Conspiracy theories

[Spicoli]

Random but never really put that together. I mean even the greatest of career middles had a pound or two over they fought at once or twice. Can't really think of calling them anything other than great career middleweights tbf .

nothing to do with the question. is it a fact ggg fought his entire career at 160?

Bud honestly, it's a big example of splitting hairs to me. Just my unasked for two cents, I get it. And I'm not peeling back thru all the discussion you gents had there . I just didn't realize that was reason behind the sig until mentioned.

As a boxing fan for as long as I've been just like all of us, all I can tell you is if a question is poised talking overall career/division pertaining to any division or fighter...160 i.e middleweight division it's with the knowledge of a guy's full work. When you talk "entire career 160" you seem to be counting down to grams, 1,2,3 lbs in a random tune up to find the very narrow exception. Literally the #. When I talk "entire career 160" it's considering a fighter's literal overall record and middle division/weight worn and fought at. I don't think a one-off technicality equals to a fighter's literal full career. Cleraly one outweighs the other. Was he 163 for hapless Rolls, yeh. But do I consider Golovkin a "career middleweight" (until Canelo III) yes. And honestly would it have mattered at that point, doubt it.

[TitoFan]

Random but never really put that together. I mean even the greatest of career middles had a pound or two over they fought at once or twice. Can't really think of calling them anything other than great career middleweights tbf .

nothing to do with the question. is it a fact ggg fought his entire career at 160?

Bud honestly, it's a big example of splitting hairs to me. Just my unasked for two cents, I get it. And I'm not peeling back thru all the discussion you gents had there . I just didn't realize that was reason behind the sig until mentioned.

As a boxing fan for as long as I've been just like all of us, all I can tell you is if a question is poised talking overall career/division pertaining to any division or fighter...160 i.e middleweight division it's with the knowledge of a guy's full work. When you talk "entire career 160" you seem to be counting down to grams, 1,2,3 lbs in a random tune up to find the very narrow exception. Literally the #. When I talk "entire career 160" it's considering a fighter's literal overall record and middle division/weight worn and fought at. I don't think a one-off technicality equals to a fighter's literal full career. Cleraly one outweighs the other. Was he 163 for hapless Rolls, yeh. But do I consider Golovkin a "career middleweight" (until Canelo III) yes. And honestly would it have mattered at that point, doubt it.

I still think he would've been happy had I added the word "practically" in there.

Still... my point stands (regardless of the hairs being split).

Ginger dragged a 40-year old career middleweight up to super middle, in yet another pathetic show of cherry-picking at its best.

No amount of "gram or ounce counting" is going to dispel that fact.

The fact that this even merits a discussion just shows how desperate "Ginger-defending" can get.

Cheers.

[NoSavingByTheBell]

Random but never really put that together. I mean even the greatest of career middles had a pound or two over they fought at once or twice. Can't really think of calling them anything other than great career middleweights tbf .

nothing to do with the question. is it a fact ggg fought his entire career at 160?

Bud honestly, it's a big example of splitting hairs to me. Just my unasked for two cents, I get it. And I'm not peeling back thru all the discussion you gents had there . I just didn't realize that was reason behind the sig until mentioned.

As a boxing fan for as long as I've been just like all of us, all I can tell you is if a question is poised talking overall career/division pertaining to any division or fighter...160 i.e middleweight division it's with the knowledge of a guy's full work. When you talk "entire career 160" you seem to be counting down to grams, 1,2,3 lbs in a random tune up to find the very narrow exception. Literally the #. When I talk "entire career 160" it's considering a fighter's literal overall record and middle division/weight worn and fought at. I don't think a one-off technicality equals to a fighter's literal full career. Cleraly one outweighs the other. Was he 163 for hapless Rolls, yeh. But do I consider Golovkin a "career middleweight" (until Canelo III) yes. And honestly would it have mattered at that point, doubt it.

I still think he would've been happy had I added the word "practically" in there.

Still... my point stands (regardless of the hairs being split).

Ginger dragged a 40-year old career middleweight up to super middle, in yet another pathetic show of cherry-picking at its best.

