You put up some post where your first statement was "You have to agree."
No, I don't have to agree to anything. I'm a thinking person who can form his own opinions.
Then when a couple did disagree with them, you resorted to name-calling because you didn't have any legitimate, rational, coherent back-up statements. You were just talking to hear your head rattle. And the little bit of follow-up you did come up with didn't make any sense.
There's noreason to be scared; maybe just to feel a little embarassed that you were in over your heard the other night and one of the guys who noticed it and was a victim of your childish rantings and name-calling called you on it when you tried it a second time.
Settle down boys... where here to talk boxing in a civil manner, no fighting computer screens and what not, everyone's opinion is diffrent, just both of you take a chill pill.
True, I Dislike RJJ, to tell you the truth, I was going for tarver in Both Fights, but to say roy jones is a bum and fought no namers is a Joke, he was one of the best skilled boxers of the New Generation no doubt.
I don't like him, but i give credit where it is due, he is a great skilled fighter, well was anyway.
I mean guys who say he is **** are probably the same guys who say, hopkins is the man, and tarver is the new king, and Toney is an Awsome HW, Correct meif I'm Wrong but didn't Roy Beat all 3 of these guys.
I think the fact he didn't rematch hopkins or toney, left people feeling a little robbed
Go back to the thread in question. All I asserted was that Tarver could have fought with Roy back in "his prime", the timeframe that was never specified. I contended that Tarver might have beaten him if they had fought instead of Roy fighting Ruiz.
Comment