Facts are facts - this thread is facts only unlike almost all others

David Tua is fat.


Fact!

 

Stupid thread.

Also fact!

 

dsimon writes:

Fact: Double is displaying signs of becoming unhinged.:dunno: His sense of reality is not normal as he cannot distinguish an objective statement of occurance from a subjective one. He is becoming more belligerant as his sense of reality becomes more fragile, culminating in a thread where he makes an attempt to push his observations off as a truth.

Fact: there are medications that can help these delusions. Hopefully Double L is aware of some FACTS regarding these medications and the conditions that may faciitate their use.

 

dude. those are all facts. if you can't get your mind around that, that's not my problem.

also, i'm wondering - what is an "objective fact?" as you put it? this implies there's such a thing as a "subjective fact." is that your claim?

 

No no no....

perhaps this thread was made to determine whose language skills were best.

"Stupid thread" is not a fact.

"I think this is a stupid thread." would be.

it is subtle, but clear

 

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

 

::

 

I know those are FACTS, if they are indeed true. But only I would know that..you would just have to take my word for it.

If THAT is what this thread is about...taking someone's word for what's going on in their mind....then it's as ridiculous as your predictions.::

 

You really think Hagler changed it as early as 1982?

I dunno about it being really drastic either. I haven't seem the Obelmejias rematch in years, but with Lee, Hagler just caught him early and then attacked. With Sibson, Hagler was boxing as usual, using good lateral movement, and killing Sibson with the right jab. With Duran, Hagler was boxing as usual, but did better when he mixed it up close against the smaller guy. Hearns was a drastic change from his style, but Hagler still spent a lot of the Mugabi fight boxing behind the jab and jabbing the Beast silly. It was the later rounds when Hagler decided to really beat Mugabi up on the inside.

Although his legs weren't as good so he wasn't as mobile, he still had the "box behind the jab first and then do the trading up close later when necessary" plan as he did in 1978 against Briscoe.

I really didn't see it as a drastic change. I felt Hagler just adapted to the situation, opponent, and age.

 

Fact this is another opinion. Another stupid opinion from you.

 

no it's not. think again.

 

Well...to be honest...Sly's "facts" are usually more often than not "subjective." ::

 

I think following the first Antuofermo fight, for the most part, Hagler made a point to "go after people" early and often. There were times in that period (leonard, duran, Sibson) where he resorted back to his "boxing first" approach from his early years, but I'm speaking more to the way he would attack moreso than trying to win rounds, fights like the Hamsho Rematch, Minter, Vito II, Hearns, etc.

I agree he just caught Caveman Lee early, but there was an air of him trying to make a statement in that fight, and its that kind of urgency that I saw more of in the later career than before.

 

Explain to me how Hanshaws credientals were as good as Lacys. Come on now man im a RJJ dicksucker and even i know this isn't the case.

 

if double l is going to emphasize official wins as facts, then he should emphasize the term 'OFFICIAL'.

i base facts on what i see.

 

well the trouble is, by definition nearly every usage of the phrase "its debatable" will result in a fact, and some philosophers would argue everything is debatable.

But as far as a soundness regarding certain "facts" yes there are some that seem "more legitimate" than others, such as the ones in this thread about people who won certain amounts of rounds or "legitimately" won certain fights, etc.

 

This is the best example of a fact in this whole topic.::

 

::

Fact. Before you make a facts thread look up the definition of the word first.

 

Sorry, man. Couldn't help it. ::

 

It's ok. You know that sentance wasn't directed at you right. It was directed at the poster who made this thread.

 

uh, this is NOT a fact. and i'm not sure you know what a fact is, judging by your responses.

there's one statement in here i've made that was not a fact - and that was that RJJ had more fans now than he did before he was knocked out. that was speculation on my part. every other statement i've made has indeed been fact, whether you recognize it or not.

 

and Ironically I personally believe that statement is one of the most sound made in this thread. Seeing humility beaten into someone often lets people who despise a person forget the brashness and appreciate the meat after the fact.

 

No Shit Sherlock.

 

Double L,

What is the point of this thread?

 

For Double L to pretend his bullshit opinions are infact facts ::

 

the point is to demonstrate how uncomfortable so many here are with matters of fact.

if you look back through most of it, you'll see posters display anger, frustration and defensiveness.

that's the point of the thread.

 

::

You're one of a kind. That's for sure. :laughing:

 

Fact- Lemmon Loser got LAID the F out by Rahman..

Fact- In the rematch, Rahman didn't train and Lemmon got lucky but they are 1-1 and Rahman proved to be the better man

 

Fact- Lemmon loser waited until Mike was washed up and even then did not push for the fight until after learning mike was on serious drugs that greatly happered his performance

 

How do you explain Tyson giving up the WBC belt in 1996 when Lennox was the mandatory?

You left out the Mercer fight when it comes to Lewis, I might add.