Ringside at Turning Stone: David Lemieux Capsizes Curtis Stevens

VERONA, NY — In a shootout between two big punchers, David Lemieux scored an impressive one punch highlight reel knockout of Curtis Stevens in the third round of their scheduled twelve round middleweight fight in Verona, NY on Saturday night. As Stevens was throwing a left hook, Lemieux caught him with a debilitating left hook of his own that landed flush on the jaw of Stevens and had him out before he hit the canvas.

Medical personnel immediately attended to Stevens and placed him on a stretcher to be transported to a local hospital for observation. Stevens was conscious when being transported and his promoter, Kathy Duva, gave the crowd a thumbs up as he was being removed from the arena.

There was no feeling out process between Lemieux (37-3, 33 KOs) and Stevens (29-6, 21 KOs). The two were exchanging big punches within moments of the opening bell. Lemieux seemed to get Stevens attention about half way through the first with a hard right hand. But Stevens would find a home for some powerful rights of his own as the first round progressed. At the end of the round, a left hook by Lemieux had Stevens clearly hurt just before the bell sounded.

Lemieux came out fast to start the second to see if Stevens was still hurt. Lemieux was loading up on everything he threw as Stevens covered up. Eventually, Stevens started to counter some between the hard punches of Lemieux and had some success. Stevens also started working the left hook to Lemieux’s midsection and seemed to be slowing up Lemieux with that body work as the round moved forward.

Stevens started strong in the third working behind the jab. He would find a home for some powerful straight right hands that seemed to get the attention of Lemieux. However, just when Stevens seemed to be turning the tide, a left hook that he never saw coming put a swift and conclusive end to the fight.

The win puts Lemieux in line for bigger fights down the line. He called out both Gennady Golovkin and Saul “Canelo” Alvarez in the ring following the fight with Stevens. Though a rematch with Golovkin seems unlikely, there is at least a decent chance that a fight with Canelo may to come fruition at some point soon.

Yuriorkis Gamboa-Rene Alvarado

In the co-feature bout, Yuriorkis Gamboa scored a listless ten round unanimous decision against veteran journeyman Rene Alvarado in a lightweight contest. It was a bout that was void of action and had the crowd sounding their displeasure throughout.

This was Gamboa’s (26-1, 17 KOs) first fight under his new promotional contract with Golden Boy and was supposed to be a mere showcase to lead him to bigger fights down the line. However, Alvarado (24-8, 16 KOs) proved to be more a puzzle than anticipated for Gamboa. Alvarado refused to lead and with both fighters almost strictly looking to counter, little action was produced.

Gamboa controlled the little action there was in the first six rounds of the fight by simply moving his hands more than Alvarado and landing the catchier punches. Alvarado seemed to pick up a little momentum in the seventh when he briefly stunned Gamboa with a right hand.

Alvarado could not seize on the momentum from the seventh and was hurt himself by Gamboa in the ninth. In the tenth, Alvarado landed a glancing left to the head of Gamboa who was off balance and fell to the canvas. To Gamboa’s dismay, referee Benjy Esteves ruled it a knockdown. However, this would prove to be a moot point as Gamboa was already well ahead on all three judges cards.

Undercard Bouts

In a battle of undefeated super lightweight prospects, Yves Ulysse would score a TKO victory against Zachary Ochoa after Ochoa’s corner stopped the bout following round seven.

Ulysse (13-0, 9 KOs) was dominant throughout the contest. He routinely found a home for his power shots against an ever retreating Ochoa (16-1, 7 KOs) whose punches did not carry near the steam of Ulysse. In the seventh, Ulysse hurt Ochoa with a straight right hand and followed that up with a barrage of power shots that were frequently snapping the head back of Ochoa. Though he showed guts, Ochoa took a massive beating that round and his corner made the correct call in not letting him out for the eighth.

Diego De La Hoya (17-0, 9 KOs) scored a lopsided unanimous decision against Roberto Pucheta (10-10-1, 6 KOs) in a super bantamweight bout. De La Hoya dropped Pucheta in the first and went on to easily control every round in winning by margins of 80-71 on all three cards.

D’Mitrius Ballard (16-0, 12 KOs) knocked out veteran Zoltan Sera (26-11, 17 KOs) with a right hand to the temple in the fourth round of their light heavyweight contest in a bout that Ballard was in total control throughout.

Alex Rincon made a successful professional debut when he stopped Shaun Lee Henson (2-4, 2 KOs) in the second round with a left hook to the body in a super welterweight bout.

Damon Allen (11-0-1, 5 KOs) stopped Adam Mate (24-11, 17 KOs) in the second round of their lightweight contest. Allen put Mate on the canvas three times that round. Referee Benjy Esteves waived the contest off after the third knockdown.

In the opening bout, Todd Unthank-May (10-0-1, 4 KOs) fought to a split draw with Quinton Rankin (12-3-1, 9 KOs) in a competitive and entertaining light heavyweight contest.

Check out more boxing news on video at The Boxing Channel.

COMMENTS

-teaser :

one word ....Boom!!


-Radam G :

one word ....Boom!!
Two words: No syet! Holla!


-Radam G :

one word ....Boom!!
Two words: No syet! Holla!


-stormcentre :


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168202-Boxing-Odds-For-This-Weekend&p=110269&viewfull=1#post110269 Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-brownsugar :

Storm I have to give you, Oubobcat and Hauser credit... I finally saw the fight at 3am on saturday night on my cell phone of all places before I read your comments.... I couldnt help wondering at the time why a guy who has a reputation of being ultra fit and who makes up for being raw by over compensating with sheer perpetual motion and physical exertion (much like Chris Algieri but with thudding power instead of excess lateral movement) looked like he had just attended "The Last Supper" before the fight... I don't mean the meager last supper the 12 deciples had with Jesus....but the last Thanksgiving ?.... ... that robust Fred Flinstone - like girth around Lemieux's waist seemed uncharacteristically full for a relatively young fighter..... Could have been why David was able to advance upon Stevens with wreckless abandon ......But given the fact that Stevens moved less than a punching bag in a mild breeze during the onesided precedings, Im left with the impression that Stevens would have still lost to a semi - starved Lemieux. At least I can say with full confidence that the limited and hyper - predictable Lemieux always fights with a purpose. ...his fighting spirit is always on full display as he usually aims to put a rousing performance. Because of this effort I was nearly going to make an effort to stream the fight when I first heard of it....even after I learned Stevens had switched head trainers (to John David Jackson about a year ago) due to Rozier concentrating his attention on Jacobs) I still wanted to watch the fight....but when I saw the poster used to advertise the fight I decided not to bother.... Stevens face was extremely puffy looking as if he had aged 10 years due to closing the local strip club every night while drinking rot-gut liquor. ....not saying that I know why Stevens was looking so run down, just saying I lost interest and confidence in Stevens' ability to make a decent fight of it because he looked so much older in the photo... To his credit, The listless Stevens did try to make somewhat of an effort to hit Lemieux with his best shot while he went out on his shield like an honest workman but I fear his name is losing value more quickly than Trump's promises. Lemieux on the other hand will gain a few more fans and supporters until he gets out boxed again...(Canelo) But at least he entertains.


-Kid Blast :

David has only lost 3 bouts. One he failed to train for and gassed (Rubio). And that cost him his trainer, Russ Anber. One to Alcine that good have gone to him as it was a great and very close fight. And one to GGG-no shame in that. He is 37-3 with 33 KO's. Mark Ramsey would never ever let him go in there out of shape. I have been following David since the Canadian amateurs and he always had inhuman power. I have seen most of his early fights live in Canada. He is an exciting type of fighter who comes after his opponent like a tiger. What's not to like. What he did to Camacho Jr, Elvin Ayala, and Walid Simchet was just plain scary. Viva Lemieux,


-Kid Blast :

David has only lost 3 bouts. One he failed to train for and gassed (Rubio). And that cost him his trainer, Russ Anber. One to Alcine that could have gone to him as it was a great and very close fight. And one to GGG-no shame in that. He is 37-3 with 33 KO's. Mark Ramsey would never ever let him go in there out of shape. I have been following David since the Canadian amateurs and he always had inhuman power. I have seen most of his early fights live in Canada. He is an exciting type of fighter who comes after his opponent like a tiger. What's not to like. What he did to Camacho Jr, Elvin Ayala, and Walid Simchet was just plain scary. And he did dismantle Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam for a World Title.
Viva Lemieux,


-deepwater2 :

Everyone was talking about DL as overweight and out of shape but the man walks around at 185 lbs. He drained himself to make the limit and I am positive that he looked bloated after drinking all the pedialyte and eating all the pasta he missed out on for the 6 weeks. DL was a light heavyweight in that ring. Bring on Canelo for DL next. Canelo gave up his belt to GGG so forget those two fighting.


-oubobcat :

Everyone was talking about DL as overweight and out of shape but the man walks around at 185 lbs. He drained himself to make the limit and I am positive that he looked bloated after drinking all the pedialyte and eating all the pasta he missed out on for the 6 weeks. DL was a light heavyweight in that ring. Bring on Canelo for DL next. Canelo gave up his belt to GGG so forget those two fighting.
Lemieux has had issues with the 160 weight before. I think Deep you are right on and that he drained himself to make the weight for this fight and that is part of the reason for how he looked physically on Saturday. I have no doubt he trained hard and was in great shape. He wouldn't have been throwing as much as he was early with so much intent if he were not confident in his conditioning. I will also say given the limited options for Lemieux at 160 and the fact he is probably having big issues making that weight he may be going north to 168 next. Unless of course Golden Boy decides to match him with Canelo next at 160. I think Lemiuex would remain and drain himself again for that fight (who is anyone kidding, Golovkin rematch is not happening and his promoter admitted as much to us ringside after the fight). One other note for this card to keep an eye out for the future. Yves Ulysse looked tremendous in thoroughly dominating the previously undefeated and good prospect himself in Zachary Ochoa. Ulysse is well schooled and a very heavy handed fighter who had Ochoa in retreat from the beginning. He possesses a sharp stinging jab and thunder in the right. Peter Nelson from HBO was speaking after the fight about Ulysse and how much he likes him. I have to think we will be seeing him in an HBO co-feature very shortly.


-oubobcat :

Everyone was talking about DL as overweight and out of shape but the man walks around at 185 lbs. He drained himself to make the limit and I am positive that he looked bloated after drinking all the pedialyte and eating all the pasta he missed out on for the 6 weeks. DL was a light heavyweight in that ring. Bring on Canelo for DL next. Canelo gave up his belt to GGG so forget those two fighting.
Lemieux has had issues with the 160 weight before. I think Deep you are right on and that he drained himself to make the weight for this fight and that is part of the reason for how he looked physically on Saturday. I have no doubt he trained hard and was in great shape. He wouldn't have been throwing as much as he was early with so much intent if he were not confident in his conditioning. I will also say given the limited options for Lemieux at 160 and the fact he is probably having big issues making that weight he may be going north to 168 next. Unless of course Golden Boy decides to match him with Canelo next at 160. I think Lemiuex would remain and drain himself again for that fight (who is anyone kidding, Golovkin rematch is not happening and his promoter admitted as much to us ringside after the fight). One other note for this card to keep an eye out for the future. Yves Ulysse looked tremendous in thoroughly dominating the previously undefeated and good prospect himself in Zachary Ochoa. Ulysse is well schooled and a very heavy handed fighter who had Ochoa in retreat from the beginning. He possesses a sharp stinging jab and thunder in the right. Peter Nelson from HBO was speaking after the fight about Ulysse and how much he likes him. I have to think we will be seeing him in an HBO co-feature very shortly.


-stormcentre :

Storm I have to give you, Oubobcat and Hauser credit... I finally saw the fight at 3am on saturday night on my cell phone of all places before I read your comments.... I couldnt help wondering at the time why a guy who has a reputation of being ultra fit and who makes up for being raw by over compensating with sheer perpetual motion and physical exertion (much like Chris Algieri but with thudding power instead of excess lateral movement) looked like he had just attended "The Last Supper" before the fight... I don't mean the meager last supper the 12 deciples had with Jesus....but the last Thanksgiving ?.... ... that robust Fred Flinstone - like girth around Lemieux's waist seemed uncharacteristically full for a relatively young fighter..... Could have been why David was able to advance upon Stevens with wreckless abandon ......But given the fact that Stevens moved less than a punching bag in a mild breeze during the onesided precedings, Im left with the impression that Stevens would have still lost to a semi - starved Lemieux. At least I can say with full confidence that the limited and hyper - predictable Lemieux always fights with a purpose. ...his fighting spirit is always on full display as he usually aims to put a rousing performance. Because of this effort I was nearly going to make an effort to stream the fight when I first heard of it....even after I learned Stevens had switched head trainers (to John David Jackson about a year ago) due to Rozier concentrating his attention on Jacobs) I still wanted to watch the fight....but when I saw the poster used to advertise the fight I decided not to bother.... Stevens face was extremely puffy looking as if he had aged 10 years due to closing the local strip club every night while drinking rot-gut liquor. ....not saying that I know why Stevens was looking so run down, just saying I lost interest and confidence in Stevens' ability to make a decent fight of it because he looked so much older in the photo... To his credit, The listless Stevens did try to make somewhat of an effort to hit Lemieux with his best shot while he went out on his shield like an honest workman but I fear his name is losing value more quickly than Trump's promises. Lemieux on the other hand will gain a few more fans and supporters until he gets out boxed again...(Canelo) But at least he entertains.
I am not entirely sure that Lemieux would beat Stevens if all things were equal, BS. He might. Stevens seems to have slipped more than Lemieux. But it?s hard to tell for sure due to the huge (and grossly unfair) advantage that Lemieux went into the ring with on Saturday night against Curtis. The very fact that Lemieux - himself - felt it was best to fight Stevens;


A) With so many advantages.
B) In such a blatantly disrespectful way to the IBF rules.

Tells you that Lemieux was not confident fighting Stevens on a level playing field. And, that is probably the best gauge we can get as to where each guy?s own confidence in their abilities lies. Lemieux didn?t look for all those advantages because he thought he could easily beat Stevens. Guys look for advantages because the competition makes them feel uncertain about their chances of success; simple. Lemieux is no technician, but he can be exciting to watch. He has had some decent - not brilliant - wins. But for the trained eye it?s pretty easy to see that by/large most of Lemieux?s wins against good contenders and boxers - especially those that can box - are usually achieved by utilizing his superior strength, weight, and size; and Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam is a case in point. Lemieux wouldn?t even be on the (genuine) top level boxing world scene if it were not for Oscar signing him a few years back for the purpose of feeding him to Gennady Golovkin, as a test to define whether GB/Canelo should avoid Triple for a while. And, the above reasons (and more) are why Lemieux was exposed by Gennady Golovkin in ways that displayed David?s true potential. Sure, there?s no shame in losing to Triple. But the fanfare within which Lemieux came into that (Gennady Golovkin) fight was;


A) Not only, hyperbolic, inaccurate, and over the top.
B) But also, accurately representative of how easy it is for some to misread knockout wins, an attacking style, in-built advantages, and excitement; as genuine boxing skills that will carry you far at the championship/elite level.

You see, Triple exposed and pretty much laid the groundwork down for his exposure/beatdown of Lemieux simply with the jab and a little bit of timing and movement. Sure, it didn?t hurt that Gennady Golovkin?s chances that;


A) Triple can hit hard too; taking away the potential for Lemieux to bully his way to victory.
B) Lemieux had to comply with the relevant sanction?s rules/regulations, including those pertaining to weight.

But the fact of the matter was that Lemieux - when faced with someone that was as (at least as) confident/strong as him and chose to box a little - was practically defenseless. From there Lemieux all but gave in once he realized his usual ?bum-rush steamroller? approach was not going to work with Gennady Golovkin and, in order to win, he was going to have to box and/or fight someone else?s style. Furthermore, I will not be surpised to see other competent fighters, especially those at light heavyweight (the weight Lemieux was when he fought Stevens), do the same. In fact, with the caveat on both weight and Lemieux?s compliance of regulations; Canelo would probably handle Lemieux too. I know KB disagrees with me here; but I do also think the Rubio loss speak something of Lemieux. I appreciate fighters can have bad nights out and that sometimes opportunities come to them when they?re not in peak shape. But it wasn?t like Lemieux gave a bad performance and - after 12 hard rounds - got shut out by Rubio. Rubio ended up wiping the floor with Lemieux. Stevens - to a far lesser degree - has some *accountability for last Saturday night?s loss to Lemieux too. I mean, the odds that OBC pitched were accurate in the context of what fighter physically beat the other. But the fact of the matter is that there was more to it than that; hence my cryptive descriptors about the fight in post # 3 here . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168202-Boxing-Odds-For-This-Weekend&p=110247&viewfull=1#post110247

Stevens was so *easily drawn into a shootout early by Lemieux that - even considering all the unfair advantages Lemieux had - it was a little embarrassing for Curtis. Triple has all but destroyed Steven?s boxing career. And, clearly - from the advantages Lemieux sought to bring into the fight last Saturday night with Stevens - Lemieux feels not entirely dissimilarly. It is no secret Lemieux has almost no defence and, at times, lumbering/predictable footwork. So, I would have thought that Curtis may have been interested in seeing how David was moving after round 6 before he took big risks. Perhaps Stevens also knew he didn?t have that much gas too. Who knows? Thing is, Stevens didn?t pull out of the fight (probably needed the cash) and he also knew (from Lemieux?s disregard for the IBF rules - from the fact that the IBF belt was no longer a part of the promotion - and from Lemieux?s last weigh in on Friday) that Lemieux would almost certainly come into the ring as a light middleweight. Additionally, he should have known from all that, that Lemieux was only angling for all those advantages because he was not entirely confident of the outcome if the playing field were level. So, you would think (unless Curtis enjoys being concussed) Stevens may have been interested in seeing how David was moving after round 6, and before he himself took big risks. Nope. So, to some extent you can confidently say that Curtis probably could have fought a smarter fight. OK, to your closing comments about Canelo V Lemieux. Provided the fight was at middleweight and Lemieux was watched closely and contracted tightly so that he couldn?t cheat the system, sport, and Canelo (which I am pretty sure Oscar would ensure provisions were implemented to take care of) I don?t see Lemieux winning. Take away Lemieux?s power and strength and what have you got? Amongst other considerations; an awful lot of counterpunching opportunities. Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-brownsugar :

Absolutely no argument from me bro. I'm simply trying to be less abrasive these days...given the French-Canadian's rabid popularity ....Especially about the Rubio loss. You make a good point...At no point during the Rubio loss was Lemieux getting the better of the gatekeeping gladiator. Rubio was more relaxed, more efficient, more accurate and more effective. ...most of all he was disaffected by Lemieux's bumrushing attack... ..word to the wise, .... If Lemieux hasn't weighed in on the second day as per regulations...... All I can say is, Middleweights...."beware the muffin-top" .....fight Lemieux like you would a cruiserweight.... Great Comments. On a lighter note I hope they fatten up Gamboa with another showcase or two before he's offered up to Lomanchenko. He's going to need it.


-Kid Blast :

I am not entirely sure that Lemieux would beat Stevens if all things were equal, BS. He might. Stevens seems to have slipped more than Lemieux. But it’s hard to tell for sure due to the huge (and grossly unfair) advantage that Lemieux went into the ring with on Saturday night against Curtis. The very fact that Lemieux - himself - felt it was best to fight Stevens;


A) With so many advantages.
B) In such a blatantly disrespectful way to the IBF rules.

Tells you that Lemieux was not confident fighting Stevens on a level playing field. And, that is probably the best gauge we can get as to where each guy’s own confidence in their abilities lies. Lemieux didn’t look for all those advantages because he thought he could easily beat Stevens. Guys look for advantages because the competition makes them feel uncertain about their chances of success; simple. Lemieux is no technician, but he can be exciting to watch. He has had some decent - not brilliant - wins. But for the trained eye it’s pretty easy to see that by/large most of Lemieux’s wins against good contenders and boxers - especially those that can box - are usually achieved by utilizing his superior strength, weight, and size; and Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam is a case in point. Lemieux wouldn’t even be on the (genuine) top level boxing world scene if it were not for Oscar signing him a few years back for the purpose of feeding him to Gennady Golovkin, as a test to define whether GB/Canelo should avoid Triple for a while. And, the above reasons (and more) are why Lemieux was exposed by Gennady Golovkin in ways that displayed David’s true potential. Sure, there’s no shame in losing to Triple. But the fanfare within which Lemieux came into that (Gennady Golovkin) fight was;


A) Not only, hyperbolic, inaccurate, and over the top.
B) But also, accurately representative of how easy it is for some to misread knockout wins, an attacking style, in-built advantages, and excitement; as genuine boxing skills that will carry you far at the championship/elite level.

You see, Triple exposed and pretty much laid the groundwork down for his exposure/beatdown of Lemieux simply with the jab and a little bit of timing and movement. Sure, it didn’t hurt that Gennady Golovkin’s chances that;


A) Triple can hit hard too; taking away the potential for Lemieux to bully his way to victory.
B) Lemieux had to comply with the relevant sanction’s rules/regulations, including those pertaining to weight.

But the fact of the matter was that Lemieux - when faced with someone that was as (at least as) confident/strong as him and chose to box a little - was practically defenseless. From there Lemieux all but gave in once he realized his usual “bum-rush steamroller” approach was not going to work with Gennady Golovkin and, in order to win, he was going to have to box and/or fight someone else’s style. Furthermore, I will not be surpised to see other competent fighters, especially those at light heavyweight (the weight Lemieux was when he fought Stevens), do the same. In fact, with the caveat on both weight and Lemieux’s compliance of regulations; Canelo would probably handle Lemieux too. I know KB disagrees with me here; but I do also think the Rubio loss speak something of Lemieux. I appreciate fighters can have bad nights out and that sometimes opportunities come to them when they’re not in peak shape. But it wasn’t like Lemieux gave a bad performance and - after 12 hard rounds - got shut out by Rubio. Rubio ended up wiping the floor with Lemieux. Stevens - to a far lesser degree - has some *accountability for last Saturday night’s loss to Lemieux too. I mean, the odds that OBC pitched were accurate in the context of what fighter physically beat the other. But the fact of the matter is that there was more to it than that; hence my cryptive descriptors about the fight in post # 3 here . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168202-Boxing-Odds-For-This-Weekend&p=110247&viewfull=1#post110247

Stevens was so *easily drawn into a shootout early by Lemieux that - even considering all the unfair advantages Lemieux had - it was a little embarrassing for Curtis. Triple has all but destroyed Steven’s boxing career. And, clearly - from the advantages Lemieux sought to bring into the fight last Saturday night with Stevens - Lemieux feels not entirely dissimilarly. It is no secret Lemieux has almost no defence and, at times, lumbering/predictable footwork. So, I would have thought that Curtis may have been interested in seeing how David was moving after round 6 before he took big risks. Perhaps Stevens also knew he didn’t have that much gas too. Who knows? Thing is, Stevens didn’t pull out of the fight (probably needed the cash) and he also knew (from Lemieux’s disregard for the IBF rules - from the fact that the IBF belt was no longer a part of the promotion - and from Lemieux’s last weigh in on Friday) that Lemieux would almost certainly come into the ring as a light middleweight. Additionally, he should have known from all that, that Lemieux was only angling for all those advantages because he was not entirely confident of the outcome if the playing field were level. So, you would think (unless Curtis enjoys being concussed) Stevens may have been interested in seeing how David was moving after round 6, and before he himself took big risks. Nope. So, to some extent you can confidently say that Curtis probably could have fought a smarter fight. OK, to your closing comments about Canelo V Lemieux. Provided the fight was at middleweight and Lemieux was watched closely and contracted tightly so that he couldn’t cheat the system, sport, and Canelo (which I am pretty sure Oscar would ensure provisions were implemented to take care of) I don’t see Lemieux winning. Take away Lemieux’s power and strength and what have you got? Amongst other considerations; an awful lot of counterpunching opportunities. Cheers,
Storm. :) :)
"Stevens seems to have slipped more than Lemieux." Oh, DL has slipped? Huh? 37-3 with 33 KOs. Some slippage. The playing field WAS level. If Steven did not want to take advantage iof that, that's his issue. "Take away Lemieux’s power and strength and what have you got" Arghh. That's like saying take away Mike Tyson's hand speed and power, and what have you got. DL uses his strenths to his advantage and has never been called a "cheat" in his career which I have closely followed. Shame on you Storm..........


-Kid Blast :

I am not entirely sure that Lemieux would beat Stevens if all things were equal, BS. He might. Stevens seems to have slipped more than Lemieux. But it?s hard to tell for sure due to the huge (and grossly unfair) advantage that Lemieux went into the ring with on Saturday night against Curtis. The very fact that Lemieux - himself - felt it was best to fight Stevens;


A) With so many advantages.
B) In such a blatantly disrespectful way to the IBF rules.

Tells you that Lemieux was not confident fighting Stevens on a level playing field. And, that is probably the best gauge we can get as to where each guy?s own confidence in their abilities lies. Lemieux didn?t look for all those advantages because he thought he could easily beat Stevens. Guys look for advantages because the competition makes them feel uncertain about their chances of success; simple. Lemieux is no technician, but he can be exciting to watch. He has had some decent - not brilliant - wins. But for the trained eye it?s pretty easy to see that by/large most of Lemieux?s wins against good contenders and boxers - especially those that can box - are usually achieved by utilizing his superior strength, weight, and size; and Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam is a case in point. Lemieux wouldn?t even be on the (genuine) top level boxing world scene if it were not for Oscar signing him a few years back for the purpose of feeding him to Gennady Golovkin, as a test to define whether GB/Canelo should avoid Triple for a while. And, the above reasons (and more) are why Lemieux was exposed by Gennady Golovkin in ways that displayed David?s true potential. Sure, there?s no shame in losing to Triple. But the fanfare within which Lemieux came into that (Gennady Golovkin) fight was;


A) Not only, hyperbolic, inaccurate, and over the top.
B) But also, accurately representative of how easy it is for some to misread knockout wins, an attacking style, in-built advantages, and excitement; as genuine boxing skills that will carry you far at the championship/elite level.

You see, Triple exposed and pretty much laid the groundwork down for his exposure/beatdown of Lemieux simply with the jab and a little bit of timing and movement. Sure, it didn?t hurt that Gennady Golovkin?s chances that;


A) Triple can hit hard too; taking away the potential for Lemieux to bully his way to victory.
B) Lemieux had to comply with the relevant sanction?s rules/regulations, including those pertaining to weight.

