EPISODE(7) GET UR FACTS STRAIGHT RADIO .12-18-09. LIVE 10:00 P.M. Hosted By: Burner!

[2501]

annd its a great way to stay in shape

[adobostreak]

"ay yo yall gotta stop puttin me on mute man"

[Earl-Hickey]

I look forward to calling the show next week guys, i admit i was a little caught in the headlights with all my american buddies yelling at each other, and then i forgot what i was going to say about Vitali so i just made something up! but i had fun anyway, i'd advise anyone to call in.

[larry x]

I look forward to calling the show next week guys, i admit i was a little caught in the headlights with all my american buddies yelling at each other, and then i forgot what i was going to say about Vitali so i just made something up! but i had fun anyway, i'd advise anyone to call in.

yea you seem like a cool cat that knows what he's talking about

[Dynamite Kid]

i just dont get why a fight from 8 years ago keeps being mentioned...expecially after floyd rematched him and beat him again

I think it is valid though, why not?

If you fight someone 3 times, or even twice, you are going to get more adept at dealing with their style, so imo we should take the first fight for what it was/is, Mayweather struggling to adapt to Castillo's style and needing two cracks of the whip to get it right (dominate clearly)

I always put more stock in the guy that wins the first fight, whether it be a trilogy or rematch. The better fighter should win the first fight majority of the time imo, he should not have to go back and work on his strategy to beat him a second time. Thats like me and you fighting 10 times and you winning 3 then me gradually getting to grips with your style and beating you 7 times, who would you consider to be the better fighter?

I dont think you just forget whether a guy wins a rematch clearly or not, it still happened. People say how Williams knocked Quintana out but that does not erase what Quintana was able to do to him.

[Earl-Hickey]

I think it is valid though, why not?

If you fight someone 3 times, or even twice, you are going to get more adept at dealing with their style, so imo we should take the first fight for what it was/is, Mayweather struggling to adapt to Castillo's style and needing two cracks of the whip to get it right (dominate clearly)

I always put more stock in the guy that wins the first fight, whether it be a trilogy or rematch. The better fighter should win the first fight majority of the time imo, he should not have to go back and work on his strategy to beat him a second time. Thats like me and you fighting 10 times and you winning 3 then me gradually getting to grips with your style and beating you 7 times, who would you consider to be the better fighter?

I dont think you just forget whether a guy wins a rematch clearly or not, it still happened. People say how Williams knocked Quintana out but that does not erase what Quintana was able to do to him.

Losses, or in this case sub-par performances are only relevant, if they would happen again in a rematch, since Floyd proved in the rematch, that it was just an off night, it no longer matters, Had floyd ducked the rematch, then we can still talk about it.

He didn't

[larry x]

I think it is valid though, why not?

If you fight someone 3 times, or even twice, you are going to get more adept at dealing with their style, so imo we should take the first fight for what it was/is, Mayweather struggling to adapt to Castillo's style and needing two cracks of the whip to get it right (dominate clearly)

I always put more stock in the guy that wins the first fight, whether it be a trilogy or rematch. The better fighter should win the first fight majority of the time imo, he should not have to go back and work on his strategy to beat him a second time. Thats like me and you fighting 10 times and you winning 3 then me gradually getting to grips with your style and beating you 7 times, who would you consider to be the better fighter?

I dont think you just forget whether a guy wins a rematch clearly or not, it still happened. People say how Williams knocked Quintana out but that does not erase what Quintana was able to do to him.

but floyd won the first and the second fight

[2501]

yea you seem like a cool cat that knows what he's talking about

The reason Jack mentioned Castillo was because you said Floyd wasn't human and Jack was disagreeing with you saying Castillo made Floyd look human and beatable so thats when you got hot and he got hot and yall started sexy talkin to each other

[Dynamite Kid]

Losses, or in this case sub-par performances are only relevant, if they would happen again in a rematch, since Floyd proved in the rematch, that it was just an off night, it no longer matters, Had floyd ducked the rematch, then we can still talk about it.

He didn't

I disagree. If you beat someone first time around you should get credit for that, do we disregard Frazier's win over Ali because he lost the return matches?

If you beat someone or are perceived to have beaten them you dont sweep all that under the carpet if the fighter wins a rematch. Fenech beat Azumah Nelson, or should of least, and we dont forget that because he got robbed of the decision and lost the rematch.

Both these fighters did things in those fights that exploited things both fighters did/do, it does not become irrelevant because they won rematches over them.


No offence to you but that is a ******ed way of thinking about it.

[larry x]

The reason Jack mentioned Castillo was because you said Floyd wasn't human and Jack was disagreeing with you saying Castillo made Floyd look human and beatable so thats when you got hot and he got hot and yall started sexy talkin to each other

i never said floyd wasnt human..i said he wasnt normal-meaning he's not just an average fighter..he's special