"No boxer is in his prime after 112 fights." - Gunstar, which is what he claimed over & over & over & over again, yet couldn't back it up with anything beyond that statement and a couple of insults thrown about.
And yet after running out of that thread, he then immediately comes up to NSB and asks this particular poll question that's related DIRECTLY to an earlier conversation...Yet we are to think that it has nothing to do with that other thread?
"No boxer is in his prime after 112 fights." - Gunstar, which is what he claimed over & over & over & over again, yet couldn't back it up with anything beyond that statement and a couple of insults thrown about.
And yet after running out of that thread, he then immediately comes up to NSB and asks this particular poll question that's related DIRECTLY to an earlier conversation...Yet we are to think that it has nothing to do with that other thread?
If you make a poll asking people if a fighter is in his prime at age 21 people will obviously say no. You made this thread to prove a specific point by spining the hell out of a broad question. That is like saying Tyson was not in his prime at 21 because the people voted against it.
You should go in to politics
What a ****** poll (don't take personal offence Gunstar, I'm sure you knew you were being silly). I've no idea if Robinson was in his prime after 110 fights but he was definitely still more than useful.
As a general point I think prime age has got as much to do with the individuals' development both physical and skillwise as it has the number of fights, unless they get a number of real beatings. Just an opiniion though, I'm sure number of fights does have some negative effect as well as positive effect on experience.
Comment