But the fact of the matter was that Lemieux - when faced with someone that was as (at least as) confident/strong as him and chose to box a little - was practically defenseless. From there Lemieux all but gave in once he realized his usual ?bum-rush steamroller? approach was not going to work with Gennady Golovkin and, in order to win, he was going to have to box and/or fight someone else?s style. Furthermore, I will not be surpised to see other competent fighters, especially those at light heavyweight (the weight Lemieux was when he fought Stevens), do the same. In fact, with the caveat on both weight and Lemieux?s compliance of regulations; Canelo would probably handle Lemieux too. I know KB disagrees with me here; but I do also think the Rubio loss speak something of Lemieux. I appreciate fighters can have bad nights out and that sometimes opportunities come to them when they?re not in peak shape. But it wasn?t like Lemieux gave a bad performance and - after 12 hard rounds - got shut out by Rubio. Rubio ended up wiping the floor with Lemieux. Stevens - to a far lesser degree - has some *accountability for last Saturday night?s loss to Lemieux too. I mean, the odds that OBC pitched were accurate in the context of what fighter physically beat the other. But the fact of the matter is that there was more to it than that; hence my cryptive descriptors about the fight in post # 3 here . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168202-Boxing-Odds-For-This-Weekend&p=110247&viewfull=1#post110247

Stevens was so *easily drawn into a shootout early by Lemieux that - even considering all the unfair advantages Lemieux had - it was a little embarrassing for Curtis. Triple has all but destroyed Steven?s boxing career. And, clearly - from the advantages Lemieux sought to bring into the fight last Saturday night with Stevens - Lemieux feels not entirely dissimilarly. It is no secret Lemieux has almost no defence and, at times, lumbering/predictable footwork. So, I would have thought that Curtis may have been interested in seeing how David was moving after round 6 before he took big risks. Perhaps Stevens also knew he didn?t have that much gas too. Who knows? Thing is, Stevens didn?t pull out of the fight (probably needed the cash) and he also knew (from Lemieux?s disregard for the IBF rules - from the fact that the IBF belt was no longer a part of the promotion - and from Lemieux?s last weigh in on Friday) that Lemieux would almost certainly come into the ring as a light middleweight. Additionally, he should have known from all that, that Lemieux was only angling for all those advantages because he was not entirely confident of the outcome if the playing field were level. So, you would think (unless Curtis enjoys being concussed) Stevens may have been interested in seeing how David was moving after round 6, and before he himself took big risks. Nope. So, to some extent you can confidently say that Curtis probably could have fought a smarter fight. OK, to your closing comments about Canelo V Lemieux. Provided the fight was at middleweight and Lemieux was watched closely and contracted tightly so that he couldn?t cheat the system, sport, and Canelo (which I am pretty sure Oscar would ensure provisions were implemented to take care of) I don?t see Lemieux winning. Take away Lemieux?s power and strength and what have you got? Amongst other considerations; an awful lot of counterpunching opportunities. Cheers,
Storm. :) :)
"Stevens seems to have slipped more than Lemieux." Oh, DL has slipped? Huh? 37-3 with 33 KOs. Some slippage. The playing field WAS level. If Steven did not want to take advantage iof that, that's his issue. "Take away Lemieux?s power and strength and what have you got" Arghh. That's like saying take away Mike Tyson's hand speed and power, and what have you got. DL uses his strenths to his advantage and has never been called a "cheat" in his career which I have closely followed. Shame on you Storm..........


-stormcentre :

"Stevens seems to have slipped more than Lemieux." Oh, DL has slipped? Huh? 37-3 with 33 KOs. Some slippage. The playing field WAS level. If Steven did not want to take advantage iof that, that's his issue. "Take away Lemieux?s power and strength and what have you got" Arghh. That's like saying take away Mike Tyson's hand speed and power, and what have you got. DL uses his strenths to his advantage and has never been called a "cheat" in his career which I have closely followed. Shame on you Storm..........
Ahhh .. .. KB. There's so much I could do with an inaccurate, emotional, and reckless response like that. With so much fun on offer I will have to have a think about the best way to have fun with it before officially responding. I understand you jumped on the the Lemieux bandwagon before realizing he cheated the IBF rules and Stevens, but . . . . In the meantime may I remind of (out of the few I could pick) the last time you were in a slightly similar position; with Danny Green & Anthony Mundine. I'll be back soon. Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-stormcentre :

"Stevens seems to have slipped more than Lemieux." Oh, DL has slipped? Huh? 37-3 with 33 KOs. Some slippage. The playing field WAS level. If Steven did not want to take advantage iof that, that's his issue. "Take away Lemieux?s power and strength and what have you got" Arghh. That's like saying take away Mike Tyson's hand speed and power, and what have you got. DL uses his strenths to his advantage and has never been called a "cheat" in his career which I have closely followed. Shame on you Storm..........
Ahhh .. .. KB. There's so much I could do with an inaccurate, emotional, and reckless response like that. With so much fun on offer I will have to have a think about the best way to have fun with it before officially responding. I understand you jumped on the the Lemieux bandwagon before realizing he cheated the IBF rules and Stevens, but . . . . In the meantime may I remind of (out of the few I could pick) the last time you were in a slightly similar position; with Danny Green & Anthony Mundine. I'll be back soon. Cheers,
Storm. :) :)
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272164912-Does-Floyd-Have-The-Right-To-Tell-3G-To-Step-Up-The-Definitive-Analysis-amp-Final-Word-On-Whom-Cherry-Picks-amp-Mayweather-Detracts-The-Most&p=110204&viewfull=1#post110204


-Kid Blast :

OMG. What's in store for me?


-Kid Blast :

OMG. What's in store for me?


-stormcentre :

OMG. What's in store for me?





Tell you what I will do . . . Since I am (inherently) a nice
Storm and since I want to give you the opportunity to save what I may post in response to your "interesting" posts #14 and #15 . . . . I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts. You're call. Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-Kid Blast :

Why do you insist on being wrong on this one? As long as a fighter (warrior in this case) DL complies with the rules and is not fined, then it is what it is. If DL rehydrates to 210 pounds, that's just fine given the way the weigh-in is set up. Same-day weigh-ins would mitigate this, but until that becomes mandatory, smart (not cheating) fighters and their teams will do what they can to get every edge. It's not like DL is doing PEDs or drinking Ariza Shakes. Perhaps if you agree, I'll refrain form going for the close, as I have already stunned you with this zinger and am now ready for the final stalk see below). Your call


-Kid Blast :

Why do you insist on being wrong on this one? As long as a fighter (warrior in this case) DL complies with the rules and is not fined, then it is what it is. If DL rehydrates to 210 pounds, that's just fine given the way the weigh-in is set up. Same-day weigh-ins would mitigate this, but until that becomes mandatory, smart (not cheating) fighters and their teams will do what they can to get every edge. It's not like DL is doing PEDs or drinking Ariza Shakes. Perhaps if you agree, I'll refrain from going for the close, as I have already stunned you with this zinger and am now ready for the final stalk see below) if necessary. Your call


-stormcentre :

Why do you insist on being wrong on this one? As long as a fighter (warrior in this case) DL complies with the rules and is not fined, then it is what it is. If DL rehydrates to 210 pounds, that's just fine given the way the weigh-in is set up. Same-day weigh-ins would mitigate this, but until that becomes mandatory, smart (not cheating) fighters and their teams will do what they can to get every edge. It's not like DL is doing PEDs or drinking Ariza Shakes. Perhaps if you agree, I'll refrain form going for the close, as I have already stunned you with this zinger and am now ready for the final stalk see below). Your call
My call eh? Oh, this is going to be fun. It's been a while since I have had some fresh meat. I love it !!!!!! There's going to be some Philthy Chit going down now. I always love it when guys (especially those that have barely had any real/meaningful boxing experience) try and sell their emotionally invested arguments, attacks, and assertions, to me in ways where they;


A) Not only, overlook the opportunities I have thoughtfully provided to them beforehand to save their embarrassment; as they continue to rush in and make the same mistakes that put them in the position they're hopelessly defending.
B) But also, as they do it all, instead insist on continually raising the stakes.

So, thanks for that. However, please remember when it all comes crashing down . . . I did offer clemency up front and the opportunity for you to redress your claims. Truth be told, you're response in post# 20 is pretty much what I expected it would be.

From how you have approached the Green V Mundine, this Lemieux matter, and some others, I was pretty sure (after my offer for you to slow down was pushed aside) you would (still) rush in without too much thought - which coincidently also happens to be the same approach/mistake that fighters whom;


A) We?re currently talking about.
B) You seem to appreciate blindly supporting without checking all the facts.
C) Are overly reliant upon strength and power.

Also do.

Coincidence? However, your response nonetheless now opens the door for me to be justified in responding in full, and highlighting all your inaccuracies (pertaining to your both posts #14 & #20) in a manner that is - should I choose to do so - just as without regard to clemency, as your own responses dismiss the generous clemency-offer to instead show preference for
~
hypocrisy and
~
conflict with themselves. Nevertheless, before I do that and address both your posts #14 & #20 (in full and in another post) . . . . . For now, what I will do is simply substantiate my above
~
paragraph's claims within only the context of your last post #20, and say . . . .

""Your last post was interesting but I am not sure that I would be so confident of such a view as to furnish it with your closing assumptions and claims, including those that (prematurely/wrongly) assume both, victory and that I am stunned.""

After all, if the matter at hand really was as conveniently simplistic as, within post #20, you said/claimed . . . .

?"As long as a fighter (warrior in this case) DL complies with the rules and is not fined, then it is what it is. If DL rehydrates to 210 pounds, that's just fine given the way the weigh-in is set up. Same-day weigh-ins would mitigate this, but until that becomes mandatory, smart (not cheating) fighters and their teams will do what they can to get every edge"?.

Which, (effectively/questionably) asserted that Lemieux was compliant and/or not cheating the system . . . . Then, perhaps that would be no problem. But, the fact of the matter is that it?s not quite as you claim KB. Furthermore, the fact you have - all in one questionable post (#20; that, itself, follows on from a previously questionable one {post #14}) - claimed that I insist on being wrong; whilst at the same time you're persisting with such hypocritical fallacies . . . . . Pretty much substantiates what I am saying about both, Lemieux and also your comments on this (and other) matter(s). And, here?s why . . . . By your own reasoning (post #20) you effectively state that . . . .

" "*As long as Lemieux complies with the rules (and is not fined) then everything (even if Lemieux rehydrates to 210 pounds) is just fine - even considering how the weigh-in was set up." "

Remarkably though KB, within your above claims you somehow conveniently (and also spectacularly - all as you circumvent any/all direct reference to the IBF and their rules that Lemieux actually flouted) overlook obvious facts that make an absolute mockery of your very own assertions, claims, and stance, on this matter. Them being;


A) That the fight was originally sanctioned by the IBF and intended to be for an IBF title; and as such compliance with their rules was required.
B) It appears that it was not until it became obvious that Lemieux was not going to comply with IBF rules - including those pertaining to both weight and/or all weigh ins - that the IBF then ceased to become involved in the fight.
C) Due to the above and the reactive (rather than proactive) way that Lemieux managed (engineered?) the situation, including how there was no meaningful forewarning of his intentions to not comply with IBF?s weight and weigh in requirements;


(i) Not only, did Lemieux fail to comply with the IBF?s rules; which means your above-mentioned claims have breached your own *caveats (that you have underpinned them with) and they therefore actually invalidate your own stance and argument - just as much as in doing so they validate mine.
(ii) But also, Lemieux?s compliancy failures unfolded (or, perhaps better put, were engineered?) in such a way where it was not easy and/or immediately possible for the IBF to actually apply any punitive response for Lemieux?s compliancy failures; which I have no doubt is why you have rested part of your post #20?s shortsighted argument . . .

"?As long as a fighter (warrior in this case) DL complies with the rules and is not fined . . . . ?"

(Which questionably seeks to suggest that Lemieux was complaint/fair) on the absence of any fine or other punitive action.


D) Further to point
C (ii); if an employee, and sometimes even an executive, breaches a code of conduct rule at work - but then immediately resigns, it (if not prevents, then) complicates any punitive actions that might have otherwise easily applied. As the employee is no longer bound by the employer and therefore the worst that the employer could have otherwise punatively have done to them (sack them) can not now happen. This is effectively the way Lemieux?s compliancy failures manifested themselves, unfolded, and/or were designed.

So . . . . From the above points we see that (contrary to your own questionable interpretations {post # 20} of your own stance {post # 14 and post # 20} on this matter - and contrary to your own *caveats {post # 20}) . . . . . It actually appears that your very own *caveats/arguments actually invalidate your own questionable assertions (post # 20) that supposedly rest upon them. As, Lemieux;


A) Didn?t actually comply with the IBF rules.

Effectively constituting a point that both, inexplicably aligns with your own *caveats that define the condition for Lemiuex
not being compliant - whilst at the same time also exposing a serious conflict within your own stance on the same matter that somehow bizarrely (and wrongly) suggests and assumes that Lemieux actually
has been compliant.


B) Appears to have - by way of communication on both, the day of the fight and the same day weigh in itself - done very little to avoid the (advantageous) situation (that he unfairly presented himself with); as it was not until it became obvious (by way of Lemieux's absence from the same day weigh in) that Lemieux was not going to comply with the IBF's rules - including those pertaining to both weight and/or all weigh ins - that the IBF then ceased to become involved in the fight.

Therefore, a good question might be; why did Lemieux opt to contest the IBF belt and also agree to the IBF's rules - if indeed he really had no intention of complying with the rules; especially those rules that seek to ensure the contest is fair, safe, and at the correct weight banding? And I note that - whilst you have passionately written about concussion and it's devastating effects here within this very forum - none of your arguments on this matter (including those that prematurely celebrate victory in a similar fashion to how they might also questionably condone/overlook Lemieux's cheating) seem to meaningfully address this aspect of Lemiuex's (dangerous) cheating.


C) Abjectly failed (to such an extent that it {particularly whilst this failure is clearly in conjunction with points "B" and "C"} simply defies the imagination to think it was not planned and/or deliberate) to attend all the agreed weigh ins; as Lemieux was absent for the most important weigh in of them all - the one on the same (Satur)day weigh in as the actual fight itself.

Please note that this effectively constitutes (yet) another point that aligns with your own *caveats that define the condition for Lemiuex
not being compliant - whilst at the same time also exposing (yet) another serious conflict within your own overall stance on the same matter that somehow bizarrely assumes Lemieux
has been compliant and fair.

Not in the least as your post #20 claims that . . .

""If DL rehydrates to 210 pounds, that's just fine given the way the weigh-in is set up. Same-day weigh-ins would mitigate this, but until that becomes mandatory"".

Yet, in actuality, and according to the IBF rules, (what you may have overlooked is that) there actually "was" a same day weigh in (as the fight itself) and that weigh in itself "was" also mandatory. Meaning that the rules that you yourself state "would" define a situation where Lemieux was not compliant were actually present. So, by your very own definition (and contrary to your recent arguments on this matter) Lemieux
had cheated and he
was not compliant in relation to rules that you assumed were not present - when they actually were present.

All that really happened (aside from the fact that you had already invested in Lemieux before I highlighted how his success against Stevens was achieved) was that Lemieux simply chose not to comply with the relevant rules; no doubt due to the fact that doing so minimized the advantages he had planned for himself. Furthermore, your insistence on (being wrong?) overlooking these considerations/facts seems to be underpinning your (selective) stance on both, the matter and the highly questionable claim that Lemieux is compliant and fair.


D) Abjectly failed to provide adequate forewarning of his intention to not attend the aforementioned and mandatory same day weigh in before even Friday's weigh in; despite the fact that the organisations pertaining to the other "fall back position belts" (that are clearly less concerned about safety and fairness) that Lemieux quickly diverted to once he decided to be non-compliant with the IBF's rules/regulations, would have required (at least) 2 week's prior communication with the relevant alphabet sanctions to set everything up.
E) All as the above happened; quite possibly enjoyed re-hydrating (in a much more safe/comfortable fashion than Stevens {whom was undoubtedly [due to the above points] left still thinking that Lemieux was, at least, intending to comply with the IBF's rules/regulations}) up to to a weight that was possibly outside of (even) the super middleweight limit; itself one division greater than where the fight was agreed to be contested.

Which effectively constitutes (yet) another point that conflicts with your own *caveats due to the fact that;
(i) Not only, did Lemieux's selfishly motivated, superior and far safer (than Stevens was afforded) re-hydration occur right off the back of all the previously mentioned breaches of both, your own shortsighted *caveats and also the IBF rules.
(ii) But also, Lemieux's selfishly motivated, superior and far safer (than Stevens was afforded) re-hydration itself constitutes (yet) another point that seems directly at odds with your own *caveats that themselves state that Lemiuex
is being compliant if he balloons up in weight before the fight
but only provided his re-hydration
doesn't involve a conflict with
mandatory and/or same day weigh ins and/or other rules - whilst at the same time all your arguments about the
LemieuxCheat matter that suggest Lemieux is innocent also
FAIL to adequately explain how Lemieux's management of his contracted obligations and weight, both prior to and during the fight
has actually been compliant and fair within the context of the IBF rules.



So, all in all, if we look at your own *caveats for upholding your stance on this matter, which can be (bizarrely) summarized as . . . .

"?So long as Lemieux complied with the rules and the way the weigh ins are set up, he can rehydrate to whatever weight he wants?".

What we see is that they are in dire need of address. Not in the least as Lemieux failed to comply with both the IBF rules and also the way their (same day) weigh ins were set up. Which then;


A) According to your very own *caveats; within your post #20.
B) Contrary to and in direct conflict with your very own misguided assertions (within your above posts #14 & #20) that strangely rest upon the aforementioned *caveats - whilst at the same time pretending that there is no inconsistency in doing so.

Means . . . . That Lemieux was actually
not complaint.




Not only that . . . But (such was the design and intention with respect to deception and advantage seeking, that) when David Lemiuex cheated the system, IBF rules, and Stevens - at such times as when it became obvious that he intentionally did so - at that point both he and his team (and his promoter?) simply implemented their ready made "Plan B". And, in doing so Lemieux and Co simply diverted their attention to other belts/titles that were no doubt sitting in waiting - just as much as their associated sanctions both, were more relaxed in the areas of safety/weight and welcomed Golden Boy's sanction fees into their treasury with open (and un-scrutinizing) arms. And they did so in such a way that;


A) Not only, was it relatively easy for those without significant experience in the industry to know what really happened; whether or not they overlooked the real issues due to the fact they had previously jumped on the Lemieux bandwagon before the truth came out.
B) But also, it effectively defeated any punitive/other responses and actions that the IBF may have otherwise implemented; leaving a smell that has asset protection and Golden Boy Promotions (Eric Morales {PED and VADA side step} and Saul Alvarez {catch-weights}) written all over it.

OK, that closes my response to (only) your post #20. As such it does not form the entirety of my response to all your assertions/oversights within post #14 - as it is simply a brief address of your last post?s (# 20) many questionable claims. With respect to (your preferences given to dismissing both, my earlier offers of clemency and my suggestion that you might want to consider revising your claims/approach; and) my address of your unfortunate post #14's claims . . . . . That will;


A) Come a little later.
B) Potentially involve me recalling the following (and possibly other) historical witnesses;


B1)[QUOTE=Kid Blast;108148] [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272167146-The-Danny-Green-%96-Anthony-Mundine-Rematch-Genuine-or-Gimmick&p=108148&viewfull=1#post108148 -------------------------- start KB authored post highlighting KB?s previous oversights with respect to (Otis Griffin and other) boxers reliant upon power/strength and releasing questionable assertions/claims about such --------------------------
Otis Griffin was no slouch at 18-1 coming in Fighting Markus Beyer twice is hardly what I would call having it easy. Same with Eric Luca In short, Danny has fought at a reasonably high level of opposition. -------------------------- end KB authored post highlighting KB?s previous oversights with respect to (Otis Griffin and other) boxers upon power/strength and releasing questionable assertions/claims about such --------------------------

[QUOTE=stormcentre;108153] [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272167146-The-Danny-Green-%96-Anthony-Mundine-Rematch-Genuine-or-Gimmick&p=108153&viewfull=1#post108153 -------------------------- start Stormcentre authored post/response excerpt in response to and highlighting KB?s previous oversights with respect to (Otis Griffin and other) boxers reliant upon power/strength and releasing assertions/claims about such --------------------------
-
As for your comments . . . . .

""Otis Griffin was no slouch at 18-1 coming in.""

On Otis Griffin, well . . . . other than to say;


A) Dear me, what were you thinking?
B) ""You may want to check whom Griffin fought and the caliber of opposition that it constituted, prior to facing Green and see how that sits with your closing paragraph"".
C) From my above post #16; ""As, (with almost all Green's fights) the fight has been put together with the intention of heavily stacking the cards in Green's favor"."

I will leave that one there. -------------------------- start Stormcentre authored post/response excerpt in response to and highlighting KB?s previous oversights with respect to (Otis Griffin and other) boxers reliant upon power/strength and releasing assertions/claims about such -------------------------- All the best. Cheers,
Storm.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
B2)[QUOTE=Kid Blast;108146] [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272167146-The-Danny-Green-%96-Anthony-Mundine-Rematch-Genuine-or-Gimmick&p=108146&viewfull=1#post108146 Storm, it's amazing and inexplicable that an otherwise very smart and objective person like you seems to be sluuuurping up to Chock. Look at his last fight. He was slaughtered in the second round but managed to somehow survive. Believe me, if Charles ?The Future? Hatley could do this to him, can you imagine what Green whom you admit hits like a mule will do to him. See for yourself.
->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAZlOoiVu28 Both are in it for the money and the entire thing might be a scam/sham, but I sense a quick kill, grab the money, and run.
Green by quick kill. Your move.[/QUOTE]
B3)[QUOTE=Kid Blast;110307] [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110307&viewfull=1#post110307 "Stevens seems to have slipped more than Lemieux." Oh, DL has slipped? Huh? 37-3 with 33 KOs. Some slippage.
The playing field WAS level. If Steven did not want to take advantage iof that, that's his issue.
"Take away Lemieux?s power and strength and what have you got" Arghh. That's like saying take away Mike Tyson's hand speed and power, and what have you got. DL uses his strenths to his advantage and has never been called a "cheat" in his career which I have closely followed. Shame on you Storm..........[/QUOTE]
B4)[QUOTE=Kid Blast;108152] KB uncertain about the principles of his own argument and whom is actually agreeing with and/or schooling whom. [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272167146-The-Danny-Green-%96-Anthony-Mundine-Rematch-Genuine-or-Gimmick&p=108152&viewfull=1#post108152 Storm,
Here is an interview with Darnell Boone in which he states that the hardest puncher he has ever been in the ring with is Danny Green.
->http://ringsidereport.com/?p=51902 [QUOTE=stormcentre;108154] [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272167146-The-Danny-Green-%96-Anthony-Mundine-Rematch-Genuine-or-Gimmick&p=108154&viewfull=1#post108154
Yes, I know as I initially suggested the article to you. Green's punching power is not in question; the guy has and/or had a serious right hand. Cheers,
Storm.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
B5) [QUOTE=Kid Blast;110326] [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110326&viewfull=1#post110326 Why do you insist on being wrong on this one?
As long as a fighter (warrior in this case) DL complies with the rules and is not fined, then it is what it is.
If DL rehydrates to 210 pounds, that's just fine given the way the weigh-in is set up.
Same-day weigh-ins would mitigate this, but until that becomes mandatory, smart (not cheating) fighters and their teams will do what they can to get every edge. It's not like DL is doing PEDs or drinking Ariza Shakes. Perhaps if you agree, I'll refrain form going for the close, as I have already stunned you with this zinger and am now ready for the final stalk see below). Your call[/QUOTE]
B6) [QUOTE=Kid Blast;108117] [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272167146-The-Danny-Green-%96-Anthony-Mundine-Rematch-Genuine-or-Gimmick&p=108117&viewfull=1#post108117
Yes, maybe so, but Danny will KO Chock with his first flush shot because Danny can still hit like a mule but Mundine no longer has any chin or speed (which was his best asset). Green by clean KO early.[/QUOTE]

And, from the above points "
B1 -
B6" (and I will expand on this more later in upcoming posts), please kindly note;


A) The similarity between Lemieux and Green's style/reliance upon strength and power.
B) How both fighters appear to be partial to unfair advantages.
C) How both fighters have a reasonably strong following, including those that;


(i) May jump on bandwagons early.
(ii) Don't always have the greatest insight into boxing.
(iii) Often dismiss the importance of scrutiny when it may be more applicable than emotion.
(iv) May be easily swayed by KO wins, no matter how they're achieved.


D) Kid Blast's association with the above points; including point "C" and how it applies to fighters (such as Green and Lemieux) that rely upon questionably achieved advantages, strength, and power. In fact, the association appears to exist to such an extent that point "C's" relationship to KB (particularly within the context of Green and Lemieux, and their similar styles and reliance upon strength/power and advantages) can itself be seen to possibly be a contributing factor that perhaps explains the clouded emotional arguments and assertions that conflict with their own *caveats in such ways that - as we have seen here - it simply becomes unclear (to even KB himself) whether or not the *caveats to his own arguments are in conflict with the assertions themselves that he has vehemently rested upon them and pretentiously wheeled out.



OK, with that diagnosis completed . . . .

You may have noticed I have not responded to your post #20's comments . . .

[QUOTE=Kid Blast;110326]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=110326
It's not like DL is doing PEDs or drinking Ariza Shakes. Perhaps if you agree, I'll refrain form going for the close, as
I have already stunned you with this zinger and am now ready for the final stalk see below.[/QUOTE]

About, both;


A) Whether or not Lemieux does use PEDs.
B) Your other closing (and clearly misguided) comments that - amongst several things - reveal your own (overstated) interpretation about the self-perceived impact that your own (above discussed, questionable, and clearly flawed assertions/caveats, and other) assumptions have supposedly had.



There is good reason for my absence of response in this respect. However, for now all I will (respectively) say to it, is;


A) Lemieux and PEDs: Lemieux failing to weigh in - in combination with the other aforementioned factors pertaining to the IBF's departure (as that pertains to the promotion) - does not in any way lend itself to suggesting that Lemieux
has not taken any banned substances and/or PEDs; and whilst you have suggested/inferred that Lemieux
is clean - I note that (amongst the already mentioned oversights within your posts) you
have not yet offered anything to substantiate the view that Lemieux actually
is clean.. Even though it is commonly known that fighters losing/gaining significant quantities of weight (especially before fights) is a situation that is often synonomous with banned substances.
B) StormCentre supposedly is "stunned" by the advancement of your arguments/factoids: Please read this post (particularly the comments about your own post #20's *caveats and how they make a mockery of your very own assertions that bizarrely/strangely seem to somehow behave as if they are actually supported by them; when that is not the case. From there please note that, so far, almost all your arguments about how fair/reasonable Lemieux is, fail to directly/meaningfully address his compliance failures and actions within the context of the IBF rules/regulations that he flouted.

Perhaps it's now (before I address your post #14) time to rethink your earlier approach and claims; is it not? It's probably more fun for me if you don't. I'm just (being a nice/fair
Storm, and) thinking of your reputation. I mean . . . . . How many inconsistencies and oversights (such as those I have already/easily exposed here) can it handle; before it starts to look like either, a disoriented and wanton Donkey roaming aimlessly about in the bush, or . . . . Something that a Lion savaged?







Your call. :) Still love you though. Cheers,
Storm. :) :)
PS: Hey, remember at the start of the post when I mentioned having fun and "Philthy Chit"? Well . . . . .


-stormcentre :

Why do you insist on being wrong on this one? As long as a fighter (warrior in this case) DL complies with the rules and is not fined, then it is what it is. If DL rehydrates to 210 pounds, that's just fine given the way the weigh-in is set up. Same-day weigh-ins would mitigate this, but until that becomes mandatory, smart (not cheating) fighters and their teams will do what they can to get every edge. It's not like DL is doing PEDs or drinking Ariza Shakes. Perhaps if you agree, I'll refrain form going for the close, as I have already stunned you with this zinger and am now ready for the final stalk see below). Your call
My call eh? Oh, this is going to be fun. It's been a while since I have had some fresh meat. I love it !!!!!! There's going to be some Philthy Chit going down now. I always love it when guys (especially those that have barely had any real/meaningful boxing experience) try and sell their emotionally invested arguments, attacks, and assertions, to me in ways where they;


A) Not only, overlook the opportunities I have thoughtfully provided to them beforehand to save their embarrassment; as they continue to rush in and make the same mistakes that put them in the position they're hopelessly defending.
B) But also, as they do it all, instead insist on continually raising the stakes.

