Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If the Crawford fight does 97k or better will GGG fans finally admit.....

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Kigali View Post
    GGG gets a pass from the boxing media.

    I have yet to see one negative article about this 34 y/o fighter with the resume of a 24 y/o prospect.
    If you have 3 belts and 7 wins over Ring top tenners, that's not a prospect by definition, ******

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by animelive View Post
      I suppose its time to admit GGG is better than Crawford even when he fights Welterweights.
      Crawford isn't 34 and afraid to move up.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by HeroBando View Post
        If you have 3 belts and 7 wins over Ring top tenners, that's not a prospect by definition, ******
        Top 10 in a dead division mean squat.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by HeroBando View Post
          If you have 3 belts and 7 wins over Ring top tenners, that's not a prospect by definition, ******
          So now The Ring means something? I thought it was owned by Goldenboy and doesn't mean shit?

          Comment


          • #65
            I dont give two ****s which boxers are considered 'stars' or not and neither should you. The divas at the top seem to be concerned more about being an attraction then proving themselves in the ring, how many times do we see **** like 'im the A side' 'i dont need (example fighter) to prove myself, ive got other options' 'I move where i want to move'

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by HeroBando View Post
              If you have 3 belts and 7 wins over Ring top tenners, that's not a prospect by definition, ******
              because theres nothing to write thats negative. Only you lowlife haters on here make up negative things about him. Any sane person can see hes demolishing his competition and hes so good that people wont fight him

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by HeroBando View Post
                If you have 3 belts and 7 wins over Ring top tenners, that's not a prospect by definition, ******
                sorry i definitely replied to the wrong post there lol

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by chris232 View Post
                  I dont give two ****s which boxers are considered 'stars' or not and neither should you. The divas at the top seem to be concerned more about being an attraction then proving themselves in the ring, how many times do we see **** like 'im the A side' 'i dont need (example fighter) to prove myself, ive got other options' 'I move where i want to move'
                  Well you need to watch UFC if you don't care how star power works in boxing.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Motorcity Cobra View Post
                    Well you need to watch UFC if you don't care how star power works in boxing.
                    No i dont 'care' about it and never will. What i'd like to see is less ego, less posturing and a mindset of fighters wanting to prove they are the best like they used to, now isnt that a crazy idea.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Paulie Walnuts View Post
                      So now The Ring means something? I thought it was owned by Goldenboy and doesn't mean shit?
                      hehehehehe

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP