TWO STRAIGHT weeks of bullshit decisions... what next?

Yeah, in articles no matter where the source, Hops has 'Ring Legend' knighted to him as if it were fucking 'Sir'.

 

What gets me is how that used tampon Tarver is bandied around between these fighters like he was still credit-worthy despite all these beatings. Tarver gets beaten by Hopkins, Hopkins becomes a legend. Then Dawson beats Tarver and Dawson goes pfp. All of this is achieved with points wins over the same used condom.

 

this has turned into a great thread::

well up until about the 5th page when cdogg came into it. Isn't it great how polarized this board has become, its like a microcosm of the US (FUCK YOU FOREIGNERS::).

I'm sorry most people are stupid, its just reality.

 

Good post. Some folks are playing the persona game (and usually the persona of choice is douchebag) and others have a particular agenda they are determined to shove down everyone's throats. There actually was a time here when there were good discussions that didn't end up with the thread being spammed with repetitive posts or having others initiate pissing contests, but these days topics get ruined quickly by this type of behavior.

 

There is no way of actually measuring "entertaining" though. Apart from Wlad-Sultan I would rather rewatch any Wlad fight from the last 5 years than any Tyson fight

 

Would an example of such an agenda be constantly banging on about the current state of the HW division and how "sorry" it is?

 

Oooo. Nice try at sarcasm, but...

Nope. Not if the discussion is about the division and the fighters that comprise it. I'm simply telling it like it is, sorry if that offends you. I am not a nuthugger or a hater of any particular fighter. It's not Vitali's or Wlad's fault that the division is void of compelling challengers. But I see no reason to pump up their opposition or the quality of the fights.

If I have ANY agenda, it is the truth. If the division were in better shape, I would say so. I don't WANT it to be so crappy. If anything...I wISH it were better because I've been a huge fan of the division for more than 30 years now and it pains me to see how far it has fallen. I never thought I'd see a day when there are no heavyweight fights to look forward to. But here we are.

And I don't see anything wrong with telling the truth. Kevin Johnson wasn't qualified for a title shot and he turned in a pitiful effort. To me, telling the truth about it is better than trying to put a fake shine on it so the newbie fans who really, really WANT this heavyweight era to be good can feel better about it. Should I PRETEND that Arreola isn't an unskilled fatty who is only making waves due to the current crappy state of the division?

I work on a pretty simple notion. I tell the truth. Unfortunately some folks don't seem to like that too much.

 

Most everyone with an agenda believes their opinion to be the TRUE one. You seem to think your opinion is elevated somehow beyond all that, that simply telling us you are objective and telling the truth somehow makes it so. :nono:

In my opinion, its hardly a golden age for heavyweights but the poor challenges put forward by the so-called contenders is more reflective of the distance now between the top 2 and the rest and the manner in which they (the champiosn) fight, as well as the fact that all of the contenders tend to be under-cooked as a result of not fighting each other. There are however plenty of HW fights to look forward to in 2010 IMO if they were to make them - sadly not many of them at present involve the Klitschkos.

 

You can shake your finger all you want, but that doesn't make what you have to say true. It's lame to fall back on the notion that everyone has some sort of agenda so that makes it ok for the ones who really do.
You can spin things anyway you like because you don't agree with me, but that doesn't change the fact that I call it how I see it. I don't WANT the division to be crappy, but it is. And if it were better, I would be happy.

And there is a huge difference between that and when folks like
dymipepel and Irish2002/2003 spend inordinate amounts knocking down and pumping up Vitali. THOSE are folks with an agenda. And if you are attempting to lump me in with them, which you are, then I see no reason to even bother discussing anything with you because you are so off-base it's not even funny.

If your next response is similar to your most recent, then don't bother. I am done with this discussion. But if you absolutely have to have the last word, then good luck to you.

 

When do you become so full of yourself broadwayjoe? You used to be cool.

 

I think the problem comes when we try to draw the line between truth, truth the way we see it and an agenda.

For example I sometimes get blamed on having an agenda, because my opinion of the heavyweight is drastically different from a 'generally accepted' take. However, I truly believe what I say about them. That might make me an idiot, but that does not make me to have an agenda. Of course, I am not completely objective, but nobody is. Or, if somebody was, it would only mean that this person did not care about boxing at all

I don't think you have an agenda either, I do think you call the truth like you see it and that is all good. We disagree on something and agree on other matters and that is how it is supposed to be.

(on a sidenote, I do have an agenda against Tyson and Duran because they were fags, but that is a different story)