fan of a particular fighter, or "nuthugger"?

I'm a MAB fan. But I also acknowledge other fighers skills'. This sentence right there is what defines a boxing fan

I'm a MAB fan. But I also acknowledge other fighers skills'. I don't take any credit from any fighter who wins,that is unless it's controversial.

its just a lot of people when youn talk about pac they branding you as nuthugger, well fuck that Yeah hard to tell by looking at your signature. Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

im both, i mean i love pac but i aint limited i love other pinoy boxers and im keeping a close eye on my man boomboom and i also like winky, zab, margarito and chico, its just a lot of people when youn talk about pac they branding you as nuthugger, well fuck that

And please don't, DO NOT, get me started with the elites. Great fighters beat the elites and don't come up with alibis. ahahahah...i was wondering what that other phrase was.

no...it is you who always eats his words and stumbles on his own logic!!! i just support my statements with hard facts and reasonable logic :rolleyes: :D And please don't, DO NOT, get me started with the elites. Great fighters beat the elites and don't come up with alibis.

I like to look at myself as unbiased because im a true fan of boxing. I love all boxers and think they should all be respected. I am very critical of boxers though and I love to debate about them. Boxing is truly a great sport. But if I have to pick one boxer that I can be accused of nuthuggin its my hometown fighter Sugar Ray lenoard he was the man.

I wouldnt say that I nut hug any fighter. Sometimes I guess I may seem a Klitchko nuthugger but I think thats because I usually only speak when there is to much hating going on for me to stand. Personally I think he has the most skills of any heavyweight in the division right now. On the other hand Im worried with every heavy handed guy he fights.

who blunders what he says and continually eats his words ;) no...it is you who always eats his words and stumbles on his own logic!!! i just support my statements with hard facts and reasonable logic :rolleyes: :D

Gringo, did you see the Pernell-Ramirez fight? I did not, and I don't know how could Sweet Pea lose to Jose Luis, who was a very good but somewhat limited fighter. Was it a robbery or did Whitaker just had an off night? I saw the first fight a LONG time ago.....I couldn't give you an accurate account now because I was so young last time I saw it. For all intensive purposes...it was seen as one of the most ridiculous decisions of the late 80's, early 90's. Many thought Whitaker had won a very comfortable points decision. I had an opportunity to get the fight online awhile back, but I missed my chance.

yes you did, all we want is honesty :) Honesty is my middle name.......And honestly I am still a Lacy nuthugger if thats what people want to call me but I would rather say #1 fan. :D

I am Lacy Nuthugger is that what this thread is about did I play right? :D yes you did, all we want is honesty :)

I am Lacy Nuthugger is that what this thread is about did I play right? :D

who blunders what he says and continually eats his words ;) LO!!! You forgot that, being Mexican, I don't have a word of honor and continually break my promises.

heh...i mean you're clearly a biased ********** bastard ;) who blunders what he says and continually eats his words ;)

Gringo, did you see the Pernell-Ramirez fight? I did not, and I don't know how could Sweet Pea lose to Jose Luis, who was a very good but somewhat limited fighter. Was it a robbery or did Whitaker just had an off night?

At lightweight and from 25 - 29, Chavez hit harder, was much faster and had more stamina. hose three characteristics (especially the last two) are crucial when facing such a skilled, fast, well-schooled boxer like Whitaker. At least, the fight would have been a hell of a lot closer. Pernell must have seen some of that since he wanted no part of JC at light, when I believe he had the chance of facing him. I'm well aware that Whitaker was the worst possible matchup for Chavez, at any weight in any time. But JC was so good (people somehow forget this) that he would have made it interesting, at the very least. See how I'm a ***********? :D heh...i mean you're clearly a biased ********** bastard ;)

i guess im a mexican boxing fan course i like a lot of mexican fighters but i def got fighters that i like that arent mexican ones even black!!!! :eek: Lol jk or am i??????? :confused:

Yeah we'd disagree there, but I wouldn't call you a ********* (i hate that word so im not using it anymore) for stating your opinion...as long as you back it up with some decent reasoning. Personally I just think Whitaker was and always would have been a HORRIBLE style matchup for Chavez. He was too strong in the legs, too educated with his jab, too cute defensively for Chavez to ever sustain any real attack on him. I think a fight two years earlier would have been closer, but I couldn't see Chavez outpointing Whitaker. I had Whitaker winning 10-2 in that bout, couldn't imagine Chavez taking many more than 4-5 rounds off Whitaker at any point in their respective careers. Whitaker is my favorite fighter of all-time, but then again I was a huge Chavez fan too. It was hard for me to stomach his fights with Taylor and Whitaker however... At lightweight and from 25 - 29, Chavez hit harder, was much faster and had more stamina. hose three characteristics (especially the last two) are crucial when facing such a skilled, fast, well-schooled boxer like Whitaker. At least, the fight would have been a hell of a lot closer. Pernell must have seen some of that since he wanted no part of JC at light, when I believe he had the chance of facing him. I'm well aware that Whitaker was the worst possible matchup for Chavez, at any weight in any time. But JC was so good (people somehow forget this) that he would have made it interesting, at the very least. See how I'm a ***********? :D

I'm a real fan but, like most, can be a nuthugger as well. For example, I'm convinced that JCC could have beaten Sweet Pea had they fought 5 years before, at lightweight. In light of the schooling Whitaker gave Chavez when they met, I guess even thinking that JCC could have a chance makes me a nuthugger. I don't know. What I'll never do is downsize the merits of those boxers I'm not a fan of, or those who fight my favorite fighters. For instance, I don't get those pac fans who say that Morales, Barrera and JMM are chickens, or are not great fighters, because that only diminishes Pac's wins against them. In that regard I'm not a nuthugger. What I wholeheartedly hate is retarded, unknowledgeable statements that are uttered matter-of-factly, like "Pac is the hardest punching feather ever", or "a prime Tyson would KO Ali" and those kind of stupidities. Yeah we'd disagree there, but I wouldn't call you a ********* (i hate that word so im not using it anymore) for stating your opinion...as long as you back it up with some decent reasoning. Personally I just think Whitaker was and always would have been a HORRIBLE style matchup for Chavez. He was too strong in the legs, too educated with his jab, too cute defensively for Chavez to ever sustain any real attack on him. I think a fight two years earlier would have been closer, but I couldn't see Chavez outpointing Whitaker. I had Whitaker winning 10-2 in that bout, couldn't imagine Chavez taking many more than 4-5 rounds off Whitaker at any point in their respective careers. Whitaker is my favorite fighter of all-time, but then again I was a huge Chavez fan too. It was hard for me to stomach his fights with Taylor and Whitaker however...