't get upset because you can't form a cogent argument. I'm not the one that resorts to ad homienm, silly pictures or back slapping mardy mates accusing someone of saying things they never said.

All I asked was why the middleweights were superior opponents than Brook even though evidence shows that Brook had much better success. Eventually you answered - "Golovkin let him do better." Fine. That's your opinion, I never said it's wrong, it's fucking stupid, but your opinion nonetheless.

I never once compared Brook to anyone. I gave you an example of why it's not illogical - as you claimed - for smaller men to successfully challenge bigger men. It's not my fault if idiots dive into the middle of conversations without understanding the context.

[Master]

You are the one getting upset and name calling. Not me.

I have no doubt the opponents that GGG beat would have beaten Brook at middleweight. There is a reason why Brook fights at welterweight because he is not a middleweight to begin with and he would not be half as successful. Brook got an opportunity and he tried but he could never live up to the middleweights if he campaigned there.

[Fenster]

You are the one getting upset and name calling. Not me.

I have no doubt the opponents that GGG beat would have beaten Brook at middleweight. There is a reason why Brook fights at welterweight because he is not a middleweight to begin with and he would not be half as successful. Brook got an opportunity and he tried but he could never live up to the middleweights if he campaigned there.

Yeah you've already said that. Did I ever say your opinion is wrong? No. When you claimed Brook did better because "Golovkin let him" I said - "fair enough," I didn't even dispute it regardless of how pathetic an answer it is.

However, If you claim to have "relevant facts" then you have to produce them when challenged. Your opinion doesn't count as a relevant fact.

(I never resort to name calling, I am totally consistent in pointing out idiotic statements/opinions)

[Gandalf]

Don't get upset because you can't form a cogent argument. I'm not the one that resorts to ad homienm, silly pictures or back slapping mardy mates accusing someone of saying things they never said.

All I asked was why the middleweights were superior opponents than Brook even though evidence shows that Brook had much better success. Eventually you answered - "Golovkin let him do better." Fine. That's your opinion, I never said it's wrong, it's fucking stupid, but your opinion nonetheless.

I never once compared Brook to anyone. I gave you an example of why it's not illogical - as you claimed - for smaller men to successfully challenge bigger men. It's not my fault if idiots dive into the middle of conversations without understanding the context.

Get that man a tiara. Miaow!

[Fenster]

I did.
In my own, subtle, humorous way.



I debunked several of his myths in the span of 2-3 posts awhile back.

I can't see a single post you made that had anything to do with what I've said.

Feel free to show me.