Comments Thread For: Billy Graham Tips Mayweather, Tells Cotto To Pressure

[gingerbreadman]

Good God, I didn't realise capitalisation was mandatory for usernames. I guess I'll have to go and sit on the naughty step. Although if we're being pedantic, I guess you might have to join me. I refuse to have it implied that I am ****** by a man who can't spell "capital" correctly.

As to your actual argument, I agree that Graham has been near Floyd on a number of occasions. That doesn't qualify him as someone worth talking to in my book. Nor does your assertion that I should listen to Graham simply because he's worked in the sport in an official capacity. What he has to say is the key factor in determining how he should be judged, not that he acted as a cheerleader in the Hatton corner for most of his career.

Thread activity isn't the same as people liking the content of the article in question. This conversation, for example, publicises to those who read it that there are people who woould prefer something else.

Your suggestion that I should follow a link is one idea, but it misses the point in that there could have been another, better article in its place. Terry Dooley was either directed to or chose to seek out Billy Graham and interview him. It's a waste of resources, and my following some other link doesn't mean that this one will go away. In general I would consider it preferable to give feedback rather than not, because things change faster if you do.

You also say that more people like this article than not. Well, I count myself and the two who agree with me in the 'dislike' camp, and you and one other in the 'like' camp, with one chap on his own being surprised about Atlanta. This is not a numerical majority. Unless, of course, I and those who agree with me don't count because we haven't capitalised our usernames?

Now go and stick your head in a plant pot and grow yourself a brain.

[elfag]

Sorry, don't want to hear from Billy Graham. Him and others like him make British boxing a laughing stock with their neanderthal, white-van-man, 'ave-a-go attitude.

Did you actually read the article? He goes pretty in depth on the styles and speaks pretty well to it.

The strategy is all right in his mind, his execution with hatton was flawed. He was saying that hatton moved his head as he got on the inside like he was Tyson or something, which wasnt true. He may have intended for hatton to do that but hatton never did.

But he offers a pretty balanced and pretty in depth opinion of this upcoming fight, way more than most statements we get from other trainers and fighters ect.

[Neckodeemus]

Good God, I didn't realise capitalisation was mandatory for usernames. I guess I'll have to go and sit on the naughty step. Although if we're being pedantic, I guess you might have to join me. I refuse to have it implied that I am ****** by a man who can't spell "capital" correctly.

As to your actual argument, I agree that Graham has been near Floyd on a number of occasions. That doesn't qualify him as someone worth talking to in my book. Nor does your assertion that I should listen to Graham simply because he's worked in the sport in an official capacity. What he has to say is the key factor in determining how he should be judged, not that he acted as a cheerleader in the Hatton corner for most of his career.

Thread activity isn't the same as people liking the content of the article in question. This conversation, for example, publicises to those who read it that there are people who woould prefer something else.

Your suggestion that I should follow a link is one idea, but it misses the point in that there could have been another, better article in its place. Terry Dooley was either directed to or chose to seek out Billy Graham and interview him. It's a waste of resources, and my following some other link doesn't mean that this one will go away. In general I would consider it preferable to give feedback rather than not, because things change faster if you do.

You also say that more people like this article than not. Well, I count myself and the two who agree with me in the 'dislike' camp, and you and one other in the 'like' camp, with one chap on his own being surprised about Atlanta. This is not a numerical majority. Unless, of course, I and those who agree with me don't count because we haven't capitalised our usernames?

Now go and stick your head in a plant pot and grow yourself a brain.

They're two different books though, aren't they? Graham's is the 'Been there and done it' book. Your's is a 'Not been there, will never do it' unpublished tome, so his naturally carries more weight and is something a boxing news site would have an interest in.

Thread activity in which an article is linked in the opening post can produce clicks as the opening post states 'Click here to read more' and this leads to the article itself. So it is not beyond the realms of possibility that people who are reading this thread, which has been kept active, will click on the link to make up their own minds rather than just seeing a name in the headline and deciding it is a poor piece. Or, worse, saying 'I don't want to hear from Billy Graham,' and then either arguing about the validity of something they haven't read or reading it and then arguing about it anyway without actually referring to it, but with the added bonus of blowing their opening statement out of the water in doing so.

As for being near Floyd not qualifying you to assess him. This is nonsense as Graham has been around the guy, seen him in public and private moments and knows more about him than you and I. Plus he came up with a good plan to beat Kostya Tszyu and his corner work for Urango was excellent, plus he worked in the sport for years so how does this success diminish his opinion?

As I said, people have commented positively via email and other mediums. You expect half-assed negative comments on a forum from people who say they don't want to read something but still discuss it because a forum is what it is. You're not ******, clearly, just a bit ignorant, which is fair enough I suppose. But talking about an article you're not willing to read is not good form.

[GRUSTLER]

Good God, I didn't realise capitalisation was mandatory for usernames. I guess I'll have to go and sit on the naughty step. Although if we're being pedantic, I guess you might have to join me. I refuse to have it implied that I am ****** by a man who can't spell "capital" correctly.

As to your actual argument, I agree that Graham has been near Floyd on a number of occasions. That doesn't qualify him as someone worth talking to in my book. Nor does your assertion that I should listen to Graham simply because he's worked in the sport in an official capacity. What he has to say is the key factor in determining how he should be judged, not that he acted as a cheerleader in the Hatton corner for most of his career.

Thread activity isn't the same as people liking the content of the article in question. This conversation, for example, publicises to those who read it that there are people who woould prefer something else.

Your suggestion that I should follow a link is one idea, but it misses the point in that there could have been another, better article in its place. Terry Dooley was either directed to or chose to seek out Billy Graham and interview him. It's a waste of resources, and my following some other link doesn't mean that this one will go away. In general I would consider it preferable to give feedback rather than not, because things change faster if you do.

You also say that more people like this article than not. Well, I count myself and the two who agree with me in the 'dislike' camp, and you and one other in the 'like' camp, with one chap on his own being surprised about Atlanta. This is not a numerical majority. Unless, of course, I and those who agree with me don't count because we haven't capitalised our usernames?

Now go and stick your head in a plant pot and grow yourself a brain.

I think Graham was pretty dead on about their styles and what Cotto needs to do. What's your real problem?

[Muscles72]

Not sayin it would've made a difference but mayweather was very uncomfotable when hatton was fighting in close mayweather does not like pressure I think cortez was a little to involved that night.

[spoonwars]

Not sayin it would've made a difference but mayweather was very uncomfotable when hatton was fighting in close mayweather does not like pressure I think cortez was a little to involved that night.

Not sayin it would've made a difference either, but the ring post was a little too involved as well that night.

[Muscles72]

Not sayin it would've made a difference either, but the ring post was a little too involved as well that night.

Haha yea that was bad but what was even worse was when pac knocked him out I thought he was deadand floyd sr. left the arena without hatton.