No amount of "gram or ounce counting" is going to dispel that fact.

The fact that this even merits a discussion just shows how desperate "Ginger-defending" can get.

Cheers.

It's a good point. The word ~practically~ would have probably hit the spot. The same thing is happening over on the Tyson Fury thread with Primo. He seems fixated on deliberately misusing words or, even more oddly, invents new definitions for words. A mere knockdown becomes a "pole axe"; or winning a close victory becomes being "beaten". Perhaps worst of all, getting 50 stitches is a sign of "not being an all time great boxer".

It's even beyond splitting hairs.

It's, frankly, cognitive dissonance.

[TIC]

[QUOTE=Spicoli;1664896][QUOTE=TIC;1664889]

Was he 163 for hapless Rolls, yeh. But do I consider Golovkin a "career middleweight" (until Canelo III) yes

i also consider ggg a career middleweight but that dosn't make it a fact that he fought his entire career at 160. what weight division was the steve rolls fight within?

[NoSavingByTheBell]

#Fact:

Tyson Fury DESTROYS Usyk's body

[Spicoli]

[QUOTE=TIC;1664918][QUOTE=Spicoli;1664896]

Was he 163 for hapless Rolls, yeh. But do I consider Golovkin a "career middleweight" (until Canelo III) yes

i also consider ggg a career middleweight but that dosn't make it a fact that he fought his entire career at 160. what weight division was the steve rolls fight within?

Well see man that is where it gets so silly, the semantics and "technicalities" in boxing that is. At the time it was literally a catchweight with max allowed weight of 164, no more. Technically (gotta love boxing ) that is neither legit middleweight or legit spr middle. It's just silly shit, CW's in general, that was pretty pointless when the real story was his Dazn signing, ring return etc. No one cared. People can call it super middle, middle or a predictable 164 mismatch. Hey at least there wasn't a new division belt created for it . On a side also noticed Golovkin had two fights at 161 early career but can't recall the names if I was paid to.

[TIC]

[QUOTE=Spicoli;1664927][QUOTE=TIC;1664918]

Was he 163 for hapless Rolls, yeh. But do I consider Golovkin a "career middleweight" (until Canelo III) yes

i also consider ggg a career middleweight but that dosn't make it a fact that he fought his entire career at 160. what weight division was the steve rolls fight within?

Well see man that is where it gets so silly, the semantics and "technicalities" in boxing that is. At the time it was literally a catchweight with max allowed weight of 164, no more. Technically (gotta love boxing ) that is neither legit middleweight or legit spr middle. It's just silly shit, CW's in general, that was pretty pointless when the real story was his Dazn signing, ring return etc. No one cared. People can call it super middle, middle or a predictable 164 mismatch. Hey at least there wasn't a new division belt created for it . On a side also noticed Golovkin had two fights at 161 early career but can't recall the names if I was paid to.

nah it gets silly when something is claimed to be a fact, when it isn't. so what weight division was the ggg v steve rolls fought within? ggg having other fights above 160 makes it even more ridiculous to claim it's a fact that he fought his entire career at 160

[TitoFan]

Wow.

You still harping on that shit, bro? (LMAO)

The only "silly" and "ridiculous" aspects here are a defense of Canelo dragging a CAREER middleweight up to 168 for the first time ever. A career middleweight, mind you, who was totally over the hill at 40 years of age. A career middleweight who got blatantly ROBBED in his 1st fight with Canelo... and decides to try it again... in VEGAS, still.

The silly and ridiculous part is using the technicality of one fight at 163 to somehow make the argument that there is no weight or size advantage for Canelo.

You see... when a person is reduced to picking at an insignificant, shitty detail such as that one... to make a point... not only is it silly and ridiculous. It's downright embarrassing and pathetic.

So we'll work on your "I Was Right" trophy... while secretly chuckling at your argument that, because Golovkin fought at 163 ONE TIME... that it somehow makes your defense of Canelo valid.

Will a trophy suffice?
Maybe a plaque or something?
How about an autographed picture of me saying "You're right"?

I'm all about pleasing my fellow Saddo'ers.