So, thanks for that. However, please remember when it all comes crashing down . . . I did offer clemency up front and the opportunity for you to redress your claims. Truth be told, you're response in post# 20 is pretty much what I expected it would be.

From how you have approached the Green V Mundine, this Lemieux matter, and some others, I was pretty sure (after my offer for you to slow down was pushed aside) you would (still) rush in without too much thought - which coincidently also happens to be the same approach/mistake that fighters whom;


A) We?re currently talking about.
B) You seem to appreciate blindly supporting without checking all the facts.
C) Are overly reliant upon strength and power.

Also do.

Coincidence? However, your response nonetheless now opens the door for me to be justified in responding in full, and highlighting all your inaccuracies (pertaining to your both posts #14 & #20) in a manner that is - should I choose to do so - just as without regard to clemency, as your own responses dismiss the generous clemency-offer to instead show preference for
~
hypocrisy and
~
conflict with themselves. Nevertheless, before I do that and address both your posts #14 & #20 (in full and in another post) . . . . . For now, what I will do is simply substantiate my above
~
paragraph's claims within only the context of your last post #20, and say . . . .

""Your last post was interesting but I am not sure that I would be so confident of such a view as to furnish it with your closing assumptions and claims, including those that (prematurely/wrongly) assume both, victory and that I am stunned.""

After all, if the matter at hand really was as conveniently simplistic as, within post #20, you said/claimed . . . .

?"As long as a fighter (warrior in this case) DL complies with the rules and is not fined, then it is what it is. If DL rehydrates to 210 pounds, that's just fine given the way the weigh-in is set up. Same-day weigh-ins would mitigate this, but until that becomes mandatory, smart (not cheating) fighters and their teams will do what they can to get every edge"?.

Which, (effectively/questionably) asserted that Lemieux was compliant and/or not cheating the system . . . . Then, perhaps that would be no problem. But, the fact of the matter is that it?s not quite as you claim KB. Furthermore, the fact you have - all in one questionable post (#20; that, itself, follows on from a previously questionable one {post #14}) - claimed that I insist on being wrong; whilst at the same time you're persisting with such hypocritical fallacies . . . . . Pretty much substantiates what I am saying about both, Lemieux and also your comments on this (and other) matter(s). And, here?s why . . . . By your own reasoning (post #20) you effectively state that . . . .

" "*As long as Lemieux complies with the rules (and is not fined) then everything (even if Lemieux rehydrates to 210 pounds) is just fine - even considering how the weigh-in was set up." "

Remarkably though KB, within your above claims you somehow conveniently (and also spectacularly - all as you circumvent any/all direct reference to the IBF and their rules that Lemieux actually flouted) overlook obvious facts that make an absolute mockery of your very own assertions, claims, and stance, on this matter. Them being;


A) That the fight was originally sanctioned by the IBF and intended to be for an IBF title; and as such compliance with their rules was required.
B) It appears that it was not until it became obvious that Lemieux was not going to comply with IBF rules - including those pertaining to both weight and/or all weigh ins - that the IBF then ceased to become involved in the fight.
C) Due to the above and the reactive (rather than proactive) way that Lemieux managed (engineered?) the situation, including how there was no meaningful forewarning of his intentions to not comply with IBF?s weight and weigh in requirements;


(i) Not only, did Lemieux fail to comply with the IBF?s rules; which means your above-mentioned claims have breached your own *caveats (that you have underpinned them with) and they therefore actually invalidate your own stance and argument - just as much as in doing so they validate mine.
(ii) But also, Lemieux?s compliancy failures unfolded (or, perhaps better put, were engineered?) in such a way where it was not easy and/or immediately possible for the IBF to actually apply any punitive response for Lemieux?s compliancy failures; which I have no doubt is why you have rested part of your post #20?s shortsighted argument . . .

"?As long as a fighter (warrior in this case) DL complies with the rules and is not fined . . . . ?"

(Which questionably seeks to suggest that Lemieux was complaint/fair) on the absence of any fine or other punitive action.


D) Further to point
C (ii); if an employee, and sometimes even an executive, breaches a code of conduct rule at work - but then immediately resigns, it (if not prevents, then) complicates any punitive actions that might have otherwise easily applied. As the employee is no longer bound by the employer and therefore the worst that the employer could have otherwise punatively have done to them (sack them) can not now happen. This is effectively the way Lemieux?s compliancy failures manifested themselves, unfolded, and/or were designed.

So . . . . From the above points we see that (contrary to your own questionable interpretations {post # 20} of your own stance {post # 14 and post # 20} on this matter - and contrary to your own *caveats {post # 20}) . . . . . It actually appears that your very own *caveats/arguments actually invalidate your own questionable assertions (post # 20) that supposedly rest upon them. As, Lemieux;


A) Didn?t actually comply with the IBF rules.

Effectively constituting a point that both, inexplicably aligns with your own *caveats that define the condition for Lemiuex
not being compliant - whilst at the same time also exposing a serious conflict within your own stance on the same matter that somehow bizarrely (and wrongly) suggests and assumes that Lemieux actually
has been compliant.


B) Appears to have - by way of communication on both, the day of the fight and the same day weigh in itself - done very little to avoid the (advantageous) situation (that he unfairly presented himself with); as it was not until it became obvious (by way of Lemieux's absence from the same day weigh in) that Lemieux was not going to comply with the IBF's rules - including those pertaining to both weight and/or all weigh ins - that the IBF then ceased to become involved in the fight.

Therefore, a good question might be; why did Lemieux opt to contest the IBF belt and also agree to the IBF's rules - if indeed he really had no intention of complying with the rules; especially those rules that seek to ensure the contest is fair, safe, and at the correct weight banding? And I note that - whilst you have passionately written about concussion and it's devastating effects here within this very forum - none of your arguments on this matter (including those that prematurely celebrate victory in a similar fashion to how they might also questionably condone/overlook Lemieux's cheating) seem to meaningfully address this aspect of Lemiuex's (dangerous) cheating.


C) Abjectly failed (to such an extent that it {particularly whilst this failure is clearly in conjunction with points "B" and "C"} simply defies the imagination to think it was not planned and/or deliberate) to attend all the agreed weigh ins; as Lemieux was absent for the most important weigh in of them all - the one on the same (Satur)day weigh in as the actual fight itself.

Please note that this effectively constitutes (yet) another point that aligns with your own *caveats that define the condition for Lemiuex
not being compliant - whilst at the same time also exposing (yet) another serious conflict within your own overall stance on the same matter that somehow bizarrely assumes Lemieux
has been compliant and fair.

Not in the least as your post #20 claims that . . .

""If DL rehydrates to 210 pounds, that's just fine given the way the weigh-in is set up. Same-day weigh-ins would mitigate this, but until that becomes mandatory"".

Yet, in actuality, and according to the IBF rules, (what you may have overlooked is that) there actually "was" a same day weigh in (as the fight itself) and that weigh in itself "was" also mandatory. Meaning that the rules that you yourself state "would" define a situation where Lemieux was not compliant were actually present. So, by your very own definition (and contrary to your recent arguments on this matter) Lemieux
had cheated and he
was not compliant in relation to rules that you assumed were not present - when they actually were present.

All that really happened (aside from the fact that you had already invested in Lemieux before I highlighted how his success against Stevens was achieved) was that Lemieux simply chose not to comply with the relevant rules; no doubt due to the fact that doing so minimized the advantages he had planned for himself. Furthermore, your insistence on (being wrong?) overlooking these considerations/facts seems to be underpinning your (selective) stance on both, the matter and the highly questionable claim that Lemieux is compliant and fair.


D) Abjectly failed to provide adequate forewarning of his intention to not attend the aforementioned and mandatory same day weigh in before even Friday's weigh in; despite the fact that the organisations pertaining to the other "fall back position belts" (that are clearly less concerned about safety and fairness) that Lemieux quickly diverted to once he decided to be non-compliant with the IBF's rules/regulations, would have required (at least) 2 week's prior communication with the relevant alphabet sanctions to set everything up.
E) All as the above happened; quite possibly enjoyed re-hydrating (in a much more safe/comfortable fashion than Stevens {whom was undoubtedly [due to the above points] left still thinking that Lemieux was, at least, intending to comply with the IBF's rules/regulations}) up to to a weight that was possibly outside of (even) the super middleweight limit; itself one division greater than where the fight was agreed to be contested.

Which effectively constitutes (yet) another point that conflicts with your own *caveats due to the fact that;
(i) Not only, did Lemieux's selfishly motivated, superior and far safer (than Stevens was afforded) re-hydration occur right off the back of all the previously mentioned breaches of both, your own shortsighted *caveats and also the IBF rules.
(ii) But also, Lemieux's selfishly motivated, superior and far safer (than Stevens was afforded) re-hydration itself constitutes (yet) another point that seems directly at odds with your own *caveats that themselves state that Lemiuex
is being compliant if he balloons up in weight before the fight
but only provided his re-hydration
doesn't involve a conflict with
mandatory and/or same day weigh ins and/or other rules - whilst at the same time all your arguments about the
LemieuxCheat matter that suggest Lemieux is innocent also
FAIL to adequately explain how Lemieux's management of his contracted obligations and weight, both prior to and during the fight
has actually been compliant and fair within the context of the IBF rules.



So, all in all, if we look at your own *caveats for upholding your stance on this matter, which can be (bizarrely) summarized as . . . .

"?So long as Lemieux complied with the rules and the way the weigh ins are set up, he can rehydrate to whatever weight he wants?".

What we see is that they are in dire need of address. Not in the least as Lemieux failed to comply with both the IBF rules and also the way their (same day) weigh ins were set up. Which then;


A) According to your very own *caveats; within your post #20.
B) Contrary to and in direct conflict with your very own misguided assertions (within your above posts #14 & #20) that strangely rest upon the aforementioned *caveats - whilst at the same time pretending that there is no inconsistency in doing so.

Means . . . . That Lemieux was actually
not complaint.




Not only that . . . But (such was the design and intention with respect to deception and advantage seeking, that) when David Lemiuex cheated the system, IBF rules, and Stevens - at such times as when it became obvious that he intentionally did so - at that point both he and his team (and his promoter?) simply implemented their ready made "Plan B". And, in doing so Lemieux and Co simply diverted their attention to other belts/titles that were no doubt sitting in waiting - just as much as their associated sanctions both, were more relaxed in the areas of safety/weight and welcomed Golden Boy's sanction fees into their treasury with open (and un-scrutinizing) arms. And they did so in such a way that;


A) Not only, was it relatively easy for those without significant experience in the industry to know what really happened; whether or not they overlooked the real issues due to the fact they had previously jumped on the Lemieux bandwagon before the truth came out.
B) But also, it effectively defeated any punitive/other responses and actions that the IBF may have otherwise implemented; leaving a smell that has asset protection and Golden Boy Promotions (Eric Morales {PED and VADA side step} and Saul Alvarez {catch-weights}) written all over it.

OK, that closes my response to (only) your post #20. As such it does not form the entirety of my response to all your assertions/oversights within post #14 - as it is simply a brief address of your last post?s (# 20) many questionable claims. With respect to (your preferences given to dismissing both, my earlier offers of clemency and my suggestion that you might want to consider revising your claims/approach; and) my address of your unfortunate post #14's claims . . . . . That will;


A) Come a little later.
B) Potentially involve me recalling the following (and possibly other) historical witnesses;


B1)[QUOTE=Kid Blast;108148] [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272167146-The-Danny-Green-%96-Anthony-Mundine-Rematch-Genuine-or-Gimmick&p=108148&viewfull=1#post108148 -------------------------- start KB authored post highlighting KB?s previous oversights with respect to (Otis Griffin and other) boxers reliant upon power/strength and releasing questionable assertions/claims about such --------------------------
Otis Griffin was no slouch at 18-1 coming in Fighting Markus Beyer twice is hardly what I would call having it easy. Same with Eric Luca In short, Danny has fought at a reasonably high level of opposition. -------------------------- end KB authored post highlighting KB?s previous oversights with respect to (Otis Griffin and other) boxers upon power/strength and releasing questionable assertions/claims about such --------------------------

[QUOTE=stormcentre;108153] [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272167146-The-Danny-Green-%96-Anthony-Mundine-Rematch-Genuine-or-Gimmick&p=108153&viewfull=1#post108153 -------------------------- start Stormcentre authored post/response excerpt in response to and highlighting KB?s previous oversights with respect to (Otis Griffin and other) boxers reliant upon power/strength and releasing assertions/claims about such --------------------------
-
As for your comments . . . . .

""Otis Griffin was no slouch at 18-1 coming in.""

On Otis Griffin, well . . . . other than to say;


A) Dear me, what were you thinking?
B) ""You may want to check whom Griffin fought and the caliber of opposition that it constituted, prior to facing Green and see how that sits with your closing paragraph"".
C) From my above post #16; ""As, (with almost all Green's fights) the fight has been put together with the intention of heavily stacking the cards in Green's favor"."

I will leave that one there. -------------------------- start Stormcentre authored post/response excerpt in response to and highlighting KB?s previous oversights with respect to (Otis Griffin and other) boxers reliant upon power/strength and releasing assertions/claims about such -------------------------- All the best. Cheers,
Storm.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
B2)[QUOTE=Kid Blast;108146] [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272167146-The-Danny-Green-%96-Anthony-Mundine-Rematch-Genuine-or-Gimmick&p=108146&viewfull=1#post108146 Storm, it's amazing and inexplicable that an otherwise very smart and objective person like you seems to be sluuuurping up to Chock. Look at his last fight. He was slaughtered in the second round but managed to somehow survive. Believe me, if Charles ?The Future? Hatley could do this to him, can you imagine what Green whom you admit hits like a mule will do to him. See for yourself.
->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAZlOoiVu28 Both are in it for the money and the entire thing might be a scam/sham, but I sense a quick kill, grab the money, and run.
Green by quick kill. Your move.[/QUOTE]
B3)[QUOTE=Kid Blast;110307] [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110307&viewfull=1#post110307 "Stevens seems to have slipped more than Lemieux." Oh, DL has slipped? Huh? 37-3 with 33 KOs. Some slippage.
The playing field WAS level. If Steven did not want to take advantage iof that, that's his issue.
"Take away Lemieux?s power and strength and what have you got" Arghh. That's like saying take away Mike Tyson's hand speed and power, and what have you got. DL uses his strenths to his advantage and has never been called a "cheat" in his career which I have closely followed. Shame on you Storm..........[/QUOTE]
B4)[QUOTE=Kid Blast;108152] KB uncertain about the principles of his own argument and whom is actually agreeing with and/or schooling whom. [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272167146-The-Danny-Green-%96-Anthony-Mundine-Rematch-Genuine-or-Gimmick&p=108152&viewfull=1#post108152 Storm,
Here is an interview with Darnell Boone in which he states that the hardest puncher he has ever been in the ring with is Danny Green.
->http://ringsidereport.com/?p=51902 [QUOTE=stormcentre;108154] [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272167146-The-Danny-Green-%96-Anthony-Mundine-Rematch-Genuine-or-Gimmick&p=108154&viewfull=1#post108154
Yes, I know as I initially suggested the article to you. Green's punching power is not in question; the guy has and/or had a serious right hand. Cheers,
Storm.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
B5) [QUOTE=Kid Blast;110326] [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110326&viewfull=1#post110326 Why do you insist on being wrong on this one?
As long as a fighter (warrior in this case) DL complies with the rules and is not fined, then it is what it is.
If DL rehydrates to 210 pounds, that's just fine given the way the weigh-in is set up.
Same-day weigh-ins would mitigate this, but until that becomes mandatory, smart (not cheating) fighters and their teams will do what they can to get every edge. It's not like DL is doing PEDs or drinking Ariza Shakes. Perhaps if you agree, I'll refrain form going for the close, as I have already stunned you with this zinger and am now ready for the final stalk see below). Your call[/QUOTE]
B6) [QUOTE=Kid Blast;108117] [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272167146-The-Danny-Green-%96-Anthony-Mundine-Rematch-Genuine-or-Gimmick&p=108117&viewfull=1#post108117
Yes, maybe so, but Danny will KO Chock with his first flush shot because Danny can still hit like a mule but Mundine no longer has any chin or speed (which was his best asset). Green by clean KO early.[/QUOTE]

And, from the above points "
B1 -
B6" (and I will expand on this more later in upcoming posts), please kindly note;


A) The similarity between Lemieux and Green's style/reliance upon strength and power.
B) How both fighters appear to be partial to unfair advantages.
C) How both fighters have a reasonably strong following, including those that;


(i) May jump on bandwagons early.
(ii) Don't always have the greatest insight into boxing.
(iii) Often dismiss the importance of scrutiny when it may be more applicable than emotion.
(iv) May be easily swayed by KO wins, no matter how they're achieved.


D) Kid Blast's association with the above points; including point "C" and how it applies to fighters (such as Green and Lemieux) that rely upon questionably achieved advantages, strength, and power. In fact, the association appears to exist to such an extent that point "C's" relationship to KB (particularly within the context of Green and Lemieux, and their similar styles and reliance upon strength/power and advantages) can itself be seen to possibly be a contributing factor that perhaps explains the clouded emotional arguments and assertions that conflict with their own *caveats in such ways that - as we have seen here - it simply becomes unclear (to even KB himself) whether or not the *caveats to his own arguments are in conflict with the assertions themselves that he has vehemently rested upon them and pretentiously wheeled out.



OK, with that diagnosis completed . . . .

You may have noticed I have not responded to your post #20's comments . . .

[QUOTE=Kid Blast;110326]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=110326
It's not like DL is doing PEDs or drinking Ariza Shakes. Perhaps if you agree, I'll refrain form going for the close, as
I have already stunned you with this zinger and am now ready for the final stalk see below.[/QUOTE]

About, both;


A) Whether or not Lemieux does use PEDs.
B) Your other closing (and clearly misguided) comments that - amongst several things - reveal your own (overstated) interpretation about the self-perceived impact that your own (above discussed, questionable, and clearly flawed assertions/caveats, and other) assumptions have supposedly had.



There is good reason for my absence of response in this respect. However, for now all I will (respectively) say to it, is;


A) Lemieux and PEDs: Lemieux failing to weigh in - in combination with the other aforementioned factors pertaining to the IBF's departure (as that pertains to the promotion) - does not in any way lend itself to suggesting that Lemieux
has not taken any banned substances and/or PEDs; and whilst you have suggested/inferred that Lemieux
is clean - I note that (amongst the already mentioned oversights within your posts) you
have not yet offered anything to substantiate the view that Lemieux actually
is clean.. Even though it is commonly known that fighters losing/gaining significant quantities of weight (especially before fights) is a situation that is often synonomous with banned substances.
B) StormCentre supposedly is "stunned" by the advancement of your arguments/factoids: Please read this post (particularly the comments about your own post #20's *caveats and how they make a mockery of your very own assertions that bizarrely/strangely seem to somehow behave as if they are actually supported by them; when that is not the case. From there please note that, so far, almost all your arguments about how fair/reasonable Lemieux is, fail to directly/meaningfully address his compliance failures and actions within the context of the IBF rules/regulations that he flouted.

Perhaps it's now (before I address your post #14) time to rethink your earlier approach and claims; is it not? It's probably more fun for me if you don't. I'm just (being a nice/fair
Storm, and) thinking of your reputation. I mean . . . . . How many inconsistencies and oversights (such as those I have already/easily exposed here) can it handle; before it starts to look like either, a disoriented and wanton Donkey roaming aimlessly about in the bush, or . . . . Something that a Lion savaged?







Your call. :) Still love you though. Cheers,
Storm. :) :)
PS: Hey, remember at the start of the post when I mentioned having fun and "Philthy Chit"? Well . . . . .

->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272164912-Does-Floyd-Have-The-Right-To-Tell-3G-To-Step-Up-The-Definitive-Analysis-amp-Final-Word-On-Whom-Cherry-Picks-amp-Mayweather-Detracts-The-Most&p=104713&viewfull=1#post104713
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272164912-Does-Floyd-Have-The-Right-To-Tell-3G-To-Step-Up-The-Definitive-Analysis-amp-Final-Word-On-Whom-Cherry-Picks-amp-Mayweather-Detracts-The-Most&p=110204&viewfull=1#post110204


-Kid Blast :

Holy syet!!!!!!!!!!!


-Kid Blast :

Your lengthy post above reminds me of that sheik in Indiana Jones. You know, the one who was using his sword to show what he was capable of doing Jones called him a name, took out a gun and simply shot him dead. Look, if a fighter is clinching a lot and the referee is allowing it to happen, then it is holding. Same for a weigh-in. If the rules allow someone (Chavez Jr.) to come in a division higher on fight night, then that is a risk his opponent must assume. It occurs within the scope of what is allowed. DL did what was allowed. He complied with what was allowed. He came in a bit heavier than usual and Stevens paid for it by not being ready for that possibility. Kudos to Mark Ramsey for outsmarting John David Jackson. Viva Lemieux!! PS: Re Green and Chock, who cares? Green won as I predicted though not in the way I predicted. You must get over it.




!


-stormcentre :


-Kid Blast :

Now you accuse me of TRUMPIAN behavior in an effort to deflect from the core validity of my point to wit: If it's legal, you can do it.. However, due to local and mitigating circumstances, I will need to return later. Don't go away .




-Kid Blast :

Now you accuse me of TRUMPIAN behavior in an effort to deflect from the core validity of my point to wit: If it's legal, you can do it.. However, due to local and mitigating circumstances, I will need to return later. Don't go away .




-Kid Blast :

Now you accuse me of TRUMPIAN behavior in an effort to deflect from the core validity of my point to wit: If it's legal, you can do it.. However, due to local and mitigating circumstances, I will need to return later. Don't go away .



== The Real Kid Blast


-Kid Blast :

Now you accuse me of TRUMPIAN behavior in an effort to deflect from the core validity of my point to wit: If it's legal, you can do it.. However, due to local and mitigating circumstances, I will need to return later. Don't go away .



== The Real Kid Blast


-stormcentre :

Now you accuse me of TRUMPIAN behavior in an effort to deflect from the core validity of my point to wit: If it's legal, you can do it.. However, due to local and mitigating circumstances, I will need to return later. Don't go away .



== The Real Kid Blast
Good. Hopefully, when you return, you will not be serving us up more of the same, and instead, will be meaningfully addressing the closing points "A", "B", and "C" (pasted *below) within my last post #25.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please let me know when;


A) You're going to be able to explain yourself in the context of - your own caveats - the IBF rules - and the other related facts; on this
LemieuxCheat matter.
B) You can man up and handle debating the details of, how your own caveats on the Lemieux issue serve your claims in the way you suggest they do; as per my post #22.
C) You will stop running.

Until then, all you have done is fabricate a rationale that doesn't apply to the situation just as much as both, you can't adequately explain it and it conveniently ignores the (above-mentioned) facts of the matter; in order to continue pretending you're claims are accurate; in a manner that I have already accurately identified within the aforementioned point B4, "D" of my last post #22. --------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to date . . . In almost every scenario related to this matter (and over the course of several posts) you have avoided how your claims, rebuttals, and arguments make sense in the context of Lemieux and the IBF rules. And, as a testimony to that, one need only look at your last post and its excuses to see that - when all things are considered, including those you seem to be evading (such as Lemieux and his flouting of the IBF rules) - the fact of the matter is that they simply don't apply to the situation; at least not as broadly you claim anyway.
I look forward to your return and explicit, clear, and non-evasive, address of the points that I raised within my posts #22 and 25; about your Lemieux related claims. Cheers,
Storm. :) :)
PS: Your post #24's comment about clinching not being holding if the referee allows it, not only highlights inexperience in the sport - but also assumes that the referee is always right (when we know they often are not); which makes the claim (and its; ""if a tree falls in the Forrest does anyone hear it" . . .?" argument) questionable. A boxer effectively holds another when he prevents him from moving, defending, competing, and/or throwing punches; and this occurs whether or not he is penalised for it. Shame on you for suggesting . . . no I wont say that. How about this? It's disappointing that you suggested otherwise in a manner that appears designed to detract from Lemieux's concerning cheating (that you're obviously hesitant to meaningfully discuss within the *above contexts for fear of what it means to your caveats/claims on the matter) - almost as much as Lemieux's concerning cheating appears at odds with your stated values as they pertain to your concussion thread/piece.
PPS: I have not accused you of Trumpian behavior; only Donkey like conduct - as it applies to evading the points/questions I raised about your Lemieux claims within my post #22.


-Kid Blast :

"I know KB disagrees with me here; but I do also think the Rubio loss speak something of Lemieux.' WTF, That's ancient history and I know exactly why DL lost to Rubio. There is a back story there that I ma close to but cannot reveal for fear of breaking confidences. At any rate, DL has done quite well for himself and now is poised to slaughter Billy Sanders should they meet and make some serious money or better yet, fight Canelo and win the eraly retirement lottery. Now a question for you and I would like a concise and short answer (knowing that it might be difficult) as to how and why did DLthe rules--and no "flouting the rules if you please. Please explain. Thank you.


-Kid Blast :

"I know KB disagrees with me here; but I do also think the Rubio loss speak something of Lemieux.' WTF, That's ancient history and I know exactly why DL lost to Rubio. There is a back story there that I am close to but cannot reveal for fear of breaking confidences. At any rate, DL has done quite well for himself and now is poised to slaughter Billy Sanders should they meet and make some serious money or better yet, fight Canelo and win the early retirement lottery. Now a question for you and I would like a concise and short answer (knowing that it might be difficult) as to how and why did DLthe rules--and no "flouting the rules if you please. Please explain. Thank you. Oh yes, I am now beginning the stalk in earnest.
->http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/boxing/article-3516563/British-boxing-chiefs-urged-change-weigh-rules-bid-protect-fighters-Nick-Blackwell-injury.html


-stormcentre :

"I know KB disagrees with me here; but I do also think the Rubio loss speak something of Lemieux.' WTF, That's ancient history and I know exactly why DL lost to Rubio. There is a back story there that I am close to but cannot reveal for fear of breaking confidences. At any rate, DL has done quite well for himself and now is poised to slaughter Billy Sanders should they meet and make some serious money or better yet, fight Canelo and win the eraly retirement lottery.
Now a question for you and I would like a concise and short answer (knowing that it might be difficult) as to how and why did DLthe rules--and no "flouting the rules if you please. Please explain. Thank you.
Are you for real? Rather than splurting out emotional responses/posts without thinking . . . How about you actually read my above-mentioned (lengthy) posts (and their questions and raised points pertaining to the flaws in your arguments that assume Lemieux is innocent), that;


A) Your last few posts are in response to.
B) Are listed (in real easy to understand; "A", "B", "C" . . . . . format, replete with sub-points) within my above posts; including posts #30, #25, and particularly #22.
C) (Some) are even highlighted in .
D) I have - over the course of several of my most recent posts - referenced.
E) To date you have not directly/meaningfully addressed.

