Comments Thread For: Tim Bradley On Teofimo Lopez: "He's Dog Food For The Top 140s"

[-Kev-]

Why would Taylor act tough when Catterall OWNED him for 12 rounds???

That’s the entire point. Taylor lost, has been getting sh/t on by fans and media for it, and still acts confident.

Boxing is all mental.

That’s literally the entire point of my posts. Not sitting in sorrow after a bad performance.

[-Kev-]

Ok but it wasn't debatable because Catteral clearly won 6 rounds + a KD so it quite literally wasn't debatable.

Unlike Loma-Haney which was very debatable since there was about 3-4 clear rounds in total for both fighters.

So I just find it quite astonishing that you'd label the one was actually a robbery from every metric you can look at it from as close and debatable and the one was that clearly debatable from every metric you look at it from as a robbery.

Again, I don’t care, good for Catterall.

[IronDanHamza]

Again, I don’t care, good for Catterall.

Whether you care or not is irrelevant. I don't care if you care.

What's being pointed out here is that your argument is totally inconsistent, and non sensical.

[IronDanHamza]

That’s the entire point. Taylor lost, has been getting sh/t on by fans and media for it, and still acts confident.

Boxing is all mental.

That’s literally the entire point of my posts. Not sitting in sorrow after a bad performance.

You mean like Lomachenko crying like a baby on camera because he lost an actual close fight (Not like Taylor-Catteral that wasn't close) and continued to complain about it ever since?

[-Kev-]

Whether you care or not is irrelevant. I don't care if you care.

What's being pointed out here is that your argument is totally inconsistent, and non sensical.

To you I guess. You’re overthinking it.

[IronDanHamza]

To you I guess. You’re overthinking it.

To me, how? How is it not glaringly inconsistent from literally every angle you look at it?

Or is this one of those "your truth" moments?

[-Kev-]

To me, how? How is it not glaringly inconsistent from literally every angle you look at it?

Or is this one of those "your truth" moments?

Not sure what you’re even blabbing about at this point.

You are mad that I had Lomachenko beating Haney, I get that. Time to get over it. I had Catterall beating Taylor as well. So I don’t know why you’re going around quoting me like you have a stick up your ass about these topics. Just get over it, go argue with your neighbor or something.

[SUBZER0ED]

How ? He’s an analyst. He’s free to have an opinion. Doesn’t mean that he’s hating on the man.

True, but analysts don't usually go on record saying discouraging stuff like this. To have a former champion publicly saying that a current young fighter sucks has an impact. It may motivate Teo or it may devastate him. That said, Tim's absolutely correct!

[IronDanHamza]

Not sure what you’re even blabbing about at this point.

You are mad that I had Lomachenko beating Haney, I get that. Time to get over it. I had Catterall beating Taylor as well. So I don’t know why you’re going around quoting me like you have a stick up your ass about these topics. Just get over it, go argue with your neighbor or something.

What aren't you sure about? You can read, right? You know what the word "consistent" means, right? So let's not play ******.

Oh nice, the "you're mad" cope mechanism You're the one crying robbery mate, not me.

As you know I had Loma beating Haney aswell so your argument again is a non argument. Which seems to be the first bit of consistency on this topic from you.

You don't know why I'm quoting you? I thought I made that abundantly clear but ok, I shall enlighten you as to why.

I'm quoting you because I'm trying to understand how you could possibly label Taylor-Catterall a "close and debatable " fight whilst labelling Haney-Lomachenko a "robbery".

How could you possibly hold that opinion?

[-Kev-]

What aren't you sure about? You can read, right? You know what the word "consistent" means, right? So let's not play ******.

Oh nice, the "you're mad" cope mechanism You're the one crying robbery mate, not me.

As you know I had Loma beating Haney aswell so your argument again is a non argument. Which seems to be the first bit of consistency on this topic from you.

You don't know why I'm quoting you? I thought I made that abundantly clear but ok, I shall enlighten you as to why.

I'm quoting you because I'm trying to understand how you could possibly label Taylor-Catterall a "close and debatable " fight whilst labelling Haney-Lomachenko a "robbery".

How could you possibly hold that opinion?

I had Lomachenko beating Haney 9 rounds to 3. That’s not close to me.

You know damn well you didn’t have Lomachenko beating Haney. Stop lying. You are just saying that so that you can freely throw shots at Lomachenko. Ever since post fight you have been making threads basically talking like someone who had Haney winning.

Stop being fake as fck with your Loma-Haney scorecards. I see what you are doing. You really think Haney won and that’s how you’ve been talking about it.

It’s okay, I won’t tell anyone.

Also, what part is that you don’t understand that I had both Lomachenko and Catterall winning. Are you just arguing semantics here? You’re arguing just to argue? Is it an age thing?