[TitoFan]

You know what, bro?

I was going to leave it there. But I'm gonna say what I should've said a long time ago.

From your sig (which I had to log out to see), I gather that... "The fact is GGG has fought at 160 for his entire career"... is an exact quote. I'll take your word for it, 'cause I can't be bothered to go dredging through old posts.

Let me give you a free lesson in adult conversational arguments, and/or logical thinking.

Had I said...

"GGG fought at 160 in every single one of his fights."

Or... "GGG never weighed in at more than 160 for any of his fights."

You would've had a valid point.

But the statement that GGG has fought at 160 for his entire career, is a true statement that is understood as such by most adult-filled audiences, who understand the true meaning of a statement.

The use of "160" is synonymous with saying "middleweight." So I could've just as well said... "The fact is GGG has fought at middleweight for his entire career."

The thing is... you KNOW what the fuck I mean. The fact you're picking at one fight where he weighed 163 is pretty pathetic, if you ask me.

The fact that this even merits discussion is pretty pathetic also.

But hey... you're a COVID denier. So I don't expect any of this to actually get through.

[NoSavingByTheBell]

This HAS to be the longest running back and forth in recent forum memory. I feel it hinges on the old idiomatic expression "failing to see the forest for the trees".

[TIC]

You know what, bro?

I was going to leave it there. But I'm gonna say what I should've said a long time ago.

From your sig (which I had to log out to see), I gather that... "The fact is GGG has fought at 160 for his entire career"... is an exact quote. I'll take your word for it, 'cause I can't be bothered to go dredging through old posts.

Let me give you a free lesson in adult conversational arguments, and/or logical thinking.

Had I said...

"GGG fought at 160 in every single one of his fights."

Or... "GGG never weighed in at more than 160 for any of his fights."

You would've had a valid point.

But the statement that GGG has fought at 160 for his entire career, is a true statement that is understood as such by most adult-filled audiences, who understand the true meaning of a statement.

The use of "160" is synonymous with saying "middleweight." So I could've just as well said... "The fact is GGG has fought at middleweight for his entire career."

The thing is... you KNOW what the fuck I mean. The fact you're picking at one fight where he weighed 163 is pretty pathetic, if you ask me.

The fact that this even merits discussion is pretty pathetic also.

But hey... you're a COVID denier. So I don't expect any of this to actually get through.

i've just got one question for you. answer it honestly & i'll delete my signature & never mention your made up fact again. because there can only be one answer. one will confirm your fact is in fact correct. the only will show your fact is incorrect. what weight division was ggg v steve rolls fought within at the time it happened, middleweight or super middleweight?

[TIC]

Wow.

You still harping on that shit, bro? (LMAO)

The only "silly" and "ridiculous" aspects here are a defense of Canelo dragging a CAREER middleweight up to 168 for the first time ever. A career middleweight, mind you, who was totally over the hill at 40 years of age. A career middleweight who got blatantly ROBBED in his 1st fight with Canelo... and decides to try it again... in VEGAS, still.

The silly and ridiculous part is using the technicality of one fight at 163 to somehow make the argument that there is no weight or size advantage for Canelo.

You see... when a person is reduced to picking at an insignificant, shitty detail such as that one... to make a point... not only is it silly and ridiculous. It's downright embarrassing and pathetic.

So we'll work on your "I Was Right" trophy... while secretly chuckling at your argument that, because Golovkin fought at 163 ONE TIME... that it somehow makes your defense of Canelo valid.

Will a trophy suffice?
Maybe a plaque or something?
How about an autographed picture of me saying "You're right"?

I'm all about pleasing my fellow Saddo'ers.

harping? i wasn't the one who started the discussion on my signature. i am just reply to posts on the forum. this has nothing to do with canelo bringing ggg up in weight, as i have told you several times before. it has to do with you making up facts. i am using 163 to show your made up fact is wrong. the only point i'm making is that you made up a fact, that was wrong & that you contradicted your own fact as well. no trophy needed. no plaque or something. i'll settle for you conceding that you made up a fact that was incorrect & contradicted the fact you made up. i'm happy your all about pleasing