I mean, what planet are you on? What do you mean you would now like a clear concise answer from me about how Lemiuex broke the rules?
You have already - within multiple posts - been given it in both short and extended versions? The state of play is that we are actually now waiting on "you" to explain how Lemieux actually was compliant with the IBF rules in ways that don't make a mockery of your initial caveats (that underpin your stance on this matter) that were contained within your own post #20, that effectively state . . . . . "

"As long as Lemieux complies with the rules (and is not fined) then everything (even if Lemieux rehydrates to 210 pounds) is just fine - even considering how the weigh-in was set up."

"
Thus far you have failed to explain this. Preferring instead to always furnish us with half baked emotional explanations that always skirt around directly explaining how Lemieux was compliant with the rules in the context of the fight-promotion's association with the IBF. Furthermore, (in relation to your strange/shortsighted request for a clear concise answer from me about how Lemiuex broke the rules) please note that even within my (last) post #30, I;


A) Directly (by way of cut/paste) refer you to 3 previous points that (are still outstanding) I raised within earlier posts that I authored.

Each of those points has a direct relation to both, your questionable Lemieux claims and how you have (to date) not been able to (despite how reactive, emotional, and defensive your approach to explaining your claims has been) adequately explain your claims within the contexts of the facts of the matter and also the issues that I have raised.


*B) Directly (by way of cut/paste) refer you to my above post #22.



Unfortunately, as far as that post is concerned (along with containing a discussion of the flaws in your Lemieux claims) you (just as you did to my {
~below pasted} post #19 that kindly provided you with a day or so grace to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s) and claims prior to me addressing them) have thus far only ignored and ridiculed it.

[QUOTE=StormCentre post #19]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110324&viewfull=1#post110324
~Tell you what I will do . . . Since I am (inherently) a nice Storm and since I want to give you the opportunity to save what I may post in response to your "interesting" posts #14 and #15 . . . . I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts.You're call.[/QUOTE]

Only to leave you in the position you are now in; where you're ignorantly claiming to be without a clear concise answer from me about how Lemiuex broke the rules, when in fact you already have it.

Therefore, please feel free to have a look at my post #22 (as that contains many clear and concise answers/issues about how Lemiuex broke the rules). . .
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110359&viewfull=1#post110359 Please go to the section where I state . . .

""Remarkably though KB, within your above claims you somehow conveniently (and also spectacularly - all as you circumvent any/all direct reference to the IBF and their rules that Lemieux actually flouted) overlook obvious facts that make an absolute mockery of your very own assertions, claims, and stance, on this matter . . . . .""

And, from there please both read and directly address the points that I raise about your claims (that substantiate Lemieux was not compliant with the IBF rules) within following ensuing 2 sections;

"
A" - "
D" "
A" - "
E"




C) Close the post in
bold text that (for your ease of perusal and to assist you with a quick explanation of your stance) explicitly and clearly states . . . .


"I look forward to your return and explicit, clear, and non-evasive, address of the points that I raised within my posts #22 and 25; about your Lemieux related claims".



So, as you see . . . . How could I be any clearer? How could I make it any easier for you to explain yourself? Therefore, contrary to your last post's suggestion/claim that bizarrely assumes you have not been provided with a clear concise answer from me about how Lemiuex broke the rules; the fact of the matter is that you have already been given it (multiple times) in both, short and extended versions. It's just that, to date, you have simply failed to meaningfully acknowledge receipt of it?
So . . . . Please go to the *above-linked/mentioned (point "
*B") sections of my post #22 - namely the below 9 individual points contained within each of the 2 below sections . . . .

"
A" - "
D" "
A" - "
E"

That themselves follow on from where I state . . .

""Remarkably though KB, within your above claims you somehow conveniently (and also spectacularly - all as you circumvent any/all direct reference to the IBF and their rules that Lemieux actually flouted) overlook obvious facts that make an absolute mockery of your very own assertions, claims, and stance, on this matter . . . . .""

And, once you're there - within the context of those 9 individual/alphabetised and neatly laid out points (that address your claims about Lemieux) - please clearly and concisely address/explain to us all how;


1) They are wrong.

Because if they're not wrong - then your stance on this Lemieux matter and you are wrong.


2) Lemieux's conduct was compliant with the rules/regulations (as you suggest); including those rules pertaining to the IBF and their stipulations as they related to weigh ins and weight.
3) Lemieux's conduct was aligned with your own (post #20) caveats that underpin your stance on this matter that (assumes I am wrong and) effectively states;

""As long as Lemieux complies with the rules (and is not fined) then everything (even if Lemieux rehydrates to 210 pounds) is just fine - even considering how the weigh-in was set up. ""



Finally, if at this stage you still find that you're still unable to find where I have provided you with a clear concise answer about how Lemiuex broke the rules; please refer to the above
/
text within this post and the previous posts it references. I trust this makes matters clearer for you.
I now look forward to your explicit, clear, and non-evasive, address of the points that I raised within my posts #22, #25, and #30; in relation to your Lemieux related claims that assert he was fair, reasonable, compliant with the rules, and not cheating Stevens and the system. Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-Kid Blast :

From #22 ''B) It appears that it was not until it became obvious that Lemieux was not going to comply with IBF rules - including those pertaining to both weight and/or all weigh ins - that the IBF then ceased to become involved in the fight. 'C) Due to the above and the reactive (rather than proactive) way that Lemieux managed (engineered?) the situation, including how there was no meaningful forewarning of his intentions to not comply with IBF?s weight and weigh in requirements; '(i) Not only, did Lemieux fail to comply with the IBF?s rules; which means your above-mentioned claims have breached your own *caveats (that you have underpinned them with) and they therefore actually invalidate your own stance and argument - just as much as in doing so they validate mine. '(ii) But also, Lemieux?s compliancy failures unfolded (or, perhaps better put, were engineered?) in such a way where it was not easy and/or immediately possible for the IBF to actually apply any punitive response for Lemieux?s compliancy failures; which I have no doubt is why you have rested part of your post #20?s shortsighted argument . . . ' How did he refuse to comply? And don't give me this "breach of conduct" nonsense. Otherwise, half of Trump's cabinet would need to resign. Look. Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you. 'There shall be a second day weigh-in on the morning of the event. The promoter of the event shall arrange for the use of the scale at the prearranged time and location for the second day weigh-in. At this weigh-in, boxers cannot weigh more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit. If a boxer weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, he will have two (2) hours thereafter to make the prescribed weight. If after two (2) hours he still weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, the fight cannot proceed as a championship bout. If the Champion fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the title will be vacated. If the Challenger fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the fight may be staged with the understanding that the Champion shall retain his title whether he wins or loses the bout' Taken from the IBF website. Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit. Your move, matey
->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuAZTWGfQTs


-stormcentre :

From #22 ''B) It appears that it was not until it became obvious that Lemieux was not going to comply with IBF rules - including those pertaining to both weight and/or all weigh ins - that the IBF then ceased to become involved in the fight. 'C) Due to the above and the reactive (rather than proactive) way that Lemieux managed (engineered?) the situation, including how there was no meaningful forewarning of his intentions to not comply with IBF’s weight and weigh in requirements; '(i) Not only, did Lemieux fail to comply with the IBF’s rules; which means your above-mentioned claims have breached your own *caveats (that you have underpinned them with) and they therefore actually invalidate your own stance and argument - just as much as in doing so they validate mine. '(ii) But also, Lemieux’s compliancy failures unfolded (or, perhaps better put, were engineered?) in such a way where it was not easy and/or immediately possible for the IBF to actually apply any punitive response for Lemieux’s compliancy failures; which I have no doubt is why you have rested part of your post #20’s shortsighted argument . . . ' How did he refuse to comply? And don't give me this "breach of conduct" nonsense. Otherwise, half of Trump's cabinet would need to resign. Look. Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you. 'There shall be a second day weigh-in on the morning of the event. The promoter of the event shall arrange for the use of the scale at the prearranged time and location for the second day weigh-in. At this weigh-in, boxers cannot weigh more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit. If a boxer weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, he will have two (2) hours thereafter to make the prescribed weight. If after two (2) hours he still weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, the fight cannot proceed as a championship bout. If the Champion fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the title will be vacated. If the Challenger fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the fight may be staged with the understanding that the Champion shall retain his title whether he wins or loses the bout' Taken from the IBF website. Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit. Your move, matey
->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuAZTWGfQTs
Thanks for this KB. It was difficult (pulling teeth?) to get you to acknowledge the IBF rules (but we finally have done that) and as it all happened you pretended to not read my earlier posts; which, in turn, then contributed to their length and also something you can donkey-complain about and misdirect with as you buy time. But now we are here. Thanks for quoting (what you refer to as) the IBF rules in your last post.
However, I note that, within your last post, you abjectly failed to reference all the points (within my post #22) that I had actually recommended within my earlier (explicitly clear and neatly laid out) post #33.
In short, you omitted more than half of them. What a coincidence eh? Please note also, that I actually went to the trouble of explicitly, clearly, and neatly laying out (with references, hyperlinks, and text-signposts pertaining to other posts that were worthwhile, within) my post #33; just so you cant make another evasive "mistake". But, somehow you still "missed" more than half of them. Top stuff. Still, it just goes to show that (directly after being shown {in my last post} that - contrary to your previous post's claims that "conveniently" and strangely "assumed" you were without them - you actually had been {several times over} given a clear indication of how I say Lemieux broke the rules) not much can stop some from episodically/selectively interpreting the facts of this matter as they see fit and behaving evasively. Anyway, these and other factors that describe how wrong, unnecessarily episodic, embarrassing, evasive, and ludicrous your argument(s) have been, will all be revealed soon in my upcoming post. For now I am atop of Mt Glorious and about to finish an afternoon's motorcycle ride down the mountains. It will put me in a perfect mindset to bring your house of cards crashing down. In the meantime please remember; throughout my previous posts I have given you several written opportunities to rethink your approach and consider your reputation. This is going to be fun. See you soon. Love it !!! Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)


-stormcentre :

Look. Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you. Taken from the IBF website. 'There shall be a second day weigh-in on the morning of the event. The promoter of the event shall arrange for the use of the scale at the prearranged time and location for the second day weigh-in. At this weigh-in, boxers cannot weigh more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit. If a boxer weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, he will have two (2) hours thereafter to make the prescribed weight. If after two (2) hours he still weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, the fight cannot proceed as a championship bout. If the Champion fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the title will be vacated. If the Challenger fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the fight may be staged with the understanding that the Champion shall retain his title whether he wins or loses the bout.
Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit. Your move, matey
->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuAZTWGfQTs
Finished the motorcycle ride. Before I respond in full and just so I get this right and crystal clear (as I haven't seen what you posted/pasted from the IBF in your post #34 before) . . . . . Basically (with the IBF same day weigh in thingy) the fighter pretty much has a mandatory obligation to weigh in a second time and on the same day as the fight; and that?s what you?re saying; is that right? Yes or no please. Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)


-Kid Blast :

It's really not mandatory if the Commission, officials, etc. interpret is as not being mandatory. Moreover, this was not a World Championship fight so "your interpretation' might not be applicable. Cheers, Ted the Bull I dedicate this song to you:
->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlAhDH9J7qY


-Kid Blast :

It's really not mandatory if the Commission, officials, etc. interpret is as not being mandatory. Moreover, this was not a World Championship fight so "your interpretation' might not be applicable. Cheers, Ted the Bull I dedicate this song to you:
->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlAhDH9J7qY


-stormcentre :

It's really not mandatory if the Commission, officials, etc. interpret is as not being mandatory. Moreover, this was not a World Championship fight so "your interpretation' might not be applicable. Cheers, Ted the Bull I dedicate this song to you:
->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlAhDH9J7qY
Thanks for the song & premature celebrations, but you claimed within your previous post that basically both fighters must attend & weigh in on the second day? Either that is false or your last claim suggesting they don't have to is. Cheers, Storm. :) :) :)


-Kid Blast :

Apparently it was not mandated. Otherwise , there would have been consequences for DL. Also, and most compelling, you are the one to argue otherwise.


-Kid Blast :

Apparently it was not mandated. Otherwise , there would have been consequences for DL. Also, and most compelling, you are the one to argue otherwise.


-Kid Blast :

The coup de gras In a strange development, Danny Jacobs did not appear for this morning’s same-day weigh-in conducted by the IBF. Gennady Golovkin, who will of course be defending his belts against Jacobs tonight in New York, tipped in at 169.6 pounds at the same-day weigh-in check, but whatever happens in the fight, Jacobs will not be able to win the IBF title. Hmm. consequences for DJ. See the distinction. No world title at stake in the DL fight. Storm, you have been had. You have met your Venus Fly Trap




-Kid Blast :

The coup de gras In a strange development, Danny Jacobs did not appear for this morning?s same-day weigh-in conducted by the IBF. Gennady Golovkin, who will of course be defending his belts against Jacobs tonight in New York, tipped in at 169.6 pounds at the same-day weigh-in check, but whatever happens in the fight, Jacobs will not be able to win the IBF title. Hmm. consequences for DJ. See the distention. No world title at stake in the DL fight. Storm, you have been had. You have met your Venus Fly Trap




-stormcentre :

Apparently it was not mandated. Otherwise , there would have been consequences for DL. Also, and most compelling, you are the one to argue otherwise.

In true KB form you are being donkey evasive. You have not answered my last (short) post. It asks the reasonable question; which of your earlier claims are true? Is it the one where you effectively say; "let me refresh you", and claim is taken from IBM website - the one where it also explictly states that fighters "must" weigh in on the second dayear? Or is it the one in your subsequent post (not taken from the IBM website) that (supports your personal arguments better, and conveniently) suggests fighters don't have to weigh in on the second day? Until you stop running and clarify that all your little premature victory celebrations are just that. .... Premature. The Jacobs matter and contract is a separate matter; I will deal with that later. Don't let it excite you and cloud you judgment. Additionally, just because I am the only one (according to you) that has the views I have expressed doesn't necessarily make them wrong. It may even mean I am less susceptible to group think. Finally, could you please provide me with a link for the IBF website that explicitly states fighters don't have to weigh in on the day of the fight? Because (aside from a lesson in contract and other law) that's what you need to be correct my friend. Furthermore if such a term even exists it means the IBF stipulate second/same day weigh ins and their costs and other related matters, all for nothing. Now you run off, try not to be evasive again with this matter and my requests, and please also answer my above questions (as to which of your earlier conflicting claims is true) and requests (for the IBF website link that states fighters don't have to weigh in on the second day despite the fact that IBM themselves explicitly demand a second day weigh in and you yourself have quoted them as such) about your claims. All the best, Storm. :) :) :)


-Kid Blast :

Yeah, for a World Title. What part of that do you fail to grasp. So here, try this, in the albescence of anything that mandates a second day weigh-in for non-title fights, there is no mandate Jacobs probably said the hell with the weigh-in because if he wins, the title won't mean squat. He will have monster paydays awaiting him. That was not the case in the DL-CS slaughter. Just didn't have to do it. Can you show me proof that he did have to do it? That he flouted the rules? If you do, I'll back off and grant you some mercy here. One other point--but one that is not directly related. Prior day weigh-in were for the protection of the fighter. Same day weigh-in can have a downside. The IBF wants to have its cake and eat it too. That kind of goal based on a ten pound limit is too arcane to really work. Bottom line: DL DID NOT SHOW BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE TO. JACBS DID NOT SHOW Because he could care lees about the title. This for you
->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNe5npkid-s


-Kid Blast :

Yeah, for a World Title. What part of that do you fail to grasp. So here, try this, in the albescence of anything that mandates a second day weigh-in for non-title fights, there is no mandate Jacobs probably said the hell with the weigh-in because if he wins, the title won't mean squat. He will have monster paydays awaiting him. That was not the case in the DL-CS slaughter. Just didn't have to do it. Can you show me proof that he did have to do it? That he flouted the rules? If you do, I'll back off and grant you some mercy here. One other point--but one that is not directly related. Prior day weigh-in were for the protection of the fighter. Same day weigh-in can have a downside. The IBF wants to have its cake and eat it too. That kind of goal based on a ten pound limit is too arcane to really work. Bottom line: DL DID NOT SHOW BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE TO. Jacobs did not show because he could care lees about the title. It's about future money. This for you
->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNe5npkid-s I have a final song for you and I think you will like it. Later. Nap time


-stormcentre :

sh you", and claim is taken from IBM website? The same one where both you and the IBF also effectively state that fighters ""must"" and/or ""have to"" weigh in on the second and same day of the fight?

[QUOTE=KB; post #34 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388 Look. Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you. . . . . . Taken from the IBF website.
Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit.[/QUOTE]


B) Or is it the one in your subsequent post #39 (seemingly not taken from the IBM website) that neatly supports your personal arguments better, and conveniently suggests that fighters don't have to weigh in on the second day?

[QUOTE=KB; post #39 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110421&viewfull=1#post110421
It's really not mandatory if the Commission, officials, etc. interpret is as not being mandatory. Moreover, this was not a World Championship fight so "your interpretation' might not be applicable. [/QUOTE]



KB, until you stop running and clarify that . . . . . All your little premature victory celebrations are just that. .... Premature. The Jacobs matter, potential unification (something you may have overlooked in your recent emotional outburst), and promotional contract (something the IBF rules provide for that you may have also overlooked) is a separate matter. As such, I will deal with that later. As right now it is patently clear that just explaining (even) a (small) subset of the anomalies associated with your claims that supposedly support your stance on the Lemieux matter and/or getting you to read/acknowledge posts/facts that don't suit your arguments, is almost too much for you to bear. So, please don't let the Jacobs/IBF matter excite you and cloud your (already evasive behavior and) judgment; any more than it already has. Additionally, (in response to your post #40) just because I am supposedly (according to you; whom has not yet {in a thread with at least 40 posts in it} responded to any of my posts/requests in a clear and non evasive/selective way) the only one that has the (naughty) views I have expressed (that challenge yours) - doesn't necessarily make them wrong. It may actually mean that I am less susceptible to group think. For all you know, I may actually be the only one whom has real legal knowledge of the matter, implied terms, contract law, and how the sanction?s rules and regulations usually play out in court; and that's where both, it matters and precendents are set. So, that way we can - with confidence - accept (as readily as you want us to) your above-pasted post #39?s substitute explanation that you conveniently now claim supercedes the one that you previously provided us with within post # 34; that claims . . .

?"Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight - from the IBF website."?

Because (aside from a lesson in contract and other law, including how they apply to sports and boxing) that's what you will need to be in order to be correct here my friend. Furthermore if such a term even exists, it means that the IBF (and you; within your post #34) stipulate second/same day weigh ins and therefore also all their costs and other related matters - all for nothing. Think about it Einstein. So, perhaps it's time to start converting all that energy you're currently wasting to prematurely celebrate victory (replete with laughable Venus fly traps and monkey pictures of yourself) and avoid the hard questions/answers, on both explaining how the foundation of your claims is correct and answering requests/questions about your assertions.

Perhaps it is that you are confused and have yet again mistaken matters related to this issue - by wrongly assuming that, because legal/contracted provisions may sometimes exist for circumstances when certain conditions/rules are not met that therefore means those circumstance are not mandatory and/or required. Additionally, when a fighter fails to make weight (which constitutes failing to comply with the sanction?s rules and can happen without penalty) that doesn?t mean that his failure to make weight is not in conflict with the rules; even though there are provisions within most sanctions that are designed to deal with this situation and ensure the promoter and other parties? investment and interests are not impacted.

Now you be a good boy and run off, and try not to be too evasive again with this matter, my requests, and also your next response. As, to date almost all of your responses/posts have either omitted and/or skirted around something. Including those responses that follow on from previous posts that you have authored, where you falsely claim (your post #31) to be without information and request it - only to be shown (my post #33) that you already have it. So, please - within your next response - let?s put an end to all this nonsense by way of removing the ambiguity you?re episodically/continuously injecting into via the above-mentioned and pasted evasive and conflicting claims. As such, can you please clearly answer/respond to my above;


1) : as to which of your above-mentioned and pasted (post #34 - or post #39) earlier conflicting claims is true?
2) : for the IBF website link that states fighters don't have to weigh in on the second day; despite the fact that IBM themselves explicitly stipulate a second day weigh in and you yourself have quoted them (post #34) as such.

Finally, please note also that . . . If (after all the already released ambiguous, conflicting, questionable, and evasive claims that you have released in relation to this matter and failed to explain) you still fail to do as per the above ; please note that I will take that as a very strong indicator that you're unable substantiate your position and/or to progress your claims/arguments any furthe
Is it;


A) The one (post #34) where you effectively say; "let me refresh you", and claim is taken from IBM website? The same one where both you and the IBF also effectively state that fighters ""must"" and/or ""have to"" weigh in on the second and same day of the fight?

[QUOTE=KB; post #34 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388 Look. Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you. . . . . . Taken from the IBF website.
Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit.[/QUOTE]


B) Or is it the one in your subsequent post #39 (seemingly not taken from the IBM website) that neatly supports your personal arguments better, and conveniently suggests that fighters don't have to weigh in on the second day?

[QUOTE=KB; post #39 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110421&viewfull=1#post110421
It's really not mandatory if the Commission, officials, etc. interpret is as not being mandatory. Moreover, this was not a World Championship fight so "your interpretation' might not be applicable. [/QUOTE]



KB, until you stop running and clarify that . . . . . All your little premature victory celebrations are just that. .... Premature. The Jacobs matter, potential unification (something you may have overlooked in your recent emotional outburst), and promotional contract (something the IBF rules provide for that you may have also overlooked) is a separate matter. As such, I will deal with that later. As right now it is patently clear that just explaining (even) a (small) subset of the anomalies associated with your claims that supposedly support your stance on the Lemieux matter and/or getting you to read/acknowledge posts/facts that don't suit your arguments, is almost too much for you to bear. So, please don't let the Jacobs/IBF matter excite you and cloud your (already evasive behavior and) judgment; any more than it already has. Additionally, (in response to your post #40) just because I am supposedly (according to you; whom has not yet {in a thread with at least 40 posts in it} responded to any of my posts/requests in a clear and non evasive/selective way) the only one that has the (naughty) views I have expressed (that challenge yours) - doesn't necessarily make them wrong. It may actually mean that I am less susceptible to group think. For all you know, I may actually be the only one whom has real legal knowledge of the matter, implied terms, contract law, and how the sanction?s rules and regulations usually play out in court; and that's where both, it matters and precendents are set. So, that way we can - with confidence - accept (as readily as you want us to) your above-pasted post #39?s substitute explanation that you conveniently now claim supercedes the one that you previously provided us with within post # 34; that claims . . .

?"Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight - from the IBF website."?

Because (aside from a lesson in contract and other law, including how they apply to sports and boxing) that's what you will need to be in order to be correct here my friend. Furthermore if such a term even exists, it means that the IBF (and you; within your post #34) stipulate second/same day weigh ins and therefore also all their costs and other related matters - all for nothing. Think about it Einstein. So, perhaps it's time to start converting all that energy you're currently wasting to prematurely celebrate victory (replete with laughable Venus fly traps and monkey pictures of yourself) and avoid the hard questions/answers, on both explaining how the foundation of your claims is correct and answering requests/questions about your assertions.

Perhaps it is that you are confused and have yet again mistaken matters related to this issue - by wrongly assuming that, because legal/contracted provisions may sometimes exist for circumstances when certain conditions/rules are not met that therefore means those circumstance are not mandatory and/or required. Additionally, when a fighter fails to make weight (which constitutes failing to comply with the sanction?s rules and can happen without penalty) that doesn?t mean that his failure to make weight is not in conflict with the rules; even though there are provisions within most sanctions that are designed to deal with this situation and ensure the promoter and other parties? investment and interests are not impacted.

Now you be a good boy and run off, and try not to be too evasive again with this matter, my requests, and also your next response. As, to date almost all of your responses/posts have either omitted and/or skirted around something. Including those responses that follow on from previous posts that you have authored, where you falsely claim (your post #31) to be without information and request it - only to be shown (my post #33) that you already have it. So, please - within your next response - let?s put an end to all this nonsense by way of removing the ambiguity you?re episodically/continuously injecting into via the above-mentioned and pasted evasive and conflicting claims. As such, can you please clearly answer/respond to my above;


1) : as to which of your above-mentioned and pasted (post #34 - or post #39) earlier conflicting claims is true?
2) : for the IBF website link that states fighters don't have to weigh in on the second day; despite the fact that IBM themselves explicitly stipulate a second day weigh in and you yourself have quoted them (post #34) as such.

Finally, please note also that . . . If (after all the already released ambiguous, conflicting, questionable, and evasive claims that you have released in relation to this matter and failed to explain) you still fail to do as per the above ; please note that I will take that as a very strong indicator that you're unable substantiate your position and/or to progress your claims/arguments any further. Which most likely means you won?t become any more concise and less evasive when/if I have to step you through how contracts and the law works within the circumstances we are debating. All the best,
Storm. :) :) :)


-Kid Blast :

I know how contracts work. Now then, let's assume that the IBF second-day weigh in involves a non-title fight. DL vs CS. If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule. But if the IBF does not penalize him by, for example, making him pay part of his purse to Stevens, then the so-called rule has no teeth in it. And if this is true, and a boxer like DL knows it ahead of time, why should he not take advantage of it and come in on the heavy side? Point: What good is a rue if not following it has no consequences? You move and I now dedicate this old goody just to you. Cheers and all the best lad
->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rEsVp5tiDQ PS: Hopefully, you have noted that I am able to say in a few short paragraphs what you say in pages and pages.


-Kid Blast :

I know how contracts work. Now then, let's assume that the IBF second-day weigh in involves a non-title fight. DL vs CS. If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule. But if the IBF does not penalize him by, for example, making him pay part of his purse to Stevens, then the so-called rule has no teeth in it. And if this is true, and a boxer like DL knows it ahead of time, why should he not take advantage of it and come in on the heavy side? Point: What good is a rue if not following it has no consequences? Your move and I now dedicate this old goody just to you. Cheers and all the best lad
->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rEsVp5tiDQ PS: Hopefully, you have noted that I am able to say in a few short paragraphs what you say in pages and pages.


-stormcentre :

resh you", and claim is taken from IBM website? The same one where both you and the IBF also effectively state that fighters ""must"" and/or ""have to"" weigh in on the second and same day of the fight?

[QUOTE=KB; post #34 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388 Look. Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you. . . . . . Taken from the IBF website.
Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit.[/QUOTE]


B) Or is it the one in your subsequent post #39 (seemingly not taken from the IBM website) that neatly supports your personal arguments better, and conveniently suggests that fighters don't have to weigh in on the second day?

[QUOTE=KB; post #39 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110421&viewfull=1#post110421
It's really not mandatory if the Commission, officials, etc. interpret is as not being mandatory. Moreover, this was not a World Championship fight so "your interpretation' might not be applicable. [/QUOTE]



KB, until you stop running and clarify that . . . . . All your little premature victory celebrations are just that. .... Premature. The Jacobs matter, potential unification (something you may have overlooked in your recent emotional outburst), and promotional contract (something the IBF rules provide for that you may have also overlooked) is a separate matter. As such, I will deal with that later. As right now it is patently clear that just explaining (even) a (small) subset of the anomalies associated with your claims that supposedly support your stance on the Lemieux matter and/or getting you to read/acknowledge posts/facts that don't suit your arguments, is almost too much for you to bear. So, please don't let the Jacobs/IBF matter excite you and cloud your (already evasive behavior and) judgment; any more than it already has. Additionally, (in response to your post #40) just because I am supposedly (according to you; whom has not yet {in a thread with at least 40 posts in it} responded to any of my posts/requests in a clear and non evasive/selective way) the only one that has the (naughty) views I have expressed (that challenge yours) - doesn't necessarily make them wrong. It may actually mean that I am less susceptible to group think. For all you know, I may actually be the only one whom has real legal knowledge of the matter, implied terms, contract law, and how the sanction?s rules and regulations usually play out in court; and that's where both, it matters and precendents are set. So, that way we can - with confidence - accept (as readily as you want us to) your above-pasted post #39?s substitute explanation that you conveniently now claim supercedes the one that you previously provided us with within post # 34; that claims . . .

