Who's the worst forum nuthugger in terms of objectivity?

Can I call you Stafford, sly?

 

Ramonza - Any fighter pre-WWII.

 

Slice and Shake with DaBum currently.

 

I am honoured by your negligence of me ::

 

I love how you put me on this list under Pacquiao when I'm not even that big of a Pacquiao fan. All I've been doing is stating facts about what the guy has done in opposition of what Floyd hasn't and that makes me a Pacquiao nut hugger hunh?

At least you were honest enough to put your own name up there but in all honesty I dare anyone to find a post about a fighter where I wasn't objective. I've never been a nuthugger in the sense that I'd excuse cowardly behavior or shit performances. I can even pull up the critical thread I made about Shane Mosley, the only guy I've ever truly been a huge fan of.

Floyd groupies like to try to lump me in with the Pacquiao groupies because it's their only defense, but it's bullshit. I like watching the guy fight just like I like watching FLoyd fight, but I've never overly raved about him and not even sure if I've made more than a couple threads about the guy, if even that many. And I most certainly haven't defended him to the extent that Floyd groupies defend Floyd.

 

Yo..I don't mind being called a Floyd nuthugger. I'm a proud fan of Floyd and he hasn't proven me wrong over his career.

Mayweather, P4P, IS better than Ray Leonard was. Just because the majority of you don't see that isn't my problem..

 

He did it first. Mine was in reaction.

 

Being labelled a Mayweather Nuthugger makes me owned? ::

That's been my label for the last 10 years, and I'm proud of it. Floyd's proven brilliance over the last decade simply absolves my position.

And yes....Floyd would have given 1987 hagler problems at 160, Hopkins would have given Spinks problems, Mayweather is better than Duran and Floyd is one of the most talented fighters in the history of the sport...top 5 all time talent if not top 3. :hammert:

 

People "nut-hug" fighters for reasons which transcend the actual boxing. Nobody should be criticized for liking a fighter for reasons which have nothing to do with boxing. John Conteh is a favourite of mine but he wasn't the best fighter of his era. His war with Saad Muhammad {whose corner may have cheated with a cut-stopping compound} and his wars with the domestic British promoters makes him a favourite. Also his mother was Irish. And he was from Liverpool. ::

 

I don't want to shake the label AND I never threatened you. For the record..I have no intention of finding you and causing you physical harm...lest you make up that I've threatened you.

Just saying that people like you end up in a bad way....and soon. :finger:

 

He's already in a bad way, he's 50 and he lives in New England. Shot to pieces he is.

 

He'll be exposed soon enough...and when it happens I will not let up. You know me..

 

why would you want to? Everyone knows my name but on this forum we go by user names.

 

btw..Lazy Rider reminds me of a formerly banned poster..could it be could it be....hmmmmmmmm

 

.. OK, now that is serious nuthuggery.

 

Have you ever even been to Providence? I've seen you comment on it about a dozen times in this thread. It's actually a very nice area. I sure wouldn't mind living there.

 

Dymipepel...::

 

New England is very nice, I have family there. Apparently the first Quaker settlers marveled at New Englands rustic Autumnal beauty, and then froze to death the following Winter ::

 

I prefer Old England.

Also I am probably the most objective poster here.

 

As usual, the voice of reason. :Thumbs:

 

NUTHUGGER!!!

 

Put your kneepads on again have you?

 

Decided to act like a particularly immature middle school child yet again, have you?

As usual...cdogg is correct and you, on the other hand, are acting like a jackass. Some things never change.

 

I respect Cdogg. We disagree on a few boxing topics etc but he's a cool guy and very genuine and mature. You're about 15 years older than him and act 15 years younger. You can't discuss anything without trying to agitate or whatever. Your responses DEPEND upon extra childish nonsense...which if you forget to include them...you'll surely edit your posts minutes later to include them. Your responses are to weak to stand by themselves and so you add other distractions (such as my real name or "shilling for your favourites" ) to compensate.

Sad.

 

This thread made my day.

I am also a nuthugger according to many mainly towards Lennox, Klitshkos and other modern heavies. So be it.

The thing why I can't take any of this very seriously is that ALL of us, barring guys like dymipepel who was obviously joking,, THINK that we are objective. Some say they only state facts but the obvious hole in the argument is that there are very few facts in boxing and discussing them doesn't lead anywhere.

For example the Hopkins vs Spinks discussion: we could discuss only facts, such as their ring records, physical measurements etc but that has little point. Everything else is opinion, which is why it seems stupid to call one side 'nuthugging' and the other 'truth'. Yes, some opinions have more basis than other, but both sides think they argue for 'the truth'. So actually 'objectivity' is pretty much the same as agreeing with the 'consensus opinion' of this moment, which tomorrow can be different. Personally I would pick Spinks but I do think Hopkins gives him a difficult fight. That might make me stupid or uneducated, but nuthugger?

 

What, what, what ::

 

Yet another post from the Land of Make-Believe. You HATE when your biases are exposed...and this drivel is the result.

 

What? A contemporary fighter like Bernard who has a bad attitude giving an all time great from the 80s a close fight?

YOU NUTHUGGER!!!

 

Opinions in boxing can never be exposed, unless it was prediction on an actual fight and then the result of the fight was the opposite. Even then we all do that. In terms of MMs, we would never know..and so if my opinion is at odds with the more acceptable viewpoints...doesn't mean I've been exposed.

"You are an old man and a fool."

 

Nope. Your obvious biases are exposed for all to see. You are the least objective person on this forum...and it's not a secret. You can try to talk around it and try to bluster your way out of it, but it is what it is.

And you only have yourself to blame, since your endless & childish need for attention (even if it's negative) and conflict made you start this topic...knowing full well what would happen. And then you bitch about it. It's rather pathetic...really.