Tougher Fight: Tszyu @ 140... or Delahoya @ 154?

[THe TRiNiTY]

Hey, easy on the insults, I was just asking you a simple question. Good that you answered it. Now if Floyd beats Hatton, where does that place him?

90-100 range. Mayweather is a great fighter, but he's only one fighter.. That'd be two legends (Tszyu and Mayweather) that Hatton beat.. He'd need to do more to move up.

Jake Lomatta beat Ray Robinson, he's not above him either. So, don't come at me with that argument.

[Fox McCloud]

Hey, easy on the insults, I was just asking you a simple question. Good that you answered it. Now if Floyd beats Hatton, where does that place him?

Yes C-Drone, and while you are at it, why don't you tell me how many wins Carl Froch will end up with.

How many titles Zab Judah would have won if he would let his hands go.

Whether Ricardo Lopez could have won a title at 122.

What color trunks will Cotto wear against Mosley.

Where you have Carlos Maussa all-time at 140.

And if Philip N'dou could have KO'd Roberto Duran if Duran was already stunned and stuck on the ropes.

If you don't answer all of these, you are a sloppy vagina.

Got it?

[Vladimir303]

STFU noob. Must all your 500 posts be this meaningless and unsubstantial?

Says the guy with 799 of em. Keep stalking people and calling them nuthuggers if it prevents you from committing suicide. I can't deprive you of that..

[THe TRiNiTY]

Yes C-Drone, and while you are at it, why don't you tell me how many wins Carl Froch will end up with.

How many titles Zab Judah would have won if he would let his hands go.

Whether Ricardo Lopez could have won a title at 122.

What color trunks will Cotto wear against Mosley.

Where you have Carlos Maussa all-time at 140.

And if Philip N'dou could have KO'd Roberto Duran if Duran was already stunned and stuck on the ropes.

If you don't answer all of these, you are a sloppy vagina.

Got it?

I should be able to tell you this, because after all.. I'm that good.

[joepal]

Yes. Well done, you've named a bunch of upsets.

Are you honestly saying that people who are paid to follow the sport of boxing know less than you?

Cool.

No, I'm just implying that boxing (well at least boxing analysis) is not exactly a hard science since even our so-called experts couldnt make an accurate prediction. Our analysis becomes scientific only if it can accurately predict outcomes of fights. By this standard, we are way far off from being a science, and therefore, you really couldnt claim that you know more boxing than the other guy without assuming a lot of things that would prolly be wrong.

In other words, there is no monopoly of boxing knowledge, and a guy in the far east (especially one who boxes himself) could actually know more about boxing than those armchair staffwriters in the Ring.

[THe TRiNiTY]

No, I'm just implying that boxing (well at least boxing analysis) is not exactly a hard science since even our so-called experts couldnt make an accurate prediction. Our analysis becomes scientific only if it can accurately predict outcomes of fights. By this standard, we are way far off from being a science, and therefore, you really couldnt claim that you know more boxing than the other guy without assuming a lot of things that would prolly be wrong.

In other words, there is no monopoly of boxing knowledge, and a guy in the far east (especially one who boxes himself) could actually know more about boxing than those armchair staffwriters in the Ring.

You could, but I doubt that you do.. but for all the times they're wrong.. they've been right.. TWICE as many times. (I don't have the actual stats on that.. but.. I doubt anyone else does either) Why don't you point that out?

[joepal]

Says the guy with 799 of em. Keep stalking people and calling them nuthuggers if it prevents you from committing suicide. I can't deprive you of that..

The third unsubstantial post in a row. Keep it up noob.

[Fox McCloud]

No, I'm just implying that boxing (well at least boxing analysis) is not exactly a hard science since even our so-called experts couldnt make an accurate prediction. Our analysis becomes scientific only if it can accurately predict outcomes of fights. By this standard, we are way far off from being a science, and therefore, you really couldnt claim that you know more boxing than the other guy without assuming a lot of things that would prolly be wrong.

In other words, there is no monopoly of boxing knowledge, and a guy in the far east (especially one who boxes himself) could actually know more about boxing than those armchair staffwriters in the Ring.

I agree with you on most of this... the only problem is... pretty much EVERYONE has Mayweather as #1. He hasn't lost either.

Why do you get so angry when people think Mayweather is the best? I mean, it may not be true, but no one has been able to expose that as of yet (in the ring I mean), and you know that you sure as hell aren't going to be able to take Mayweather fans' beliefs away that he is the best.

[THe TRiNiTY]

I agree with you on most of this... the only problem is... pretty much EVERYONE has Mayweather as #1. He hasn't lost either.

Why do you get so angry when people think Mayweather is the best? I mean, it may not be true, but no one has been able to expose that as of yet (in the ring I mean), and you know that you sure as hell aren't going to be able to take Mayweather fans' beliefs away that he is the best.

ON top of that, why does it matter? He thinks Manny Pacquiao is the best.. or that Hatton is.. Who cares.. It doesn't change the fighters, at all.

[joepal]

You could, but I doubt that you do.. but for all the times they're wrong.. they've been right.. TWICE as many times. (I don't have the actual stats on that.. but.. I doubt anyone else does either) Why don't you point that out?

So tell me, in me predicting the MAB upset by Pac (and the exact way it came down) or predicting the Vasquez KO Marquez or even the McBride upset, how can you say that the armchair analyst was better than me WITH REGARDS TO THOSE FIGHTS if he chose wrong?