?"Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight - from the IBF website."?

Because (aside from a lesson in contract and other law, including how they apply to sports and boxing) that's what you will need, in order to be correct here my friend. Furthermore if such a term even exists, it means that the IBF (and you; within your post #34) stipulate second/same day weigh ins and therefore also all their costs and other related matters - all for nothing. Think about it Einstein. So, perhaps it's time to start converting all that energy you're currently wasting to prematurely celebrate victory (replete with laughable Venus fly traps and monkey pictures of yourself) and avoid the hard questions/answers, on both explaining how the foundation of your claims is correct and answering requests/questions about your assertions.



Now you be a good boy and run off, and try not to be too evasive again with this matter, my requests, and also your next response. As, to date almost all of your responses/posts have either omitted and/or skirted around something. Including those responses that follow on from previous posts that you have authored, where you falsely claim (your post #31) to be without information and request it - only to be shown (my post #33) that you already have it. So, please - within your next response - let?s put an end to all this nonsense by way of removing the ambiguity you?re episodically/continuously injecting into via the above-mentioned and pasted evasive and conflicting claims. As such, can you please clearly answer/respond to my above;


1) : as to which of your above-mentioned and pasted (post #34 - or post #39) earlier conflicting claims is true?
2) : for the IBF website link that states fighters don't have to weigh in on the second day; despite the fact that IBM themselves explicitly stipulate a second day weigh in and you yourself have quoted them (post #34) as such.

Finally, please note also that . . . If (after all the already released ambiguous, conflicting, questionable, and evasive claims that you have released in relation to this matter and failed to explain) you still fail to do as per the above ; please note that I will take that as a very strong indicator that you're unable substantiate your position and/or to progress your claims/arguments any furthe
Is it;


A) The one (post #34) where you effectively say; "let me refresh you", and claim is taken from IBM website? The same one where both you and the IBF also effectively state that fighters ""must"" and/or ""have to"" weigh in on the second and same day of the fight?

[QUOTE=KB; post #34 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388 Look. Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you. . . . . . Taken from the IBF website.
Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit.[/QUOTE]


B) Or is it the one in your subsequent post #39 (seemingly not taken from the IBM website) that neatly supports your personal arguments better, and conveniently suggests that fighters don't have to weigh in on the second day?

[QUOTE=KB; post #39 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110421&viewfull=1#post110421
It's really not mandatory if the Commission, officials, etc. interpret is as not being mandatory. Moreover, this was not a World Championship fight so "your interpretation' might not be applicable. [/QUOTE]



KB, until you stop running and clarify that . . . . . All your little premature victory celebrations are just that. .... Premature. The Jacobs matter, potential unification (something you may have overlooked in your recent emotional outburst), and promotional contract (something the IBF rules provide for that you may have also overlooked) is a separate matter. As such, I will deal with that later. As right now it is patently clear that just explaining (even) a (small) subset of the anomalies associated with your claims that supposedly support your stance on the Lemieux matter and/or getting you to read/acknowledge posts/facts that don't suit your arguments, is almost too much for you to bear. So, please don't let the Jacobs/IBF matter excite you and cloud your (already evasive behavior and) judgment; any more than it already has. Additionally, (in response to your post #40) just because I am supposedly (according to you; whom has not yet {in a thread with at least 40 posts in it} responded to any of my posts/requests in a clear and non evasive/selective way) the only one that has the (naughty) views I have expressed (that challenge yours) - doesn't necessarily make them wrong. It may actually mean that I am less susceptible to group think. For all you know, I may actually be the only one whom has real legal knowledge of the matter, implied terms, contract law, and how the sanction?s rules and regulations usually play out in court; and that's where both, it matters and precendents are set. So, that way we can - with confidence - accept (as readily as you want us to) your above-pasted post #39?s substitute explanation that you conveniently now claim supercedes the one that you previously provided us with within post # 34; that claims . . .

?"Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight - from the IBF website."?

Because (aside from a lesson in contract and other law, including how they apply to sports and boxing) that's what you will need, in order to be correct here my friend. Furthermore if such a term even exists, it means that the IBF (and you; within your post #34) stipulate second/same day weigh ins and therefore also all their costs and other related matters - all for nothing. Think about it Einstein. So, perhaps it's time to start converting all that energy you're currently wasting to prematurely celebrate victory (replete with laughable Venus fly traps and monkey pictures of yourself) and avoid the hard questions/answers, on both explaining how the foundation of your claims is correct and answering requests/questions about your assertions.



Now you be a good boy and run off, and try not to be too evasive again with this matter, my requests, and also your next response. As, to date almost all of your responses/posts have either omitted and/or skirted around something. Including those responses that follow on from previous posts that you have authored, where you falsely claim (your post #31) to be without information and request it - only to be shown (my post #33) that you already have it. So, please - within your next response - let?s put an end to all this nonsense by way of removing the ambiguity you?re episodically/continuously injecting into via the above-mentioned and pasted evasive and conflicting claims. As such, can you please clearly answer/respond to my above;


1) : as to which of your above-mentioned and pasted (post #34 - or post #39) earlier conflicting claims is true?
2) : for the IBF website link that states fighters don't have to weigh in on the second day; despite the fact that IBM themselves explicitly stipulate a second day weigh in and you yourself have quoted them (post #34) as such.

Finally, please note also that . . . If (after all the already released ambiguous, conflicting, questionable, and evasive claims that you have released in relation to this matter and failed to explain) you still fail to do as per the above ; please note that I will take that as a very strong indicator that you're unable substantiate your position and/or to progress your claims/arguments any further. Which most likely means you won?t become any more concise and less evasive when/if I have to step you through how contracts and the law works within the circumstances we are debating. All the best,
Storm. :) :) :)


-Kid Blast :

OK, If the IBF stipulates a second day weigh-in, so what? Who cares? No consequences. No penalties. No nothing. That said, it might mean that it pertains to world titles only, and that's conjectural because the wording is not that explicit. or It means it pertains to all fights, but I kind of doubt that since the costs would be pretty high. or it means that it also applies to regional championships but if so, why are there no consequence for failure to show up.? I am not trying to be an a-hole or overly contentious, but if DL did something wrong and/or "flouted' something, why is he not in hot water? Just for you, a great YouTube
->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnO9Jyz82Ps


-Kid Blast :

OK, If the IBF stipulates a second day weigh-in, so what? Who cares? No consequences. No penalties. No nothing. That said, it might mean that it pertains to world titles only, and that's conjectural because the wording is not that explicit. or It means it pertains to all fights, but I kind of doubt that since the costs would be pretty high. or it means that it also applies to regional championships but if so, why are there no consequence for failure to show up.? I am not trying to be an a-hole or overly contentious, but if DL did something wrong and/or "flouted' something, why is he not in hot water? Just for you, a great YouTube
->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnO9Jyz82Ps


-Kid Blast :

Now I'm going to take a break and get ready for the fights. Have me some Rum Chata, a Cohiba Corona (Cuban), and some seriously good flat bread pizza. Later matey


-Kid Blast :

Now I'm going to take a break and get ready for the fights. Have me some Rum Chata, a Cohiba Corona (Cuban), and some seriously good flat bread pizza. Later matey


-stormcentre :

272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.



In summary, you're all over the place and basically all you do is offer *new and *changed claims; with no explanation as to why they change and how it affects the underlying structure of your original claims and attacking assertions. OK, now to your (*new fall back position, and) claims about when violations of a sanctions rules occur without a penalty. Please not that I have already stated within post #48 (and also previous ones) that I (and the law) don’t necessarily care whether a penalty exists and/or is associated with a violation of rules. Just so it's crystal clear for you; penalties and violation of rules are not always mutually inclusive. Meaning that they can occur independently and that a violation exists whether or not it has a penalty associated with it. Furthermore, at the base of my post #30, where I start out with . . .

""
PS: Your post #24's comment about clinching not being holding if the referee allows it, not only highlights inexperience in the sport . . . . . . .""

Please not that, right there, I have already thoroughly addressed and explained to you how your post #24's flawed ""if a fighter holds and the referee allows it then it's not holding"" analogy of how violations/penalties work is simply and woefully wrong. Once again . . . . A violation of the rules/regulations can occur whether or not;


A) A referee acts upon it.
B) A penalty is associated with it.

Even furthermore; within those group-points “
A” - “
E” of my post #22, that;


A) You claimed (your post #31) didn't exist and effectively requested.
B) You then failed to acknowledge (your post #34) them; most likely due to what they meant for your flawed claims.

Is where you will find a discussion on how/why penalties sometimes don't always accompany violations of the rules. Here is the link to my post #22


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110359&viewfull=1#post110359

Look, this is just a suggestion, so it's not mandatory . . . . But, how about you use some of that energy you're wasting to prematurely celebrate victory and go and read it. After all, you have (to date) already been responding to that post (#22) in many ways - plus you've already been caught out pretending its contents don't exist; as a means to progress your flawed claims. OK, let's give you a "little win" so you don't feel too bad about losing the debate about whether or not Lemieux was compliant, and take knife to wrists over all this. Yes, of course, you're right my posts are long; sorry about that. Everybody here knows I write long (naughty and exposing) posts. But you can help there too. You can help by not being so evasive, ambiguous, and inconsistent, with your responses and by also directly answering the questions I have (repeatedly) asked about your claims, stance, and curious victory dance(s). And, if we’re being honest . . . To date you never completely do that. Therefore, all your evasive behavior and the other questionable comments you author are simply left unexplained to grovel/trail in the wake of all your originally dubious claims; creating a rather large paper trail and/or web-page space. Especially, for those whom are trying to keep track of your ever changing and evasive (and flawed) argument(s). So, next time you complain of my length, perhaps you can ask yourself these questions and save us all some time;


A) Is KB being straightforward and/or contributing to it in anyway?
B) Has KB answered all the questions about his claims, and if not (particularly considering he thinks he is correct and celebrating victory) why not?

OK, hopefully that "little win" has pepped you up a bit. Moving on . . . . . I see from your above post #42 you have taken a liking (albeit misconceived) to the phrase "coup de gras". Perhaps this is an example of just how premature your victory celebrations can be - just as much as the phrase itself appears completely unaware of your recent admission (post # 47) that Lemieux had actually violated the rules. In any regards, please read on for a real application of the phrase/term. Within your post # 47’s claim (which I assume now means that out of the conflict that existed between your previous posts #34 and #39 {that you failed to clearly explain} you now are siding with post #34; that effectively states the fighter "must" attend the second and same day weigh in) that explicitly states . . . .

" “If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in,
he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.”"

It also represents a *change to your previous caveats/stance on this entire matter that previously both, assumed and relied upon Lemieux not being non-compliant.
And, therefore that conflicts with all your previous posts that inferred/claimed Lemieux wasn't non-compliant. Posts such as these below that you authored, that all (contrary to your above-mentioned claims within your post #47 that now assert that Lemieux "was" in violation of the rules) assume that Lemieux "was not" in violation of the rules . . .

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #15 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110307&viewfull=1#post110307
The playing field WAS level. If Steven did not want to take advantage iof that, that's his issue. DL uses his strenths to his advantage and has never been called a "cheat" in his career which I have closely followed. Shame on you Storm.......... [/QUOTE]

A good question might be, how was the playing field really level when - by your own account and below post #47 - Lemiuex violated the rules? From there it follows that your above misguided application of shame should perhaps be directed inwards.

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]





[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #20 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110326&viewfull=1#post110326 Why do you insist on being wrong on this one? As long as a fighter (warrior in this case) DL complies with the rules and is not fined, then it is what it is. If DL rehydrates to 210 pounds, that's just fine given the way the weigh-in is set up.
Same-day weigh-ins would mitigate this, but until that becomes mandatory, smart (not cheating) fighters and their teams will do what they can to get every edge. Perhaps if you agree, I'll refrain form going for the close, as I have already stunned you with this zinger and am now ready for the final stalk. [/QUOTE]

A good question might be, who is really insisting on being wrong here? Another good question might be why are you claiming/inferring in post #20 that there is no same day weigh in, when from your below post #47 it's clear that; there is, that Lemieux failed to attend it, and that as a result Lemiuex violated the rules? How could Lemieux violate the rules if the same day weigh in didn't exist and he wasn't required to attend it?

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]





[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #24 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110362&viewfull=1#post110362 Your lengthy post above reminds me of that sheik in Indiana Jones. You know, the one who was using his sword to show what he was capable of doing until Jones called him a name, took out a gun and simply shot him dead. Look, if a fighter is clinching a lot and the referee is allowing it to happen, then it is NOT holding. Same for a weigh-in. If the rules allow someone (Chavez Jr.) to come in a division higher on fight night, then that is a risk his opponent must assume. It occurs within the scope of what is allowed.
DL did what was allowed. He complied with what was allowed. He came in a bit heavier than usual and Stevens paid for it by not being ready for that possibility. Kudos to Mark Ramsey for outsmarting John David Jackson. [/QUOTE]

A good question might be, how did Lemieux do what was allowed and complied with the rules when - by your own account and below post #47 - Lemiuex violated the rules? Another good question might also be, how does your Indiana Jones analogy look now?

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]



Additionally, your recent and aforementioned *change - flipping over - to accept that Lemieux actually "did" violate the rules by not attending the same day and second weigh in also means you have effectively validated my claim that Lemieux "didn’t" completely comply with the rules/regulations and that he flouted them. That claim of mine was itself explicitly stated/contained within my post #22 and the group-points “
A” - “
E” that you abjectly failed to meaningfully address within your earlier post #34 - despite you falsely/misleadingly claiming and/or inferring (within your earlier post #31), both;


A) That Lemieux didn't break/violate any rules.
B) That you had not received anything from me to suggest Lemieux had violated the rules, when - all along - this was a lie; as you already had (see my post #33 and post #22; for just 2 of many examples I could provide) several posts from me where I had stated how/why Lemieux flouted with and violated the rules.

Please remember, all along I warned you about trying to progress these flawed, circular, and highly questionable claims and arguments; in the context of your reputation. Please remember, I also provided you with a few days grace to think things over. Sadly it was all to no avail. As, you have now - with your latest *change and *back flip that categorically confirms that you know and acknowledge that Lemieux violated the IBF rules - effectively validated my position on this matter. Just as much as you have now also shown how flawed and futile your original stance on the matter (that effectively claimed Lemiuex was completely compliant) has been all along. Finally, please note;


A) The closing sentences/paragraphs of my last post #48 and how they (provide me and the readers with insurance, and) apply to your continual inability to quickly/concisely explain yourself - combined with, what surely must be, an endless ability to reliably fail to answer any and all reasonable requests and questions about how your are correct and justified in celebrating victory on a matter you can't adequately explain.
B) That you have (again) failed to provide a URL and/or IBF link - as I requested (in my last post #48) - that states fighters don't have to weigh in on the second day; this is despite the fact that IBF themselves explicitly stipulate a second day weigh in and you yourself have quoted them (post #34) as such. In any regard, now that you finally concede and admit Lemieux has violated the rules, perhaps this is not so important.
C) Thanks for your post # 47’s admission and claim, that states . . . .

"“If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he
presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.”"


And, just one look at my most of my previous posts, including post #22 (and all the group/points from it that you neatly omitted from your post #34 (despite requesting them in your post #31) which then enabled you to continue with the farce the Lemieux didn’t do anything wrong in the context of the rules) clearly substantiates this view.

So, just to be crystal clear . . . The fact you have (within your post #47) explicitly agreed that Lemieux violated the rules means (whether or not a penalty applies) he violated the rules, and that is precisely what I have been saying (and you have been previously denying) all along. Thank you for substantiating this for me; before I even had to step you through how contract law applies to the situation, rules, and regulations. Clever boy aren’t you? Enjoy your pizza Einstein. Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-stormcentre :

thread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.



In summary, you're all over the place and basically all you do is offer *new and *changed claims; with no explanation as to why they change and how it affects the underlying structure of your original claims and attacking assertions. OK, now to your (*new fall back position, and) claims about when violations of a sanctions rules occur without a penalty. Please not that I have already stated within post #48 (and also previous ones) that I (and the law) don?t necessarily care whether a penalty exists and/or is associated with a violation of rules. Just so it's crystal clear for you; penalties and violation of rules are not always mutually inclusive. Meaning that they can occur independently and that a violation exists whether or not it has a penalty associated with it. Furthermore, at the base of my post #30, where I start out with . . .

""
PS: Your post #24's comment about clinching not being holding if the referee allows it, not only highlights inexperience in the sport . . . . . . .""

Please not that, right there, I have already thoroughly addressed and explained to you how your post #24's flawed ""if a fighter holds and the referee allows it then it's not holding"" analogy of how violations/penalties work is simply and woefully wrong. Once again . . . . A violation of the rules/regulations can occur whether or not;


A) A referee acts upon it.
B) A penalty is associated with it.

Even furthermore; within those group-points ?
A? - ?
E? of my post #22, that;


A) You claimed (your post #31) didn't exist and effectively requested.
B) You then failed to acknowledge (your post #34) them; most likely due to what they meant for your flawed claims.

Is where you will find a discussion on how/why penalties sometimes don't always accompany violations of the rules. Here is the link to my post #22


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110359&viewfull=1#post110359

Look, this is just a suggestion, so it's not mandatory . . . . But, how about you use some of that energy you're wasting to prematurely celebrate victory and go and read it. After all, you have (to date) already been responding to that post (#22) in many ways - plus you've already been caught out pretending its contents don't exist; as a means to progress your flawed claims. OK, let's give you a "little win" so you don't feel too bad about losing the debate about whether or not Lemieux was compliant, and take knife to wrists over all this. Yes, of course, you're right my posts are long; sorry about that. Everybody here knows I write long (naughty and exposing) posts. But you can help there too. You can help by not being so evasive, ambiguous, and inconsistent, with your responses and by also directly answering the questions I have (repeatedly) asked about your claims, stance, and curious victory dance(s). And, if we?re being honest . . . To date you never completely do that. Therefore, all your evasive behavior and the other questionable comments you author are simply left unexplained to grovel/trail in the wake of all your originally dubious claims; creating a rather large paper trail and/or web-page space. Especially, for those whom are trying to keep track of your ever changing and evasive (and flawed) argument(s). So, next time you complain of my length, perhaps you can ask yourself these questions and save us all some time;


A) Is KB being straightforward and/or contributing to it in anyway?
B) Has KB answered all the questions about his claims, and if not (particularly considering he thinks he is correct and celebrating victory) why not?

OK, hopefully that "little win" has pepped you up a bit. Moving on . . . . . I see from your above post #42 you have taken a liking (albeit misconceived) to the phrase "coup de gras". Perhaps this is an example of just how premature your victory celebrations can be - just as much as the phrase itself appears completely unaware of your recent admission (post # 47) that Lemieux had actually violated the rules. In any regards, please read on for a real application of the phrase/term. Within your post # 47?s claim (which I assume now means that out of the conflict that existed between your previous posts #34 and #39 {that you failed to clearly explain} you now are siding with post #34; that effectively states the fighter "must" attend the second and same day weigh in) that explicitly states . . . .

" ?If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in,
he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.?"

It also represents a *change to your previous caveats/stance on this entire matter that previously both, assumed and relied upon Lemieux not being non-compliant.
And, therefore that conflicts with all your previous posts that inferred/claimed Lemieux wasn't non-compliant. Posts such as these below that you authored, that all (contrary to your above-mentioned claims within your post #47 that now assert that Lemieux "was" in violation of the rules) assume that Lemieux "was not" in violation of the rules . . .

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #15 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110307&viewfull=1#post110307
The playing field WAS level. If Steven did not want to take advantage iof that, that's his issue. DL uses his strenths to his advantage and has never been called a "cheat" in his career which I have closely followed. Shame on you Storm.......... [/QUOTE]

A good question might be, how was the playing field really level when - by your own account and below post #47 - Lemiuex violated the rules? From there it follows that your above misguided application of shame should perhaps be directed inwards.

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]





[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #20 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110326&viewfull=1#post110326 Why do you insist on being wrong on this one? As long as a fighter (warrior in this case) DL complies with the rules and is not fined, then it is what it is. If DL rehydrates to 210 pounds, that's just fine given the way the weigh-in is set up.
Same-day weigh-ins would mitigate this, but until that becomes mandatory, smart (not cheating) fighters and their teams will do what they can to get every edge. Perhaps if you agree, I'll refrain form going for the close, as I have already stunned you with this zinger and am now ready for the final stalk. [/QUOTE]

A good question might be, who is really insisting on being wrong here? Another good question might be why are you claiming/inferring in post #20 that there is no same day weigh in, when from your below post #47 it's clear that; there is, that Lemieux failed to attend it, and that as a result Lemiuex violated the rules? How could Lemieux violate the rules if the same day weigh in didn't exist and he wasn't required to attend it?

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]





[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #24 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110362&viewfull=1#post110362 Your lengthy post above reminds me of that sheik in Indiana Jones. You know, the one who was using his sword to show what he was capable of doing until Jones called him a name, took out a gun and simply shot him dead. Look, if a fighter is clinching a lot and the referee is allowing it to happen, then it is NOT holding. Same for a weigh-in. If the rules allow someone (Chavez Jr.) to come in a division higher on fight night, then that is a risk his opponent must assume. It occurs within the scope of what is allowed.
DL did what was allowed. He complied with what was allowed. He came in a bit heavier than usual and Stevens paid for it by not being ready for that possibility. Kudos to Mark Ramsey for outsmarting John David Jackson. [/QUOTE]

A good question might be, how did Lemieux do what was allowed and complied with the rules when - by your own account and below post #47 - Lemiuex violated the rules? Another good question might also be, how does your Indiana Jones analogy look now?

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]



Additionally, your recent and aforementioned *change - flipping over - to accept that Lemieux actually "did" violate the rules by not attending the same day and second weigh in also means you have effectively validated my claim that Lemieux "didn?t" completely comply with the rules/regulations and that he flouted them. That claim of mine was itself explicitly stated/contained within my post #22 and the group-points ?
A? - ?
E? that you abjectly failed to meaningfully address within your earlier post #34 - despite you falsely/misleadingly claiming and/or inferring (within your earlier post #31), both;


A) That Lemieux didn't break/violate any rules.
B) That you had not received anything from me to suggest Lemieux had violated the rules, when - all along - this was a lie; as you already had (see my post #33 and post #22; for just 2 of many examples I could provide) several posts from me where I had stated how/why Lemieux flouted with and violated the rules.

Please remember, all along I warned you about trying to progress these flawed, circular, and highly questionable claims and arguments; in the context of your reputation. Please remember, I also provided you with a few days grace to think things over. Sadly it was all to no avail. As, you have now - with your latest *change and *back flip that categorically confirms that you know and acknowledge that Lemieux violated the IBF rules - effectively validated my position on this matter. Just as much as you have now also shown how flawed and futile your original stance on the matter (that effectively claimed Lemiuex was completely compliant) has been all along. Finally, please note;


A) The closing sentences/paragraphs of my last post #48 and how they (provide me and the readers with insurance, and) apply to your continual inability to quickly/concisely explain yourself - combined with, what surely must be, an endless ability to reliably fail to answer any and all reasonable requests and questions about how your are correct and justified in celebrating victory on a matter you can't adequately explain.
B) That you have (again) failed to provide a URL and/or IBF link - as I requested (in my last post #48) - that states fighters don't have to weigh in on the second day; this is despite the fact that IBF themselves explicitly stipulate a second day weigh in and you yourself have quoted them (post #34) as such. In any regard, now that you finally concede and admit Lemieux has violated the rules, perhaps this is not so important.
C) Thanks for your post # 47?s admission and claim, that states . . . .

"?If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he
presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.?"


And, just one look at my most of my previous posts, including post #22 (and all the group/points from it that you neatly omitted from your post #34 (despite requesting them in your post #31) which then enabled you to continue with the farce the Lemieux didn?t do anything wrong in the context of the rules) clearly substantiates this view.

So, just to be crystal clear . . . The fact you have (within your post #47) explicitly agreed that Lemieux violated the rules means (whether or not a penalty applies) he violated the rules, and that is precisely what I have been saying (and you have been previously denying) all along. Thank you for substantiating this for me; before I even had to step you through how contract law applies to the situation, rules, and regulations. Clever boy aren?t you? Enjoy your pizza Einstein. Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-Kid Blast :

I'll resume this beat down (by me) after the noise has died down over the fights last night---one of which showed what a true "flouter" can accomplish by entering the ring significantly heavier than the first weigh-in. Later.


-Kid Blast :

I'll resume this beat down (by me) after the noise has died down over the fights last night---one of which showed what a true "flouter" can accomplish by entering the ring significantly heavier than the first weigh-in. Later.


-stormcentre :

#14 and #15 . . . .
I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts. Your call. Cheers,
Storm.

Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)


-stormcentre :

4 and #15 . . . .
I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts. Your call. Cheers,
Storm.

Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)


-stormcentre :

#14 and #15 . . . .
I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts. Your call. Cheers,
Storm.


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168287-Okay-so-now-who-s-the-1-pound-for-pound-fighter&p=110492&viewfull=1#post110492 Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)


-stormcentre :

4 and #15 . . . .
I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts. Your call. Cheers,
Storm.


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168287-Okay-so-now-who-s-the-1-pound-for-pound-fighter&p=110492&viewfull=1#post110492 Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)


-stormcentre :

" posts #14 and #15 . . . .
I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts. Your call. Cheers,
Storm.


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168287-Okay-so-now-who-s-the-1-pound-for-pound-fighter&p=110492&viewfull=1#post110492 Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)


-stormcentre :

posts #14 and #15 . . . .
I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts. Your call. Cheers,
Storm.


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168287-Okay-so-now-who-s-the-1-pound-for-pound-fighter&p=110492&viewfull=1#post110492 Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)


-stormcentre :

posts #14 and #15 . . . .
I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts. Your call. Cheers,
Storm.



[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #22 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110359&viewfull=1#post110359 Perhaps it's now (before I address your post #14) time to rethink your earlier approach and claims; is it not? It's probably more fun for me if you don't. I'm just (being a nice/fair Storm, and) thinking of your reputation.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #25 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110371&viewfull=1#post110371 Look, (to be fair; and I am a fair Storm that doesn't really want you to invest in evasion/fiction on this Lemieux matter so much that the combination of my obligation to expose it and your addiction to it, simply destroys your reputation) there?s no doubt that avoiding the hard questions that expose emotionally charged claims and rants directed at others (such as your post #14 which got you into the situation where you seem to heave released hyped claims that you now can't meaningfully explain) in this way is not uncommon KB; as it?s Donkey signature is perhaps as well known around here - as you yourself appear to be fascinated and familiar with it.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #35 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110410&viewfull=1#post110410 In the meantime please remember; throughout my previous posts I have given you several written opportunities to rethink your approach and consider your reputation.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #53 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110451&viewfull=1#post110451 Please remember, all along I warned you about trying to progress these flawed, circular, and highly questionable claims and arguments; in the context of your reputation. Please remember, I also provided you with a few days grace to think things over. Sadly it was all to no avail.

