Comments Thread For: GGG: Biggest Opponent is My Age & Determination To Keep Boxing

[TonyGe]

Honestly, I think back then they probably was taking all types of **** because it wasnt no rules or anything tbh.

But are you saying "Yea, they bums, but they were tough because they fought allot"?

I can agree with that sentiment. Im just saying that skillwise, they were ass.

You feel that if Lomatta fought in this era, he would fight only 4 times a year at the most, and that would make him more skilled?

I cant say I agree on that, and its a hypothetical. Im simply looking at the abilities, and judging how trash they were.

Look at Charley Burley, he fought in that era, but he had skills.

Neat trick. We are discussing Ray Robinson and you deflect to Jake Lomatta and Charley Burley.

[MurkaMan]

Neat trick. We are discussing Ray Robinson and you deflect to Jake Lomatta and Charley Burley.

Wtf are you talking about? I didnt deflect anything. I answered everything you said, and gave my opinion.

If you dont have anything else to add, just leave it there bro!

[TonyGe]

Wtf are you talking about? I didnt deflect anything. I answered everything you said, and gave my opinion.

If you dont have anything else to add, just leave it there bro!

How about I leave it at this. Under the same conditions Robinson would beat Mayweather in a boxing match.

[Real King Kong]

But I dont think you feel SRL faced better opposition than Floyd. I think after I pointed out the "context of the opposition" as you stated, it made you think differently. And you never really proved your point, you just kind of trolled, and kept repeating it.

I asked the hypothetical, because if Floyd fought subpar opponents, then what did SRR face? And your telling me, that since I brought it up, THATS the reason you tried to flip the conversation to "modern fighters vs older fighters"?

THATS the reason you tried to be slick with the topic of discussion?

You couldnt just simply admit that SRR indeed faced lesser opponents than Floyd? That would've made you look better, than trying to manipulate a narrative. Even if you felt Ortiz wasnt as good as Lomatta, you should've proved your point, oppose to trying to manipulate the topic of discussion. THAT would've made you look better, even after you lost the debate!

I think you know without a doubt Leonard faced better opposition than Floyd...that’s why you made all these hypothetical situations like “if Leonard was this age and faced that guy” etc. To avoid the issue further, you changed the subject to Robinson.

[TonyGe]

I think you know without a doubt Leonard faced better opposition than Floyd...that’s why you made all these hypothetical situations like “if Leonard was this age and faced that guy” etc. To avoid the issue further, you changed the subject to Robinson.

When I got into a debate with him about Robinson he changed up to talking about Jake Lamotta and Charley Burley.

[MurkaMan]

I think you know without a doubt Leonard faced better opposition than Floyd...that’s why you made all these hypothetical situations like “if Leonard was this age and faced that guy” etc. To avoid the issue further, you changed the subject to Robinson.

I think we both feel the same way tbh.

But when I held SRR to the same standard that I hold Floyd to, you switched the conversation topic to "Modern fighters vs throwback fighters"

Opposed to admitting that he faced trash opponents. Even if you aint want to admit that SRR faced poor opponents, you should've stated why you disagree.

I think you look at this as a debating competition. Where you divert and deflect to gain victory.

That doesnt work in normal conversations, where their is nothing to win. By deflecting and diverting, you look dumb as hell as if you didnt have any valid response.


All of our interactions will be here forever and ever, and everyone will be able to read them!
take pride in what you put out their for others to see. You wouldnt actually want people to study our interactions and see you fail at making a case for SRL or whoever else.

Everyone who reads what I say, will see that no one can really respond to my stance. Its like I have an answer for everything because I believe in what I witnessed.

Everyone will soon see things the way I do I feel!

[MurkaMan]

How about I leave it at this. Under the same conditions Robinson would beat Mayweather in a boxing match.

Under the same conditions? You mean fighting as frequently? Maybe Robinson could skate by but I dont think so. I think Floyd, running, and hugging, is unbeatable. When he does the bare minimum, no one in the history of the sport is going to beat him.

But when he comes to the center of the ring to REALLY FIGHT. You have a punchers chance. But if that punch doesnt land, he will embarrass you, especially SRR. SRR was another outdated version of Floyd. He actually fought a bit like Mosley tbh.

So Floyd at his worse, cant be beaten. Floyd at his best, you have a puncher's chance. But if that punch doesnt land, he isnt going to win. He is going to dominate you.

When I got into a debate with him about Robinson he changed up to talking about Jake Lamotta and Charley Burley.

Are you kidding me? You didnt respond to a damn thang I said. You accused me of deflecting like that other dude. Im a grown asss man. You simply hated the fact that you were wrong, and that I was right.

Grow up. Like I said last time, if you dont have nothing to add to the topic, then admit Im right and move along.

Talking about I "changed up", you ****head whatever point I added was relevant to the topic at hand!

[Real King Kong]

I think we both feel the same way tbh.

But when I held SRR to the same standard that I hold Floyd to, you switched the conversation topic to "Modern fighters vs throwback fighters"

Opposed to admitting that he faced trash opponents. Even if you aint want to admit that SRR faced poor opponents, you should've stated why you disagree.

I think you look at this as a debating competition. Where you divert and deflect to gain victory.

That doesnt work in normal conversations, where their is nothing to win. By deflecting and diverting, you look dumb as hell as if you didnt have any valid response.


All of our interactions will be here forever and ever, and everyone will be able to read them!
take pride in what you put out their for others to see. You wouldnt actually want people to study our interactions and see you fail at making a case for SRL or whoever else.

Everyone who reads what I say, will see that no one can really respond to my stance. Its like I have an answer for everything because I believe in what I witnessed.

Everyone will soon see things the way I do I feel!

Lol...you accuse me of deflecting an argument that you raised as a deflection. My stance has been simple...Srl faced better opposition than Floyd, nothing has changed.

[TonyGe]

Lol...you accuse me of deflecting an argument that you raised as a deflection. My stance has been simple...Srl faced better opposition than Floyd, nothing has changed.

I didn't deflect anything. Here is your post that I responded to.


1. This is not a response to what I asked. We say he aint that good right? Which I totally disagree with, because he was a monster at 47 against Berto. Floyd just ruined him. But I asked has SRR faced an opponent like him? Which would've been his toughest fight tbh.

2. I feel Ortiz was a top notch opponent, but thats besides the point. The circumstantial disadvantages Floyd was at; He was 34yrs old and 150lbs. Ortiz was 24yrs old and 164lbs.

I didnt really ask if SRL could beat Ortiz. I was asking could SRL beat ANY opponent at thost disadvantages? That age and weight disparity, and the answer is NO!


You were clearly comparing Mayweather to SRR. I responded on topic. You aren't going to change your mind and I'm not either so let's drop it.

[Real King Kong]

I didn't deflect anything. Here is your post that I responded to.


1. This is not a response to what I asked. We say he aint that good right? Which I totally disagree with, because he was a monster at 47 against Berto. Floyd just ruined him. But I asked has SRR faced an opponent like him? Which would've been his toughest fight tbh.

2. I feel Ortiz was a top notch opponent, but thats besides the point. The circumstantial disadvantages Floyd was at; He was 34yrs old and 150lbs. Ortiz was 24yrs old and 164lbs.

I didnt really ask if SRL could beat Ortiz. I was asking could SRL beat ANY opponent at thost disadvantages? That age and weight disparity, and the answer is NO!


You were clearly comparing Mayweather to SRR. I responded on topic. You aren't going to change your mind and I'm not either so let's drop it.

Troll confirmed ��