[/QUOTE]

In the meantime, you may want to read up on implied terms and contract law my weight lifting friend. As you know, I have written several posts on both here within this forum. And, as you know you have many of the links to my posts that accurately and in detail (before anyone and/or any other website and/or other media/news outlet) forecasted/predicted the outcome of the Haymon/PBC V Arum writ; as you were considering attempting to do something similar. Be careful though. As, anything to do with implied terms and contract law will involve long lengths of text and many pages. Far more/longer than those posts of mine that you love to complain of and contribute to.


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168287-Okay-so-now-who-s-the-1-pound-for-pound-fighter&p=110492&viewfull=1#post110492

Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)


-stormcentre :

posts #14 and #15 . . . .
I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts. Your call. Cheers,
Storm.



[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #22 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110359&viewfull=1#post110359 Perhaps it's now (before I address your post #14) time to rethink your earlier approach and claims; is it not? It's probably more fun for me if you don't. I'm just (being a nice/fair Storm, and) thinking of your reputation.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #25 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110371&viewfull=1#post110371 Look, (to be fair; and I am a fair Storm that doesn't really want you to invest in evasion/fiction on this Lemieux matter so much that the combination of my obligation to expose it and your addiction to it, simply destroys your reputation) there?s no doubt that avoiding the hard questions that expose emotionally charged claims and rants directed at others (such as your post #14 which got you into the situation where you seem to heave released hyped claims that you now can't meaningfully explain) in this way is not uncommon KB; as it?s Donkey signature is perhaps as well known around here - as you yourself appear to be fascinated and familiar with it.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #35 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110410&viewfull=1#post110410 In the meantime please remember; throughout my previous posts I have given you several written opportunities to rethink your approach and consider your reputation.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #53 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110451&viewfull=1#post110451 Please remember, all along I warned you about trying to progress these flawed, circular, and highly questionable claims and arguments; in the context of your reputation. Please remember, I also provided you with a few days grace to think things over. Sadly it was all to no avail.

[/QUOTE]

In the meantime, you may want to read up on implied terms and contract law my weight lifting friend. As you know, I have written several posts on both here within this forum. And, as you know you have many of the links to my posts that accurately and in detail (before anyone and/or any other website and/or other media/news outlet) forecasted/predicted the outcome of the Haymon/PBC V Arum writ; as you were considering attempting to do something similar. Be careful though. As, anything to do with implied terms and contract law will involve long lengths of text and many pages. Far more/longer than those posts of mine that you love to complain of and contribute to.


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168287-Okay-so-now-who-s-the-1-pound-for-pound-fighter&p=110492&viewfull=1#post110492

Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)


-stormcentre :


I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts. Your call. Cheers,
Storm.



[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #22 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110359&viewfull=1#post110359 Perhaps it's now (before I address your post #14) time to rethink your earlier approach and claims; is it not? It's probably more fun for me if you don't. I'm just (being a nice/fair Storm, and) thinking of your reputation.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #25 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110371&viewfull=1#post110371 Look, (to be fair; and I am a fair Storm that doesn't really want you to invest in evasion/fiction on this Lemieux matter so much that the combination of my obligation to expose it and your addiction to it, simply destroys your reputation) there?s no doubt that avoiding the hard questions that expose emotionally charged claims and rants directed at others (such as your post #14 which got you into the situation where you seem to heave released hyped claims that you now can't meaningfully explain) in this way is not uncommon KB; as it?s Donkey signature is perhaps as well known around here - as you yourself appear to be fascinated and familiar with it.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #35 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110410&viewfull=1#post110410 In the meantime please remember; throughout my previous posts I have given you several written opportunities to rethink your approach and consider your reputation.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #53 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110451&viewfull=1#post110451 Please remember, all along I warned you about trying to progress these flawed, circular, and highly questionable claims and arguments; in the context of your reputation. Please remember, I also provided you with a few days grace to think things over. Sadly it was all to no avail.

[/QUOTE]

In the meantime, you may want to read up on implied terms and contract law my weight lifting friend. As you know, I have written several posts on both here within this forum. And, as you know you have many of the links to my posts that accurately and in detail (before anyone and/or any other website and/or other media/news outlet) forecasted/predicted the outcome of the Haymon/PBC V Arum writ; as you were considering attempting to do something similar. Be careful though. As, anything to do with implied terms and contract law will involve long lengths of text and many pages. Far more/longer than those posts of mine that you love to complain of and contribute to.


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168287-Okay-so-now-who-s-the-1-pound-for-pound-fighter&p=110492&viewfull=1#post110492

Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)


-stormcentre :


I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts. Your call. Cheers,
Storm.



[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #22 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110359&viewfull=1#post110359
Perhaps it's now (before I address your post #14) time to rethink your earlier approach and claims; is it not? It's probably more fun for me if you don't.
I'm just (being a nice/fair
Storm., and) thinking of your reputation.


[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #25 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110371&viewfull=1#post110371 Look, (
to be fair; and I am a fair
Storm. that doesn't really want you to invest in evasion/fiction on this Lemieux matter so much that the combination of my obligation to expose it and your addiction to it, simply destroys your reputation
) there?s no doubt that avoiding the hard questions that expose emotionally charged claims and rants directed at others (such as your post #14 which got you into the situation where you seem to heave released hyped claims that you now can't meaningfully explain) in this way is not uncommon KB; as it?s Donkey signature is perhaps as well known around here - as you yourself appear to be fascinated and familiar with it.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #35 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110410&viewfull=1#post110410 In the meantime please remember; throughout my previous posts
I have given you several written opportunities to rethink your approach and consider your reputation.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #53 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110451&viewfull=1#post110451
Please remember, all along I warned you about trying to progress these flawed, circular, and highly questionable claims and arguments; in the context of your reputation.
Please remember, I also provided you with a few days grace to think things over. Sadly it was all to no avail.

[/QUOTE]

In the meantime, you may want to read up on implied terms and contract law my weight lifting friend. As you know, I have written several posts on both here within this forum. And, as you know you have many of the links to my posts that accurately and in detail (before anyone and/or any other website and/or other media/news outlet) forecasted/predicted the outcome of the Haymon/PBC V Arum writ; as you were considering attempting to do something similar. Be careful though. As, anything to do with implied terms and contract law will involve long lengths of text and many pages. Far more/longer than those posts of mine that you love to complain of and contribute to.


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168287-Okay-so-now-who-s-the-1-pound-for-pound-fighter&p=110492&viewfull=1#post110492

Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)


-Kid Blast :

I concede. You win. I lose. DL is a cheating, no account, slime ball, scumbag, rumpswab, deceptive rat. Worse of all, he is a flouter.

== DL



= = Me


-Kid Blast :

I concede. You win. I lose. DL is a cheating, no account, slime ball, scumbag, rumpswab, deceptive rat. Worse of all, he is a flouter.

== DL



= = Me


-stormcentre :

here it follows that your above misguided application of shame should perhaps be directed inwards. Additionally, as shown within the links contained in my above post #56 and here . . . .
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168287-Okay-so-now-who-s-the-1-pound-for-pound-fighter&p=110492&viewfull=1#post110492 Contrary to your below post #49, penalties do exist; which means all along that aspect of your argument was incorrect as much as it substantiates that you didn't know what you were (emotionally) talking about and (hypocritically) insisting on being wrong with; all as (as per the closing sections of my above post #56) I was trying to tell you to slow down.

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #49 (direct conflict with above post #15) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110441&viewfull=1#post110441 OK, If the IBF stipulates a second day weigh-in, so what? Who cares? No consequences. No penalties. No nothing. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 ((direct conflict with above post #15)) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]





------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #20 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110326&viewfull=1#post110326
Why do you insist on being wrong on this one? As long as a fighter (warrior in this case) DL
complies with the rules and is not fined, then it is what it is. If DL rehydrates to 210 pounds, that's just fine given the way the weigh-in is set up.
Same-day weigh-ins would mitigate this, but until that becomes mandatory, smart (not cheating) fighters and their teams will do what they can to get every edge. Perhaps if you agree,
I'll refrain form going for the close, as I have already stunned you with this zinger and am now ready for the final stalk. [/QUOTE]

A good question might be, who is really insisting on being wrong here? Another good question might be why are you claiming/inferring in post #20 that there is no same day weigh in, when from your below posts #47 & #49 it's clear that; there is, that Lemieux failed to attend it, and that as a result Lemiuex violated the rules? How could Lemieux violate the rules if the same day weigh in didn't exist and he wasn't required to attend it?



[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #49 (direct conflict with above post #20) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110441&viewfull=1#post110441 OK, If the IBF stipulates a second day weigh-in, so what? Who cares? No consequences. No penalties. No nothing. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 (direct conflict with above post #20) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #24 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110362&viewfull=1#post110362 Your lengthy post above reminds me of that sheik in Indiana Jones. You know, the one who was using his sword to show what he was capable of doing until Jones called him a name, took out a gun and simply shot him dead. Look, if a fighter is clinching a lot and the referee is allowing it to happen, then it is NOT holding. Same for a weigh-in. If the rules allow someone (Chavez Jr.) to come in a division higher on fight night, then that is a risk his opponent must assume. It occurs within the scope of what is allowed.
DL did what was allowed. He complied with what was allowed. He came in a bit heavier than usual and Stevens paid for it by not being ready for that possibility. Kudos to Mark Ramsey for outsmarting John David Jackson. [/QUOTE]

A good question might be, how did Lemieux do what was allowed and complied with the rules when - by your own account and below posts #47 & #49 - Lemiuex violated the rules? Another good question might also be, how does your Indiana Jones analogy look now? Finally, it's unfortunate that you're condoning Mark Ramsey for showing his fighter how to cheat (when flouting the rules in this way could mean Stevens ends up as another character in your "concussion now it's boxing's turn" article); is it not?



[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #49 (direct conflict with above post #24) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110441&viewfull=1#post110441 OK, If the IBF stipulates a second day weigh-in, so what? Who cares? No consequences. No penalties. No nothing. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 (direct conflict with above post #24) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #32 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110381&viewfull=1#post110381 Oh yes,
I am now beginning the stalk in earnest. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #34 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388 How did he refuse to comply? And don't give me this "breach of conduct" nonsense. Otherwise, half of Trump's cabinet would need to resign. Look. Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you. https:///threads/the-ibf-morning-weigh-in-rule-bs-or-good.479433/ Taken from the IBF website. Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit. Your move, matey. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #40 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110428&viewfull=1#post110428 Apparently it was not mandated.
Otherwise , there would have been consequences for DL. Also, and most compelling, you are the ONLY one to argue otherwise. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #42 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110430&viewfull=1#post110430
Storm, you have been had. You have met your Venus Fly Trap [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #44 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110435&viewfull=1#post110435 Yeah, for a World Title.
What part of that do you fail to grasp. So here, try this, in the albescence of anything that mandates a second day weigh-in for non-title fights,
there is no mandate Can you show me proof that he did have to do it? That he flouted the rules?
If you do, I'll back off and grant you some mercy here. Bottom line: DL DID NOT SHOW BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE TO. JACBS DID NOT SHOW Because he could care lees about the title.[/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #46 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110438&viewfull=1#post110438
I know how contracts work. You move and I now dedicate this old goody just to you. Cheers and all the best lad. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #54 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110474&viewfull=1#post110474
I'll resume this beat down (by me) after the noise has died down over the fights last night---one of which showed what a true "flouter" can accomplish by entering the ring significantly heavier than the first weigh-in. Later. [/QUOTE] ------------


A good question might be, how was the playing field really level when - by your own account and below posts #47 & #49 - Lemiuex violated the rules? From there it follows that your above misguided application of shame should perhaps be directed inwards. Additionally, as shown within the links contained in my above post #56 and here . . . .
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168287-Okay-so-now-who-s-the-1-pound-for-pound-fighter&p=110492&viewfull=1#post110492 Contrary to your below post #49, penalties do exist; which means all along that aspect of your argument was incorrect as much as it substantiates that you didn't know what you were (emotionally) talking about and (hypocritically) insisting on being wrong with; all as (as per the closing sections of my above post #56) I was trying to tell you to slow down.

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #49 (direct conflict with above post #15) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110441&viewfull=1#post110441 OK, If the IBF stipulates a second day weigh-in, so what? Who cares? No consequences. No penalties. No nothing. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 ((direct conflict with above post #15)) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]





------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #20 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110326&viewfull=1#post110326
Why do you insist on being wrong on this one? As long as a fighter (warrior in this case) DL
complies with the rules and is not fined, then it is what it is. If DL rehydrates to 210 pounds, that's just fine given the way the weigh-in is set up.
Same-day weigh-ins would mitigate this, but until that becomes mandatory, smart (not cheating) fighters and their teams will do what they can to get every edge. Perhaps if you agree,
I'll refrain form going for the close, as I have already stunned you with this zinger and am now ready for the final stalk. [/QUOTE]

A good question might be, who is really insisting on being wrong here? Another good question might be why are you claiming/inferring in post #20 that there is no same day weigh in, when from your below posts #47 & #49 it's clear that; there is, that Lemieux failed to attend it, and that as a result Lemiuex violated the rules? How could Lemieux violate the rules if the same day weigh in didn't exist and he wasn't required to attend it?



[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #49 (direct conflict with above post #20) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110441&viewfull=1#post110441 OK, If the IBF stipulates a second day weigh-in, so what? Who cares? No consequences. No penalties. No nothing. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 (direct conflict with above post #20) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #24 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110362&viewfull=1#post110362 Your lengthy post above reminds me of that sheik in Indiana Jones. You know, the one who was using his sword to show what he was capable of doing until Jones called him a name, took out a gun and simply shot him dead. Look, if a fighter is clinching a lot and the referee is allowing it to happen, then it is NOT holding. Same for a weigh-in. If the rules allow someone (Chavez Jr.) to come in a division higher on fight night, then that is a risk his opponent must assume. It occurs within the scope of what is allowed.
DL did what was allowed. He complied with what was allowed. He came in a bit heavier than usual and Stevens paid for it by not being ready for that possibility. Kudos to Mark Ramsey for outsmarting John David Jackson. [/QUOTE]

A good question might be, how did Lemieux do what was allowed and complied with the rules when - by your own account and below posts #47 & #49 - Lemiuex violated the rules? Another good question might also be, how does your Indiana Jones analogy look now? Finally, it's unfortunate that you're condoning Mark Ramsey for showing his fighter how to cheat (when flouting the rules in this way could mean Stevens ends up as another character in your "concussion now it's boxing's turn" article); is it not?



[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #49 (direct conflict with above post #24) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110441&viewfull=1#post110441 OK, If the IBF stipulates a second day weigh-in, so what? Who cares? No consequences. No penalties. No nothing. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 (direct conflict with above post #24) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #32 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110381&viewfull=1#post110381 Oh yes,
I am now beginning the stalk in earnest. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #34 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388 How did he refuse to comply? And don't give me this "breach of conduct" nonsense. Otherwise, half of Trump's cabinet would need to resign. Look. Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you. https:///threads/the-ibf-morning-weigh-in-rule-bs-or-good.479433/ Taken from the IBF website. Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit. Your move, matey. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #40 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110428&viewfull=1#post110428 Apparently it was not mandated.
Otherwise , there would have been consequences for DL. Also, and most compelling, you are the ONLY one to argue otherwise. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #42 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110430&viewfull=1#post110430
Storm, you have been had. You have met your Venus Fly Trap [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #44 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110435&viewfull=1#post110435 Yeah, for a World Title.
What part of that do you fail to grasp. So here, try this, in the albescence of anything that mandates a second day weigh-in for non-title fights,
there is no mandate Can you show me proof that he did have to do it? That he flouted the rules?
If you do, I'll back off and grant you some mercy here. Bottom line: DL DID NOT SHOW BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE TO. JACBS DID NOT SHOW Because he could care lees about the title.[/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #46 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110438&viewfull=1#post110438
I know how contracts work. You move and I now dedicate this old goody just to you. Cheers and all the best lad. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #54 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110474&viewfull=1#post110474
I'll resume this beat down (by me) after the noise has died down over the fights last night---one of which showed what a true "flouter" can accomplish by entering the ring significantly heavier than the first weigh-in. Later. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-stormcentre :

From there it follows that your above misguided application of shame should perhaps be directed inwards. Additionally, as shown within the links contained in my above post #56 and here . . . .
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168287-Okay-so-now-who-s-the-1-pound-for-pound-fighter&p=110492&viewfull=1#post110492 Contrary to your below post #49, penalties do exist; which means all along that aspect of your argument was incorrect as much as it substantiates that you didn't know what you were (emotionally) talking about and (hypocritically) insisting on being wrong with; all as (as per the closing sections of my above post #56) I was trying to tell you to slow down.

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #49 (direct conflict with above post #15) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110441&viewfull=1#post110441 OK, If the IBF stipulates a second day weigh-in, so what? Who cares? No consequences. No penalties. No nothing. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 ((direct conflict with above post #15)) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]





------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #20 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110326&viewfull=1#post110326
Why do you insist on being wrong on this one? As long as a fighter (warrior in this case) DL
complies with the rules and is not fined, then it is what it is. If DL rehydrates to 210 pounds, that's just fine given the way the weigh-in is set up.
Same-day weigh-ins would mitigate this, but until that becomes mandatory, smart (not cheating) fighters and their teams will do what they can to get every edge. Perhaps if you agree,
I'll refrain form going for the close, as I have already stunned you with this zinger and am now ready for the final stalk. [/QUOTE]

A good question might be, who is really insisting on being wrong here? Another good question might be why are you claiming/inferring in post #20 that there is no same day weigh in, when from your below posts #47 & #49 it's clear that; there is, that Lemieux failed to attend it, and that as a result Lemiuex violated the rules? How could Lemieux violate the rules if the same day weigh in didn't exist and he wasn't required to attend it?



[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #49 (direct conflict with above post #20) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110441&viewfull=1#post110441 OK, If the IBF stipulates a second day weigh-in, so what? Who cares? No consequences. No penalties. No nothing. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 (direct conflict with above post #20) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #24 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110362&viewfull=1#post110362 Your lengthy post above reminds me of that sheik in Indiana Jones. You know, the one who was using his sword to show what he was capable of doing until Jones called him a name, took out a gun and simply shot him dead. Look, if a fighter is clinching a lot and the referee is allowing it to happen, then it is NOT holding. Same for a weigh-in. If the rules allow someone (Chavez Jr.) to come in a division higher on fight night, then that is a risk his opponent must assume. It occurs within the scope of what is allowed.
DL did what was allowed. He complied with what was allowed. He came in a bit heavier than usual and Stevens paid for it by not being ready for that possibility. Kudos to Mark Ramsey for outsmarting John David Jackson. [/QUOTE]

A good question might be, how did Lemieux do what was allowed and complied with the rules when - by your own account and below posts #47 & #49 - Lemiuex violated the rules? Another good question might also be, how does your Indiana Jones analogy look now? Finally, it's unfortunate that you're condoning Mark Ramsey for showing his fighter how to cheat (when flouting the rules in this way could mean Stevens ends up as another character in your "concussion now it's boxing's turn" article); is it not?



[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #49 (direct conflict with above post #24) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110441&viewfull=1#post110441 OK, If the IBF stipulates a second day weigh-in, so what? Who cares? No consequences. No penalties. No nothing. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 (direct conflict with above post #24) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #32 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110381&viewfull=1#post110381 Oh yes,
I am now beginning the stalk in earnest. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #34 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388
How did he refuse to comply? And don't give me this "breach of conduct" nonsense. Otherwise, half of Trump's cabinet would need to resign. Look.
Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you. https:///threads/the-ibf-morning-weigh-in-rule-bs-or-good.479433/
Taken from the IBF website. Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit. Your move, matey. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #40 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110428&viewfull=1#post110428 Apparently it was not mandated.
Otherwise , there would have been consequences for DL. Also, and most compelling, you are the ONLY one to argue otherwise. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #42 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110430&viewfull=1#post110430
Storm, you have been had. You have met your Venus Fly Trap [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #44 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110435&viewfull=1#post110435 Yeah, for a World Title.
What part of that do you fail to grasp. So here, try this, in the albescence of anything that mandates a second day weigh-in for non-title fights,
there is no mandate Can you show me proof that he did have to do it? That he flouted the rules?
If you do, I'll back off and grant you some mercy here. Bottom line: DL DID NOT SHOW BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE TO. JACBS DID NOT SHOW Because he could care lees about the title.[/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #46 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110438&viewfull=1#post110438
I know how contracts work. You move and I now dedicate this old goody just to you. Cheers and all the best lad. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #54 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110474&viewfull=1#post110474
I'll resume this beat down (by me) after the noise has died down over the fights last night---one of which showed what a true "flouter" can accomplish by entering the ring significantly heavier than the first weigh-in. Later. [/QUOTE] -----------


A good question might be, how was the playing field really level when - by your own account and below posts #47 & #49 - Lemiuex violated the rules? From there it follows that your above misguided application of shame should perhaps be directed inwards. Additionally, as shown within the links contained in my above post #56 and here . . . .
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168287-Okay-so-now-who-s-the-1-pound-for-pound-fighter&p=110492&viewfull=1#post110492 Contrary to your below post #49, penalties do exist; which means all along that aspect of your argument was incorrect as much as it substantiates that you didn't know what you were (emotionally) talking about and (hypocritically) insisting on being wrong with; all as (as per the closing sections of my above post #56) I was trying to tell you to slow down.

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #49 (direct conflict with above post #15) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110441&viewfull=1#post110441 OK, If the IBF stipulates a second day weigh-in, so what? Who cares? No consequences. No penalties. No nothing. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 ((direct conflict with above post #15)) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]





------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #20 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110326&viewfull=1#post110326
Why do you insist on being wrong on this one? As long as a fighter (warrior in this case) DL
complies with the rules and is not fined, then it is what it is. If DL rehydrates to 210 pounds, that's just fine given the way the weigh-in is set up.
Same-day weigh-ins would mitigate this, but until that becomes mandatory, smart (not cheating) fighters and their teams will do what they can to get every edge. Perhaps if you agree,
I'll refrain form going for the close, as I have already stunned you with this zinger and am now ready for the final stalk. [/QUOTE]

A good question might be, who is really insisting on being wrong here? Another good question might be why are you claiming/inferring in post #20 that there is no same day weigh in, when from your below posts #47 & #49 it's clear that; there is, that Lemieux failed to attend it, and that as a result Lemiuex violated the rules? How could Lemieux violate the rules if the same day weigh in didn't exist and he wasn't required to attend it?



[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #49 (direct conflict with above post #20) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110441&viewfull=1#post110441 OK, If the IBF stipulates a second day weigh-in, so what? Who cares? No consequences. No penalties. No nothing. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 (direct conflict with above post #20) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #24 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110362&viewfull=1#post110362 Your lengthy post above reminds me of that sheik in Indiana Jones. You know, the one who was using his sword to show what he was capable of doing until Jones called him a name, took out a gun and simply shot him dead. Look, if a fighter is clinching a lot and the referee is allowing it to happen, then it is NOT holding. Same for a weigh-in. If the rules allow someone (Chavez Jr.) to come in a division higher on fight night, then that is a risk his opponent must assume. It occurs within the scope of what is allowed.
DL did what was allowed. He complied with what was allowed. He came in a bit heavier than usual and Stevens paid for it by not being ready for that possibility. Kudos to Mark Ramsey for outsmarting John David Jackson. [/QUOTE]

A good question might be, how did Lemieux do what was allowed and complied with the rules when - by your own account and below posts #47 & #49 - Lemiuex violated the rules? Another good question might also be, how does your Indiana Jones analogy look now? Finally, it's unfortunate that you're condoning Mark Ramsey for showing his fighter how to cheat (when flouting the rules in this way could mean Stevens ends up as another character in your "concussion now it's boxing's turn" article); is it not?



[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #49 (direct conflict with above post #24) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110441&viewfull=1#post110441 OK, If the IBF stipulates a second day weigh-in, so what? Who cares? No consequences. No penalties. No nothing. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 (direct conflict with above post #24) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #32 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110381&viewfull=1#post110381 Oh yes,
I am now beginning the stalk in earnest. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #34 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388
How did he refuse to comply? And don't give me this "breach of conduct" nonsense. Otherwise, half of Trump's cabinet would need to resign. Look.
Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you. https:///threads/the-ibf-morning-weigh-in-rule-bs-or-good.479433/
Taken from the IBF website. Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit. Your move, matey. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #40 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110428&viewfull=1#post110428 Apparently it was not mandated.
Otherwise , there would have been consequences for DL. Also, and most compelling, you are the ONLY one to argue otherwise. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #42 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110430&viewfull=1#post110430
Storm, you have been had. You have met your Venus Fly Trap [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #44 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110435&viewfull=1#post110435 Yeah, for a World Title.
What part of that do you fail to grasp. So here, try this, in the albescence of anything that mandates a second day weigh-in for non-title fights,
there is no mandate Can you show me proof that he did have to do it? That he flouted the rules?
If you do, I'll back off and grant you some mercy here. Bottom line: DL DID NOT SHOW BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE TO. JACBS DID NOT SHOW Because he could care lees about the title.[/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #46 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110438&viewfull=1#post110438
I know how contracts work. You move and I now dedicate this old goody just to you. Cheers and all the best lad. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #54 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110474&viewfull=1#post110474
I'll resume this beat down (by me) after the noise has died down over the fights last night---one of which showed what a true "flouter" can accomplish by entering the ring significantly heavier than the first weigh-in. Later. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-stormcentre :

here it follows that your above misguided application of shame should perhaps be directed inwards. Additionally, as shown within the links contained in my above post #56 and here . . . .
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168287-Okay-so-now-who-s-the-1-pound-for-pound-fighter&p=110492&viewfull=1#post110492 Contrary to your below post #49, penalties do exist; which means all along that aspect of your argument was incorrect as much as it substantiates that you didn't know what you were (emotionally) talking about and (hypocritically) insisting on being wrong with; all as (as per the closing sections of my above post #56) I was trying to tell you to slow down.

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #49 (direct conflict with above post #15) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110441&viewfull=1#post110441 OK, If the IBF stipulates a second day weigh-in, so what? Who cares? No consequences. No penalties. No nothing. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 ((direct conflict with above post #15)) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]





------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #20 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110326&viewfull=1#post110326
Why do you insist on being wrong on this one? As long as a fighter (warrior in this case) DL
complies with the rules and is not fined, then it is what it is. If DL rehydrates to 210 pounds, that's just fine given the way the weigh-in is set up.
Same-day weigh-ins would mitigate this, but until that becomes mandatory, smart (not cheating) fighters and their teams will do what they can to get every edge. Perhaps if you agree,
I'll refrain form going for the close, as I have already stunned you with this zinger and am now ready for the final stalk. [/QUOTE]

A good question might be, who is really insisting on being wrong here? Another good question might be why are you claiming/inferring in post #20 that there is no same day weigh in, when from your below posts #47 & #49 it's clear that; there is, that Lemieux failed to attend it, and that as a result Lemiuex violated the rules? How could Lemieux violate the rules if the same day weigh in didn't exist and he wasn't required to attend it?



[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #49 (direct conflict with above post #20) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110441&viewfull=1#post110441 OK, If the IBF stipulates a second day weigh-in, so what? Who cares? No consequences. No penalties. No nothing. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 (direct conflict with above post #20) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #24 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110362&viewfull=1#post110362 Your lengthy post above reminds me of that sheik in Indiana Jones. You know, the one who was using his sword to show what he was capable of doing until Jones called him a name, took out a gun and simply shot him dead. Look, if a fighter is clinching a lot and the referee is allowing it to happen, then it is NOT holding. Same for a weigh-in. If the rules allow someone (Chavez Jr.) to come in a division higher on fight night, then that is a risk his opponent must assume. It occurs within the scope of what is allowed.
DL did what was allowed. He complied with what was allowed. He came in a bit heavier than usual and Stevens paid for it by not being ready for that possibility. Kudos to Mark Ramsey for outsmarting John David Jackson. [/QUOTE]

A good question might be, how did Lemieux do what was allowed and complied with the rules when - by your own account and below posts #47 & #49 - Lemiuex violated the rules? Another good question might also be, how does your Indiana Jones analogy look now? Finally, it's unfortunate that you're condoning Mark Ramsey for showing his fighter how to cheat (when flouting the rules in this way could mean Stevens ends up as another character in your "concussion now it's boxing's turn" article); is it not?



[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #49 (direct conflict with above post #24) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110441&viewfull=1#post110441 OK, If the IBF stipulates a second day weigh-in, so what? Who cares? No consequences. No penalties. No nothing. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 (direct conflict with above post #24) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #32 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110381&viewfull=1#post110381 Oh yes,
I am now beginning the stalk in earnest. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #34 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388
How did he refuse to comply? And don't give me this "breach of conduct" nonsense. Otherwise, half of Trump's cabinet would need to resign. Look.
Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you. https:///threads/the-ibf-morning-weigh-in-rule-bs-or-good.479433/
Taken from the IBF website. Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit. Your move, matey. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #40 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110428&viewfull=1#post110428 Apparently it was not mandated.
Otherwise , there would have been consequences for DL. Also, and most compelling, you are the ONLY one to argue otherwise. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #42 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110430&viewfull=1#post110430
Storm, you have been had. You have met your Venus Fly Trap [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #44 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110435&viewfull=1#post110435 Yeah, for a World Title.
What part of that do you fail to grasp. So here, try this, in the albescence of anything that mandates a second day weigh-in for non-title fights,
there is no mandate Can you show me proof that he did have to do it? That he flouted the rules?
If you do, I'll back off and grant you some mercy here. Bottom line: DL DID NOT SHOW BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE TO. JACBS DID NOT SHOW Because he could care lees about the title.[/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #46 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110438&viewfull=1#post110438
I know how contracts work. You move and I now dedicate this old goody just to you. Cheers and all the best lad. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #54 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110474&viewfull=1#post110474
I'll resume this beat down (by me) after the noise has died down over the fights last night---one of which showed what a true "flouter" can accomplish by entering the ring significantly heavier than the first weigh-in. Later. [/QUOTE] ------------


A good question might be, how was the playing field really level when - by your own account and below posts #47 & #49 - Lemiuex violated the rules? From there it follows that your above misguided application of shame should perhaps be directed inwards. Additionally, as shown within the links contained in my above post #56 and here . . . .
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168287-Okay-so-now-who-s-the-1-pound-for-pound-fighter&p=110492&viewfull=1#post110492 Contrary to your below post #49, penalties do exist; which means all along that aspect of your argument was incorrect as much as it substantiates that you didn't know what you were (emotionally) talking about and (hypocritically) insisting on being wrong with; all as (as per the closing sections of my above post #56) I was trying to tell you to slow down.

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #49 (direct conflict with above post #15) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110441&viewfull=1#post110441 OK, If the IBF stipulates a second day weigh-in, so what? Who cares? No consequences. No penalties. No nothing. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 ((direct conflict with above post #15)) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]





------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #20 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110326&viewfull=1#post110326
Why do you insist on being wrong on this one? As long as a fighter (warrior in this case) DL
complies with the rules and is not fined, then it is what it is. If DL rehydrates to 210 pounds, that's just fine given the way the weigh-in is set up.
Same-day weigh-ins would mitigate this, but until that becomes mandatory, smart (not cheating) fighters and their teams will do what they can to get every edge. Perhaps if you agree,
I'll refrain form going for the close, as I have already stunned you with this zinger and am now ready for the final stalk. [/QUOTE]

A good question might be, who is really insisting on being wrong here? Another good question might be why are you claiming/inferring in post #20 that there is no same day weigh in, when from your below posts #47 & #49 it's clear that; there is, that Lemieux failed to attend it, and that as a result Lemiuex violated the rules? How could Lemieux violate the rules if the same day weigh in didn't exist and he wasn't required to attend it?



[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #49 (direct conflict with above post #20) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110441&viewfull=1#post110441 OK, If the IBF stipulates a second day weigh-in, so what? Who cares? No consequences. No penalties. No nothing. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 (direct conflict with above post #20) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #24 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110362&viewfull=1#post110362 Your lengthy post above reminds me of that sheik in Indiana Jones. You know, the one who was using his sword to show what he was capable of doing until Jones called him a name, took out a gun and simply shot him dead. Look, if a fighter is clinching a lot and the referee is allowing it to happen, then it is NOT holding. Same for a weigh-in. If the rules allow someone (Chavez Jr.) to come in a division higher on fight night, then that is a risk his opponent must assume. It occurs within the scope of what is allowed.
DL did what was allowed. He complied with what was allowed. He came in a bit heavier than usual and Stevens paid for it by not being ready for that possibility. Kudos to Mark Ramsey for outsmarting John David Jackson. [/QUOTE]

A good question might be, how did Lemieux do what was allowed and complied with the rules when - by your own account and below posts #47 & #49 - Lemiuex violated the rules? Another good question might also be, how does your Indiana Jones analogy look now? Finally, it's unfortunate that you're condoning Mark Ramsey for showing his fighter how to cheat (when flouting the rules in this way could mean Stevens ends up as another character in your "concussion now it's boxing's turn" article); is it not?



[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #49 (direct conflict with above post #24) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110441&viewfull=1#post110441 OK, If the IBF stipulates a second day weigh-in, so what? Who cares? No consequences. No penalties. No nothing. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #47 (direct conflict with above post #24) excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110439&viewfull=1#post110439
If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule.

[/QUOTE]



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #32 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110381&viewfull=1#post110381 Oh yes,
I am now beginning the stalk in earnest. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #34 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388
How did he refuse to comply? And don't give me this "breach of conduct" nonsense. Otherwise, half of Trump's cabinet would need to resign. Look.
Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you. https:///threads/the-ibf-morning-weigh-in-rule-bs-or-good.479433/
Taken from the IBF website. Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit. Your move, matey. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #40 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110428&viewfull=1#post110428 Apparently it was not mandated.
Otherwise , there would have been consequences for DL. Also, and most compelling, you are the ONLY one to argue otherwise. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #42 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110430&viewfull=1#post110430
Storm, you have been had. You have met your Venus Fly Trap [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #44 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110435&viewfull=1#post110435 Yeah, for a World Title.
What part of that do you fail to grasp. So here, try this, in the albescence of anything that mandates a second day weigh-in for non-title fights,
there is no mandate Can you show me proof that he did have to do it? That he flouted the rules?
If you do, I'll back off and grant you some mercy here. Bottom line: DL DID NOT SHOW BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE TO. JACBS DID NOT SHOW Because he could care lees about the title.[/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #46 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110438&viewfull=1#post110438
I know how contracts work. You move and I now dedicate this old goody just to you. Cheers and all the best lad. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #54 excerpt]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110474&viewfull=1#post110474
I'll resume this beat down (by me) after the noise has died down over the fights last night---one of which showed what a true "flouter" can accomplish by entering the ring significantly heavier than the first weigh-in. Later. [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-Kid Blast :

OK. But I don't think he looked any heavier than he did against GGG. And here is an interesting, albeit insane, post on another site that I just quashed "And Golovkin isn’t a light heavyweight by the time of the opening bell? Of course he is…no ker plunk…how did Jacobs cheat? The WBA, WBC, and IBO would verify that no rules were violated in their eyes…the commission concurs…no rules were violated with the IBF, either, since the bout was no longer for the IBF belt…and Golovkin clearly lost…double ker plunk!" So I guess this suggests that the 10-pound rule might not apply to a non-title fight. Can you prove otherwise? If so, I hit the road Jack and never come back, no more no more no more no more, But try to do it without the Indiana Jones-type flamboyance of the Sheik. Thank you. Your chance to deliver the death blow--maybe.


-stormcentre :

OK. But I don't think he looked any heavier than he did against GGG. And here is an interesting, albeit insane, post on another site that I just quashed
1) "And Golovkin isn?t a light heavyweight by the time of the opening bell? Of course he is?no ker plunk?
2)How did Jacobs cheat? The WBA, WBC, and IBO would verify that no rules were violated in their eyes?the commission concurs?no rules were violated with the IBF, either, since the bout was no longer for the IBF belt?and Golovkin clearly lost?double ker plunk!"
3) So I guess this suggests that the 10-pound rule might not apply to a non-title fight. Can you prove otherwise? If so, I hit the road Jack and never come back, no more no more no more no more, But try to do it without the Indiana Jones-type flamboyance of the Sheik. Thank you. Your chance to deliver the death blow--maybe.

KB . . . Dear me . . . All those questions, either;


A)
The former; have already been answered within the above posts that (dare I say "refreshed/schooled you"? No, better to say) brought you up to speed on this matter.
B)
The latter; You yourself have pretty much already (or so I had thought) acknowledged/authored the answers; from previous posts and your acceptance of defeat on this matter.

OK, one more time . . . . Insofar as the
former; the answers already exist within the same posts that precede this post. These are the very same posts that (as per most of my above posts, including posts #53 & #56 - where I detail your evasive/flawed approach to this matter) you previously pretended to ignore - then when that ruse was exposed, selectively interpreted the responses/recommendations - then rolled over - then reversed the rollover - then thought about changing tact again, and jumped at it . . . . and on it went . . . Look . . . Because always I try to remain positive and hold out hope for even those whom one might otherwise be justified in labeling a numpty . . . . I am not quite there yet with you, but . . . . . It has crossed my mind that soon I may be justified in truly thinking that your problem is;


A) Not just, off-paced learning and an inability to think before you post.
B) But also, slightly pathological.

Sure you don't need any help to embarrass yourself. But geez (even aside from the fact it followed on from posts #58 and #59) your last post and these questions is surely dynamite for fools. Anyway, since I am a nice
Storm, in the context of the above-mentioned
former and
latter discussion, here (again) are the answers to your questions;


1) Right here . . . .




->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168242-Danny-Jacobs-Inspired-for-GGG-by-Nutritionist-Chris-Algieri%92s-Rocky-Story&p=110533&viewfull=1#post110533

You yourself agree with Amayseng that Triple was 170 on the HBO scales on the night/day of the fight, and that Jacobs was at least 185. Does this not effectively already (in your own words) answer the question about whether or not Triple was a light heavyweight by the time of the opening bell; which really, implicitly, is a question that seeks to claim Jacobs supposedly had no weight advantage - whilst at the same time lay a foundation for the other flawed and already discussed questions that are associated with it? Whether or not Triple was a light heavyweight on the night, surely by now it is clear;


(i) By observation.
(ii) Apparently also by the HBO scales.
(iii) From what Jacobs did within the context of the IBF rules he violated.

That Daniel Jacobs was significantly bigger/heavier then Triple. Furthermore, from the way Jacobs violated the IBF rules and used the IBF title/sanction sacrificially, it is (reasonably) clear that it was his intention to;


(i) Come in heavy.
(ii) Avail himself of an easier/better re-hydration process than Triple.
(iii) Deceive Triple; due to the fact that the Golovkin camp don't appear to have been proactively notified of what Jacobs did; at least not until the second/same-day weigh in, when they realised by default that Jacobs was absent.




2) The answer to this question is;




a) Something you already have, right here . . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168287-Okay-so-now-who-s-the-1-pound-for-pound-fighter&p=110492&viewfull=1#post110492


b) Rules actually were violated, and they were the IBF's rules.
c) It is a fallacy that no rules were violated simply because the bout was supposedly no longer for the IBF belt/title.

Any theory that purports to suggest that because the fight was no longer for the IBF belt/title "supposedly" no rules were violated (based on my incomplete but reasonable understanding of the way Jacobs did it), is false, because it;


-
Not only, confuses
cause and
effect.
-
But also, was "actually" the very instance of Jacobs;


(i) "Failing" to attend the second/same-day weigh.
(ii) "Failing" to confirm his weight and compliance with the +10 pound rule.
(iii) (And it could be also argued) "Failing" to confirm his compliance with the divisional weight stipulations, as they apply to both fighter's health/safety.

That actually
caused the
effect of the fight to no longer be for the IBF belt/title.

In authoring the above points/consideration Jacobs (it would appear deliberately) violated the IBF rules; but didn't care. Just because you don't care about a violation you author doesn't mean it doesn't exist and/or that you didn't violate the rules. Additionally, in Jacobs failing to both, attend the second/same-day weigh in and confirm his weight, and also then ultimately violating the IBF rules; Jacobs experienced a penalty. That penalty was that he could no longer contest the IBF title and/or be declared its champion - even if he won the fight. Therefore, any purse/earnings directly associated with Jacobs potentially winning the IBF title effectively forms another aspect of the penalty; associated with Jacobs actions of failing to attend the second/same-day weigh in and confirm his weight, and violating the IBF rules.



The claim that Gennady Golovkin clearly didn't win is also false; and I suspect that's why it's not accompanied by any solid evidence. Jacobs (and the advantages he had) gave a good account of himself, there's no doubt about that. What was/is clear (that favors Triple's success on the night) was this;


(i) Triple (not Jacobs) came forward and made the fight for the most part.
(ii) Triple (not Jacobs) threw more jabs and dictated the engagements more often.
(iii) Triple (not Jacobs) was the only fighter to score a KD; and that KD was over Jacobs.
(iv) Triple (not Jacobs) landed more punches overall than Jacobs; as the punch statistics show.


->http://www.boxingscene.com/golovkin-vs-jacobs-compubox-punch-stats--114756






3) This is rubbish.

The IBF +10 pound rule and how it applies to the second/same-day weigh in, applies directly to championship contests. Even the misguided IBF quote you lifted from a non IBF site . . . .


->https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-ibf-morning-weigh-in-rule-bs-or-good.479433/

That I refer to here . . . .



[QUOTE=stormcentre;post #53] [SIZE=1]Talk about not knowing when to quit.
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110503&viewfull=1#post110503 In true form. Another post from you that fails to address any of the outstanding and hypocritical points associated with all your claims on the matter; whilst continuing with the delusion you are a winner. All you are doing now is showing us you can pretend better than most; at pretending both, you have not proved my point and instead adequately explained yourself. It?s embarrassing.

Look here.
It's game over already dude, and you lost.

Even the IBF rules you initially/questionably quoted within your post #34


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388

And laid your case to rest upon, appear - word for word - to come from somewhere similar to here . . . .


->https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-ibf-morning-weigh-in-rule-bs-or-good.479433/




Can you please explain this?

[/QUOTE]





Explicitly mentions both, champions and the +10 pound rule; along with how that all applies to the second/same-day weigh in. So, once again, you pretty much have the answers yourself. There's that
former and
latter thingy that I mentioned above at the start of this post. You probably just need to take the time to meaningfully learn from them.

OK, (after doing all that for free for you) . . now a little request for you KB . . . . Please make this the last post of this kind. It's getting embarrassing. I thought I had already (by dealing with it head on and in it's own group/other terms) eradicated most of the donkey/tribal behavior from this site; raising it's already high standard. This is the best boxing site on the planet and you should know this stuff. Furthermore, if you don't;


A) You shouldn't be waging forum wars on the basis of it and acting like you do.
B) And, if you still can't refrain from waging forum wars and/or debates on the basis of it and acting like you have in this thread (especially considering you're a boxing writer); you should be researching the topic first - then posting second.

As I have always said, it's nothing personal. Still love your gig. Just keep it real/professional; please. Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-stormcentre :

OK. But I don't think he looked any heavier than he did against GGG. And here is an interesting, albeit insane, post on another site that I just quashed
1) "And Golovkin isn?t a light heavyweight by the time of the opening bell? Of course he is?no ker plunk?
2)How did Jacobs cheat? The WBA, WBC, and IBO would verify that no rules were violated in their eyes?the commission concurs?no rules were violated with the IBF, either, since the bout was no longer for the IBF belt?and Golovkin clearly lost?double ker plunk!"
3) So I guess this suggests that the 10-pound rule might not apply to a non-title fight. Can you prove otherwise? If so, I hit the road Jack and never come back, no more no more no more no more, But try to do it without the Indiana Jones-type flamboyance of the Sheik. Thank you. Your chance to deliver the death blow--maybe.

KB . . . Dear me . . . All those questions, either;


A)
The former; have already been answered within the above posts that (dare I say "refreshed/schooled you"? No, better to say) brought you up to speed on this matter.
B)
The latter; You yourself have pretty much already (or so I had thought) acknowledged/authored the answers; from previous posts and your acceptance of defeat on this matter.

OK, one more time . . . . Insofar as the
former; the answers already exist within the same posts that precede this post. These are the very same posts that (as per most of my above posts, including posts #53 & #56 - where I detail your evasive/flawed approach to this matter) you previously pretended to ignore - then when that ruse was exposed, selectively interpreted the responses/recommendations - then rolled over - then reversed the rollover - then thought about changing tact again, and jumped at it . . . . and on it went . . . Look . . . Because always I try to remain positive and hold out hope for even those whom one might otherwise be justified in labeling a numpty . . . . I am not quite there yet with you, but . . . . . It has crossed my mind that soon I may be justified in truly thinking that your problem is;


A) Not just, off-paced learning and an inability to think before you post.
B) But also, slightly pathological.

Sure you don't need any help to embarrass yourself. But geez (even aside from the fact it followed on from posts #58 and #59) your last post and these questions is surely dynamite for fools. Anyway, since I am a nice
Storm, in the context of the above-mentioned
former and
latter discussion, here (again) are the answers to your questions;


1) Right here . . . .




->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168242-Danny-Jacobs-Inspired-for-GGG-by-Nutritionist-Chris-Algieri%92s-Rocky-Story&p=110533&viewfull=1#post110533

You yourself agree with Amayseng that Triple was 170 on the HBO scales on the night/day of the fight, and that Jacobs was at least 185. Does this not effectively already (in your own words) answer the question about whether or not Triple was a light heavyweight by the time of the opening bell; which really, implicitly, is a question that seeks to claim Jacobs supposedly had no weight advantage - whilst at the same time lay a foundation for the other flawed and already discussed questions that are associated with it? Whether or not Triple was a light heavyweight on the night, surely by now it is clear;


(i) By observation.
(ii) Apparently also by the HBO scales.
(iii) From what Jacobs did within the context of the IBF rules he violated.

That Daniel Jacobs was significantly bigger/heavier then Triple. Furthermore, from the way Jacobs violated the IBF rules and used the IBF title/sanction sacrificially, it is (reasonably) clear that it was his intention to;


(i) Come in heavy.
(ii) Avail himself of an easier/better re-hydration process than Triple.
(iii) Deceive Triple; due to the fact that the Golovkin camp don't appear to have been proactively notified of what Jacobs did; at least not until the second/same-day weigh in, when they realised by default that Jacobs was absent.




2) The answer to this question is;




a) Something you already have, right here . . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168287-Okay-so-now-who-s-the-1-pound-for-pound-fighter&p=110492&viewfull=1#post110492


b) Rules actually were violated, and they were the IBF's rules.
c) It is a fallacy that no rules were violated simply because the bout was supposedly no longer for the IBF belt/title.

Any theory that purports to suggest that because the fight was no longer for the IBF belt/title "supposedly" no rules were violated (based on my incomplete but reasonable understanding of the way Jacobs did it), is false, because it;


-
Not only, confuses
cause and
effect.
-
But also, was "actually" the very instance of Jacobs;


(i) "Failing" to attend the second/same-day weigh.
(ii) "Failing" to confirm his weight and compliance with the +10 pound rule.
(iii) (And it could be also argued) "Failing" to confirm his compliance with the divisional weight stipulations, as they apply to both fighter's health/safety.

That actually
caused the
effect of the fight to no longer be for the IBF belt/title.

In authoring the above points/consideration Jacobs (it would appear deliberately) violated the IBF rules; but didn't care. Just because you don't care about a violation you author doesn't mean it doesn't exist and/or that you didn't violate the rules. Additionally, in Jacobs failing to both, attend the second/same-day weigh in and confirm his weight, and also then ultimately violating the IBF rules; Jacobs experienced a penalty. That penalty was that he could no longer contest the IBF title and/or be declared its champion - even if he won the fight. Therefore, any purse/earnings directly associated with Jacobs potentially winning the IBF title effectively forms another aspect of the penalty; associated with Jacobs actions of failing to attend the second/same-day weigh in and confirm his weight, and violating the IBF rules.



The claim that Gennady Golovkin clearly didn't win is also false; and I suspect that's why it's not accompanied by any solid evidence. Jacobs (and the advantages he had) gave a good account of himself, there's no doubt about that. What was/is clear (that favors Triple's success on the night) was this;


(i) Triple (not Jacobs) came forward and made the fight for the most part.
(ii) Triple (not Jacobs) threw more jabs and dictated the engagements more often.
(iii) Triple (not Jacobs) was the only fighter to score a KD; and that KD was over Jacobs.
(iv) Triple (not Jacobs) landed more punches overall than Jacobs; as the punch statistics show.


->http://www.boxingscene.com/golovkin-vs-jacobs-compubox-punch-stats--114756






3) This is rubbish.

The IBF +10 pound rule and how it applies to the second/same-day weigh in, applies directly to championship contests. Even the misguided IBF quote you lifted from a non IBF site . . . .


->https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-ibf-morning-weigh-in-rule-bs-or-good.479433/

That I refer to here . . . .



[QUOTE=stormcentre;post #53] [SIZE=1]Talk about not knowing when to quit.
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110503&viewfull=1#post110503 In true form. Another post from you that fails to address any of the outstanding and hypocritical points associated with all your claims on the matter; whilst continuing with the delusion you are a winner. All you are doing now is showing us you can pretend better than most; at pretending both, you have not proved my point and instead adequately explained yourself. It?s embarrassing.

Look here.
It's game over already dude, and you lost.

Even the IBF rules you initially/questionably quoted within your post #34


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388

And laid your case to rest upon, appear - word for word - to come from somewhere similar to here . . . .


->https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-ibf-morning-weigh-in-rule-bs-or-good.479433/




Can you please explain this?

[/QUOTE]





Explicitly mentions both, champions and the +10 pound rule; along with how that all applies to the second/same-day weigh in. So, once again, you pretty much have the answers yourself. There's that
former and
latter thingy that I mentioned above at the start of this post. You probably just need to take the time to meaningfully learn from them.

OK, (after doing all that for free for you) . . now a little request for you KB . . . . Please make this the last post of this kind. It's getting embarrassing. I thought I had already (by dealing with it head on and in it's own group/other terms) eradicated most of the donkey/tribal behavior from this site; raising it's already high standard. This is the best boxing site on the planet and you should know this stuff. Furthermore, if you don't;


A) You shouldn't be waging forum wars on the basis of it and acting like you do.
B) And, if you still can't refrain from waging forum wars and/or debates on the basis of it and acting like you have in this thread (especially considering you're a boxing writer); you should be researching the topic first - then posting second.

As I have always said, it's nothing personal. Still love your gig. Just keep it real/professional; please. Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-Kid Blast :

"Explicitly mentions both, champions and the +10 pound rule; along with how that all applies to the second/same-day weigh in.' Yes, world champions like Jacobs. DL was not a world champion in this fight. I have no issues with what Jacobs did. It was wrong. But where---where---in the IBF rule does it state that a non-world champion must do the +10 pond rule. Cite the rule and point out the relevant part and I will be on my way to my next power lifting event. It's coming up in two weeks.


-Kid Blast :

"Explicitly mentions both, champions and the +10 pound rule; along with how that all applies to the second/same-day weigh in.' Yes, world champions like Jacobs. DL was not a world champion in this fight. I have no issues with what Jacobs did. It was wrong. But where---where---in the IBF rule does it state that a non-world champion must do the +10 pond rule. Cite the rule and point out the relevant part and I will be on my way to my next power lifting event. It's coming up in two weeks.



And stop with the insults as a righteous debater does not do that. lol


-stormcentre :


-stormcentre :


-stormcentre :

x-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388 How did he refuse to comply? And don't give me this "breach of conduct" nonsense. Otherwise, half of Trump's cabinet would need to resign.
(KB has already back flipped on this comment). Look. Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you.
(KB insult and hypocritical comment). 'There shall be a second day weigh-in on the morning of the event. The promoter of the event shall arrange for the use of the scale at the prearranged time and location for the second day weigh-in. At this weigh-in, boxers cannot weigh more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit. If a boxer weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, he will have two (2) hours thereafter to make the prescribed weight. If after two (2) hours he still weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, the fight cannot proceed as a championship bout. If the Champion fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the title will be vacated. If the Challenger fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the fight may be staged with the understanding that the Champion shall retain his title whether he wins or loses the bout' Taken from the IBF website. Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit. Your move, matey

Shows.



I honestly can't believe how shortsighted and persistent you are on the matters you raise. Think of your reputation Ted. You have been provided with all the answers to all your previous and current questions already. But somehow you still consistently fail to comprehend them. And, I suspect that has something to do with how you originally - without thinking and/or research - rushed (your post #14) in with ""the playing field
was level"" in a manner reminiscent of Silly Sam manner; where from there all your effort was spent on defending your flawed claims and pretending they were true - rather than checking, researching, learning, and using that PhD of yours. :) In short, with your last post, you're showing a preference for continuing to use the same *above-mentioned approaches, even now at this stage. Regardless of what you should have learned from this matter and and irrespective of what you had already been shown. It defies the imagination. You're the only person with a doctorate that I know whom does that; continuously. Now you're back with more questions about the +10 pound rule; yet none of the other outstanding points in your previous arguments are brought up to speed are they? You know all the ones you; .


A) Blurted out, got wrong, and failed to correct as you advanced your flawed arguments and insults.
B) I also refer to here . . .

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #56]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110503&viewfull=1#post110503 Finally, and please read this real slowly and twice (so you understand all of it), KB . . .
Any further response from you on this matter that fails to completely bring all your claims up to speed with all the outstanding requests and questions about them - including those detailed here within this post; will be (at my discretion) either ignored or referred back to what questions/requests you failed to comply with. I say that because, if (after all the already released ambiguous, conflicting, questionable, and evasive claims that you have released in relation to this matter and failed to explain; and there is a long trail) you still fail to do as per the above . . . . That will be a very strong indicator that you're unable substantiate your position and/or to progress your claims/arguments any further; and are just wasting more time. Which most likely means you won’t become any more concise and less evasive when/if I have to step you through how contracts and the law works within the circumstances we are debating.

[/QUOTE]

Do you think it's remotely possible that the real reason you keep confusing this matter and episodically treating it in a manner where you're seemingly not aware of the answers you do actually have and/or consistently failing to learn from all your mistakes, is possibly due to;


A) The approach you used, blurting out all the wrong claims to begin with, that led you to then successively fail to correct all your oversights/mistakes; all as you advanced your flawed arguments and insults.
B) The fact that - to date - (and despite the requests for you to do it) you have not bothered to bring your arguments and oversights up to speed (so you can begin to learn from them and the answers I have provided); as per my above-pasted comments from my post #56?

You may not know this (in fact despite all it means for your stance/posts and all that has already transpired, I am almost completely certain you don't) but you're actually not in a position with this matter to be calling (yet more) favors, answers, and requests. Your sense of entitlement (whilst so much is wrong and outstanding on your part) on this matter is simply astounding.
Look, I appreciate you're clutching at straws and desperate to find me wrong in any way possible, no matter how small or indirect it may be. But . . . . From my post #56 I stated that any further response from you on this matter that fails to completely bring all your claims up to speed with all the outstanding requests and questions about them will be (at my discretion) either ignored or referred back to what questions/requests you failed to comply with.

Remember, I said that that because you had so many ambiguous, conflicting, questionable, and evasive, claims that were already outstanding in relation to this matter; that it just wasn't funny. I said it also because your failure to explain yourself even half as well as you released all your claims was - to me - a very strong indicator that you're wasting more time. Which, if you recall, I had considered meant that it means you probably won’t become any more concise and less evasive when/if I have to step you through how contracts and the law works within the circumstances we are debating. Which appears to be exactly where you are now, where you're displaying signs that you're still;


A) Confused about what you have previously posted/said; and what it means for your changing and misconceived arguments/claims.
B) Confused about how the IBF rules (that you previously were so extremely confident of) work.
C) Almost completely without the ability to say you have genuinely learned from the experience and previous posts/answers that have already highlighted your oversights and set you straight.
D) Aimlessly asking new questions that seek to provide you with a foundation to avoid learning from your past mistakes and, instead, continue with the approach that created them; without so much of a passing thought as to why you can't substantiate your own new stance/question.



Please note, that, to date (as per my last few posts that both, ensued the aforementioned post #56 and also answer yet more questions for you {whilst you still leave all your previously questionable claims/arguments trailing in the wake without explanations}) I have already shown you plenty of grace by not immediately resorting to the above post #56 excerpt. And, from my last post it is clear to see that I would have been well within my rights to immediately resort to the above post #56 excerpt. So, you see, despite all your hypocritical and ludicrous claims, and despite all your (already answered) questions; to date I have been a nice
Storm. So, perhaps a good question or two (for you) now is;


1) Why have you not done all that (as per my above post #56 excerpt) before asking me (yet) another (foolish) question?
2) Why have you not learnt from all I have already provided you so, that you can put that education of yours to good use and answer your latest question, all by yourself?

After all, it's not like this is the first time you have assumed/claimed to be without information/answers that, in fact, are already there.

post #33;
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110382&viewfull=1#post110382




3) Why have you not ""Hit the road Jack and never come back"" - as your last post claimed it would if I (then) answered all your questions (as I have done)?
4) Why - with so much already wrong/outstanding - are you introducing (yet) more/new questions (that you already have the answer to); rather than proving the assumption that they supposedly rely upon is true first? In other words, why can't you yourself prove that the +10 pound rule does or does not apply, as you seek to claim?

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #61]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110537&viewfull=1#post110537 Furthermore, if you don't;

A) You shouldn't be waging forum wars on the basis of it and acting like you do. B) And, if you still can't refrain from waging forum wars and/or debates on the basis of it and acting like you have in this thread (especially considering you're a boxing writer); you should be researching the topic first - then posting second.

[/QUOTE]

And the list goes on to describe a total embarrassment on your part; especially considering the way you opened up this debate.

Bring all your flawed claims and insulting oversights up to speed and learn from them; then I will consider your latest request. Because, right now it's obvious to see that, rather than do all that, you still show preference for persisting with confusing your own arguments and/or introducing others. The answers to your latest question (and and both its and your latest glaring oversight) are all there for you in that exercise.
So, now, as per my above post #56 excerpt, its reasonable requests, and the grace I have already shown you with respect to it . . . . Go forth my well educated and pizza and flat bread loving friend. Look and examine your own mistakes. Read the previous posts. Learn from them all. Do your own research. Learn. Unveil the answer to your own non-dilemma. Until all that happens; you have already proven my point. So (until you address the above and show me that you're learning) I don't really care about your (new/changing) point/questions and/or it's relevance to the original matter; and as such it therefore follows that - until you do all that and as you expect me to do for you - nor do I need to help you learn why it may be irrelevant to the original matter and quite possibly as flawed as the rest. Free yourself. Have fun. Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)


-stormcentre :


-stormcentre :

x-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388 How did he refuse to comply? And don't give me this "breach of conduct" nonsense. Otherwise, half of Trump's cabinet would need to resign.
(KB has already back flipped on this comment). Look. Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you.
(KB insult and hypocritical comment). 'There shall be a second day weigh-in on the morning of the event. The promoter of the event shall arrange for the use of the scale at the prearranged time and location for the second day weigh-in. At this weigh-in, boxers cannot weigh more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit. If a boxer weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, he will have two (2) hours thereafter to make the prescribed weight. If after two (2) hours he still weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, the fight cannot proceed as a championship bout. If the Champion fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the title will be vacated. If the Challenger fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the fight may be staged with the understanding that the Champion shall retain his title whether he wins or loses the bout'
Taken from the IBF website. Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit. Your move, matey

Shows.



I honestly can't believe how shortsighted and persistent you are on the matters you raise. Think of your reputation Ted. You have been provided with all the answers to all your previous and current questions already. But somehow you still consistently fail to comprehend them. And, I suspect that has something to do with how you originally - without thinking and/or research - rushed (your post #14) in with ""the playing field
was level"" in a manner reminiscent of Silly Sam. Where from there all your effort was spent on defending your flawed claims and pretending they were true - rather than checking, researching, learning, and using that PhD of yours. :) In short, with your last post, you're showing a preference for continuing to use the same *above-mentioned approaches, even now at this stage. Regardless of what you should have learned from this matter and and irrespective of what you had already been shown. It defies the imagination. You're the only person with a doctorate that I know whom does that; continuously. Now you're back with more questions about the +10 pound rule; yet none of the other outstanding points in your previous arguments are brought up to speed are they? You know all the ones you; .


A) Blurted out, got wrong, and failed to correct as you advanced your flawed arguments and insults.
B) I also refer to here . . .

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #56]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110503&viewfull=1#post110503 Finally, and please read this real slowly and twice (so you understand all of it), KB . . .
Any further response from you on this matter that fails to completely bring all your claims up to speed with all the outstanding requests and questions about them - including those detailed here within this post; will be (at my discretion) either ignored or referred back to what questions/requests you failed to comply with. I say that because, if (after all the already released ambiguous, conflicting, questionable, and evasive claims that you have released in relation to this matter and failed to explain; and there is a long trail) you still fail to do as per the above . . . . That will be a very strong indicator that you're unable substantiate your position and/or to progress your claims/arguments any further; and are just wasting more time. Which most likely means you won’t become any more concise and less evasive when/if I have to step you through how contracts and the law works within the circumstances we are debating.

[/QUOTE]

Do you think it's remotely possible that the real reason you keep confusing this matter and episodically treating it in a manner where you're seemingly not aware of the answers you do actually have and/or consistently failing to learn from all your mistakes, is possibly due to;


A) The approach you used, blurting out all the wrong claims to begin with, that led you to then successively fail to correct all your oversights/mistakes; all as you advanced your flawed arguments and insults.
B) The fact that - to date - (and despite the requests for you to do it) you have not bothered to bring your arguments and oversights up to speed (so you can begin to learn from them and the answers I have provided); as per my above-pasted comments from my post #56?

You may not know this (in fact despite all it means for your stance/posts and all that has already transpired, I am almost completely certain you don't) but you're actually not in a position with this matter to be calling (yet more) favors, answers, and requests. Your sense of entitlement (whilst so much is wrong and outstanding on your part) on this matter is simply astounding.
Look, I appreciate you're clutching at straws and desperate to find me wrong in any way possible, no matter how small or indirect it may be. But . . . . From my post #56 I stated that any further response from you on this matter that fails to completely bring all your claims up to speed with all the outstanding requests and questions about them will be (at my discretion) either ignored or referred back to what questions/requests you failed to comply with.

Remember, I said that that because you had so many ambiguous, conflicting, questionable, and evasive, claims that were already outstanding in relation to this matter; that it just wasn't funny. I said it also because your failure to explain yourself even half as well as you released all your claims was - to me - a very strong indicator that you're wasting more time. Which, if you recall, I had considered meant that it means you probably won’t become any more concise and less evasive when/if I have to step you through how contracts and the law works within the circumstances we are debating. Which appears to be exactly where you are now, where you're displaying signs that you're still;


A) Confused about what you have previously posted/said; and what it means for your changing and misconceived arguments/claims.
B) Confused about how the IBF rules (that you previously were so extremely confident of) work.
C) Almost completely without the ability to say you have genuinely learned from the experience and previous posts/answers that have already highlighted your oversights and set you straight.
D) Aimlessly asking new questions that seek to provide you with a foundation to avoid learning from your past mistakes and, instead, continue with the approach that created them; without so much of a passing thought as to why you can't substantiate your own new stance/question.



Please note, that, to date (as per my last few posts that both, ensued the aforementioned post #56 and also answer yet more questions for you {whilst you still leave all your previously questionable claims/arguments trailing in the wake without explanations}) I have already shown you plenty of grace by not immediately resorting to the above post #56 excerpt. And, from my last post it is clear to see that I would have been well within my rights to immediately resort to the above post #56 excerpt. So, you see, despite all your hypocritical and ludicrous claims, and despite all your (already answered) questions; to date I have been a nice
Storm. So, perhaps a good question or two (for you) now is;


1) Why have you not done all that (as per my above post #56 excerpt) before asking me (yet) another (foolish) question?
2) Why have you not learnt from all I have already provided you so, that you can put that education of yours to good use and answer your latest question, all by yourself?

After all, it's not like this is the first time you have assumed/claimed to be without information/answers that, in fact, are already there.

post #33;
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110382&viewfull=1#post110382




3) Why have you not ""Hit the road Jack and never come back"" - as your last post claimed it would if I (then) answered all your questions (as I have done)?
4) Why - with so much already wrong/outstanding - are you introducing (yet) more/new questions (that you already have the answer to); rather than proving the assumption that they supposedly rely upon is true first? In other words, why can't you yourself prove that the +10 pound rule does or does not apply, as you seek to claim?

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #61]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110537&viewfull=1#post110537 Furthermore, if you don't;

A) You shouldn't be waging forum wars on the basis of it and acting like you do. B) And, if you still can't refrain from waging forum wars and/or debates on the basis of it and acting like you have in this thread (especially considering you're a boxing writer); you should be researching the topic first - then posting second.

[/QUOTE]

And the list goes on to describe a total embarrassment on your part; especially considering the way you opened up this debate.

Bring all your flawed claims and insulting oversights up to speed and learn from them; then I will consider your latest request. Because, right now it's obvious to see that, rather than do all that, you still show preference for persisting with confusing your own arguments and/or introducing others. The answers to your latest question (and and both its and your latest glaring oversight) are all there for you in that exercise.
So, now, as per my above post #56 excerpt, its reasonable requests, and the grace I have already shown you with respect to it . . . . Go forth my well educated and pizza and flat bread loving friend. Look and examine your own mistakes. Read the previous posts. Learn from them all. Do your own research. Learn. Unveil the answer to your own non-dilemma. Until all that happens; you have already proven my point. So (until you address the above and show me that you're learning) I don't really care about your (new/changing) point/questions and/or it's relevance to the original matter; and as such it therefore follows that - until you do all that and as you expect me to do for you - nor do I need to help you learn why it may be irrelevant to the original matter and quite possibly as flawed as the rest. Free yourself. Have fun. Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)


-stormcentre :


-stormcentre :

x-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388 How did he refuse to comply? And don't give me this "breach of conduct" nonsense. Otherwise, half of Trump's cabinet would need to resign.
(KB has already back flipped on this comment). Look. Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you.
(KB insult and hypocritical comment). 'There shall be a second day weigh-in on the morning of the event. The promoter of the event shall arrange for the use of the scale at the prearranged time and location for the second day weigh-in. At this weigh-in, boxers cannot weigh more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit. If a boxer weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, he will have two (2) hours thereafter to make the prescribed weight. If after two (2) hours he still weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, the fight cannot proceed as a championship bout. If the Champion fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the title will be vacated. If the Challenger fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the fight may be staged with the understanding that the Champion shall retain his title whether he wins or loses the bout'
Taken from the IBF website. Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit. Your move, matey

Shows.



I honestly can't believe how shortsighted and persistent you are on the matters you raise. Think of your reputation Ted. You have been provided with all the answers to all your previous and current questions already. But somehow you still consistently fail to comprehend them. And, I suspect that has something to do with how you originally - without thinking and/or research - rushed (your post #14) in with ""the playing field
was level"" in a manner reminiscent of Silly Sam. Where from there all your effort was spent on defending your flawed claims and pretending they were true - rather than checking, researching, learning, and using that PhD of yours. :) In short, with your last post, you're showing a preference for continuing to use the same *above-mentioned approaches, even now at this stage. Regardless of what you should have learned from this matter and and irrespective of what you had already been shown. It defies the imagination. You're the only person with a doctorate that I know whom does that; continuously. Now you're back with more questions about the +10 pound rule; yet none of the other outstanding points in your previous arguments are brought up to speed are they? You know all the ones;


A) You blurted out, got wrong, and failed to correct as you advanced your flawed arguments and insults.
B) I also refer to here . . .

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #56]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110503&viewfull=1#post110503 Finally, and please read this real slowly and twice (so you understand all of it), KB . . .
Any further response from you on this matter that fails to completely bring all your claims up to speed with all the outstanding requests and questions about them - including those detailed here within this post; will be (at my discretion) either ignored or referred back to what questions/requests you failed to comply with. I say that because, if (after all the already released ambiguous, conflicting, questionable, and evasive claims that you have released in relation to this matter and failed to explain; and there is a long trail) you still fail to do as per the above . . . . That will be a very strong indicator that you're unable substantiate your position and/or to progress your claims/arguments any further; and are just wasting more time. Which most likely means you won’t become any more concise and less evasive when/if I have to step you through how contracts and the law works within the circumstances we are debating.

[/QUOTE]

Do you think it's remotely possible that the real reason you keep confusing this matter and episodically treating it in a manner where you're seemingly not aware of the answers you do actually have and/or consistently failing to learn from all your mistakes, is possibly due to;


A) The approach you used, blurting out all the wrong claims to begin with, that led you to then successively fail to correct all your oversights/mistakes; all as you advanced your flawed arguments and insults.
B) The fact that - to date - (and despite the requests for you to do it) you have not bothered to bring your arguments and oversights up to speed (so you can begin to learn from them and the answers I have provided); as per my above-pasted comments from my post #56?

You may not know this (in fact despite all it means for your stance/posts and all that has already transpired, I am almost completely certain you don't) but you're actually not in a position with this matter to be calling (yet more) favors, answers, and requests. Your sense of entitlement (whilst so much is wrong and outstanding on your part) on this matter is simply astounding.
Look, I appreciate you're clutching at straws and desperate to find me wrong in any way possible, no matter how small or indirect it may be. But . . . . From my post #56 I stated that any further response from you on this matter that fails to completely bring all your claims up to speed with all the outstanding requests and questions about them will be (at my discretion) either ignored or referred back to what questions/requests you failed to comply with.

Remember, I said that that because you had so many ambiguous, conflicting, questionable, and evasive, claims that were already outstanding in relation to this matter; that it just wasn't funny. I said it also because your failure to explain yourself even half as well as you released all your claims was - to me - a very strong indicator that you're wasting more time. Which, if you recall, I had considered meant that it means you probably won’t become any more concise and less evasive when/if I have to step you through how contracts and the law works within the circumstances we are debating. Which appears to be exactly where you are now, where you're displaying signs that you're still;


A) Confused about what you have previously posted/said; and what it means for your changing and misconceived arguments/claims.
B) Confused about how the IBF rules (that you previously were so extremely confident of) work.
C) Almost completely without the ability to say you have genuinely learned from the experience and previous posts/answers that have already highlighted your oversights and set you straight.
D) Aimlessly asking new questions that seek to provide you with a foundation to avoid learning from your past mistakes and, instead, continue with the approach that created them; without so much of a passing thought as to why you can't substantiate your own new stance/question.



Please note, that, to date (as per my last few posts that both, ensued the aforementioned post #56 and also answer yet more questions for you {whilst you still leave all your previously questionable claims/arguments trailing in the wake without explanations}) I have already shown you plenty of grace by not immediately resorting to the above post #56 excerpt. And, from my last post it is clear to see that I would have been well within my rights to immediately resort to the above post #56 excerpt. So, you see, despite all your hypocritical and ludicrous claims, and despite all your (already answered) questions; to date I have been a nice
Storm. So, perhaps a good question or two (for you) now is;


1) Why have you not done all that (as per my above post #56 excerpt) before asking me (yet) another (foolish) question?
2) Why have you not learnt from all I have already provided you so, that you can put that education of yours to good use and answer your latest question, all by yourself?

After all, it's not like this is the first time you have assumed/claimed to be without information/answers that, in fact, are already there.

post #33;
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110382&viewfull=1#post110382




3) Why have you not ""Hit the road Jack and never come back"" - as your last post claimed it would if I (then) answered all your questions (as I have done)?
4) Why - with so much already wrong/outstanding - are you introducing (yet) more/new questions (that you already have the answer to); rather than proving the assumption that they supposedly rely upon is true first? In other words, why can't you yourself prove that the +10 pound rule does or does not apply, as you seek to claim?

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #61]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110537&viewfull=1#post110537 Furthermore, if you don't;

A) You shouldn't be waging forum wars on the basis of it and acting like you do. B) And, if you still can't refrain from waging forum wars and/or debates on the basis of it and acting like you have in this thread (especially considering you're a boxing writer); you should be researching the topic first - then posting second.

[/QUOTE]

And the list goes on to describe a total embarrassment on your part; especially considering the way you opened up this debate.

Bring all your flawed claims and insulting oversights up to speed and learn from them; then I will consider your latest request. Because, right now it's obvious to see that, rather than do all that, you still show preference for persisting with confusing your own arguments and/or introducing others. The answers to your latest question (and and both its and your latest glaring oversight) are all there for you in that exercise.
So, now, as per my above post #56 excerpt, its reasonable requests, and the grace I have already shown you with respect to it . . . . Go forth my well educated and pizza and flat bread loving friend. Look and examine your own mistakes. Read the previous posts. Learn from them all. Do your own research. Learn. Unveil the answer to your own non-dilemma. Until all that happens; you have already proven my point. So (until you address the above and show me that you're learning) I don't really care about your (new/changing) point/questions and/or it's relevance to the original matter; and as such it therefore follows that - until you do all that and as you expect me to do for you - nor do I need to help you learn why it may be irrelevant to the original matter and quite possibly as flawed as the rest. Free yourself. Have fun. Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)


-stormcentre :


-Kid Blast :

You simply cannot cut to the chase. Sad. Now I will address your "points" after I finish training for my next event and working through the pain of a damaged gracilis muscle sprain which is almost as difficult as reading your novellas.
I'll be back.


-Kid Blast :

You simply cannot cut to the chase. Sad. Now I will address your "points" after I finish training for my next event and working through the pain of a damaged gracilis muscle sprain which is almost as difficult as reading your novellas.
I'll be back.


-stormcentre :

etend both, that they're correct and it's not game over. Go back and correct, acknowledge, explain, and learn from all your previous arguments and claims. Perhaps you can start with your post #34 that opened this post up with, and both, explain it's true origins and look there. From there you can trundle through all the posts/information you claimed didn't exist, and also learn from your mistakes; to bring your arguments (and knowledge) up to speed; in a manner that's not so reliant on others and focused on introducing more flawed assumptions/claims. Give it a go.



Which all basically means, you need to substantiate yourself, learn from your own mistakes and admit (all of) them (with the same effort they were released with), and do your own research. If you feel strongly about a point - then (particularly whilst you have not "cut to the chase" on all your own outstanding questions/mistakes) you must, at least try to, prove it yourself. Don't ask me to dis/prove it for you. Not whilst you have (a powerful PhD and have) consecutively failed to "cut to the chase" on all your past and flawed claims. And, especially since, this new point of yours (post #62) represents yet another back flip (again) from your previous stance - just as much as it shows that you still haven't leaned from the monumental blunder that you made in your post #34, here . . . . .

[QUOTE=StormCentre;post #64] [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110571&viewfull=1#post110571 You're a fine one to talk about the insults, as my previous posts and their exposure of all the comments your authored show.

For example, as this post here and the IBF rules you you lifted (without even *thinking whether this approach was an indication of your limitations on the matter) from a non-IBF website similar to this . . .


->https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-ibf-morning-weigh-in-rule-bs-or-good.479433/ But still allowed your post to claim otherwise . . . .



[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #34] [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388 How did he refuse to comply? And don't give me this "breach of conduct" nonsense. Otherwise, half of Trump's cabinet would need to resign. Look. Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you. 'There shall be a second day weigh-in on the morning of the event. The promoter of the event shall arrange for the use of the scale at the prearranged time and location for the second day weigh-in. At this weigh-in, boxers cannot weigh more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit. If a boxer weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, he will have two (2) hours thereafter to make the prescribed weight. If after two (2) hours he still weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, the fight cannot proceed as a championship bout. If the Champion fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the title will be vacated. If the Challenger fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the fight may be staged with the understanding that the Champion shall retain his title whether he wins or loses the bout' Taken from the IBF website. Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit. Your move, matey. [/QUOTE]

Shows.



[/QUOTE] In any regards, I am glad you have now agreed to address all the outstanding points; and hopefully learn from your mistakes. If only I had the confidence you could do it without going off track again and introducing the requirement for yet another "novella" that details all your evasive and baseless claims/moves. Also, with your newfound confidence to address all your outstanding points and hopefully learn from your mistakes, please don't forget all my outstanding requests for you to explain the origin of your below post #34's IBF "rules" will you?
Please don't forget to "cut to the chase" on that matter, will you? You know the one . . . It's the post that - even now - underpins your latest non-dilemma (post #62) and desperate straw-clutch (that will suffer the same fate as all your previous claims) - that you still need help interpreting. Here it is . . .

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #34]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388 How did he refuse to comply? And don't give me this "breach of conduct" nonsense. Otherwise, half of Trump's cabinet would need to resign.
(KB has already back flipped on this comment). Look. Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you.
(KB insult and hypocritical comment). 'There shall be a second day weigh-in on the morning of the event. The promoter of the event shall arrange for the use of the scale at the prearranged time and location for the second day weigh-in. At this weigh-in, boxers cannot weigh more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit. If a boxer weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, he will have two (2) hours thereafter to make the prescribed weight. If after two (2) hours he still weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, the fight cannot proceed as a championship bout. If the Champion fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the title will be vacated. If the Challenger fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the fight may be staged with the understanding that the Champion shall retain his title whether he wins or loses the bout'
Taken from the IBF website.
(KB is yet to confirm where he lifted this from and whether that is why he is on the dilemma he is in). Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit. Your move, matey

[/QUOTE]
What's more it does seem that your failure to do so may explain some of your oversights, mistakes, and new non-dilemmas; including those within your post #62. You see, it all gets back to you learning from your mistakes, reading the past posts, and bringing all your previous arguments/claims and their oversights up to speed before;


A) Introducing new ones.
B) Asking others to substantiate your new flawed claims and points.

Fast learner right here folks. Love it !!!!! Hey KB . . . I can kick your azz on these matters (that you started) all day long. Either now. Or when you get back from your weight lifting activities and furnish us with your next release and supposed address of all your outstanding points. It don't matter to me. It's easy. Just as you can easily pretend to know what you're talking about and start arguments over that and not know when to quit - it's similarly easy for me to flog you, kick your azz, and write novellas that expose just how hypocritical, flawed, and ludicrous your claims are. The real question is at what point will you meaningfully realise your time spent trying to call out forum members on matters you have questionable knowledge of, is both, harming your reputation as a writer and also better spent on someone you are smarter than. Oh, before I go, please don't forget that - along with your newfound commitment to addressing all your outstanding points - should also be an explanation of all your conflicts that are contained with post #59 that (if we're being fair) is (yet) another big fat novella that you probably contributed to more than me. Please note I have pasted the link to that novella post just here . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110526&viewfull=1#post110526

For your ease of perusal. And, of course, just so you don't "accidentally" miss any learning points. Like how you "accidentally" missed post #22.



[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #19 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110324&viewfull=1#post110324 Tell you what I will do . . . Since I am (inherently) a nice
Storm. and since I want to give you the opportunity to save what I may post in response to your "interesting" posts #14 and #15 . . . .
I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts. Your call. Cheers,
Storm.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #22 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110359&viewfull=1#post110359
Perhaps it's now (before I address your post #14) time to rethink your earlier approach and claims; is it not? It's probably more fun for me if you don't.
I'm just (being a nice/fair
Storm., and) thinking of your reputation.


[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #25 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110371&viewfull=1#post110371 Look, (
to be fair; and I am a fair
Storm. that doesn't really want you to invest in evasion/fiction on this Lemieux matter so much that the combination of my obligation to expose it and your addiction to it, simply destroys your reputation
) there’s no doubt that avoiding the hard questions that expose emotionally charged claims and rants directed at others (such as your post #14 which got you into the situation where you seem to heave released hyped claims that you now can't meaningfully explain) in this way is not uncommon KB; as it’s Donkey signature is perhaps as well known around here - as you yourself appear to be fascinated and familiar with it.

[/QUOTE]

You run off now and start reading up on all the posts you claimed were not there, learning from all your mistakes, and attempt to substantiate your own points. When you have done that to my satisfaction I will decide whether or not to continue kicking your azz over your new and equally laughable claims. Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-stormcentre :

, that they're correct and it's not game over. Go back and correct, acknowledge, explain, and learn from all your previous arguments and claims. Perhaps you can start with your post #34 that opened this post up with, and both, explain it's true origins and look there. From there you can trundle through all the posts/information you claimed didn't exist, and also learn from your mistakes; to bring your arguments (and knowledge) up to speed; in a manner that's not so reliant on others and focused on introducing more flawed assumptions/claims. Give it a go.



Which all basically means, you need to substantiate yourself, learn from your own mistakes and admit (all of) them (with the same effort they were released with), and do your own research. If you feel strongly about a point - then (particularly whilst you have not "cut to the chase" on all your own outstanding questions/mistakes) you must, at least try to, prove it yourself. Don't ask me to dis/prove it for you. Not whilst you have (a powerful PhD and have) consecutively failed to "cut to the chase" on all your past and flawed claims. And, especially since, this new point of yours (post #62) represents yet another back flip (again) from your previous stance - just as much as it shows that you still haven't leaned from the monumental blunder that you made in your post #34, here . . . . .

[QUOTE=StormCentre;post #64] [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110571&viewfull=1#post110571 You're a fine one to talk about the insults, as my previous posts and their exposure of all the comments your authored show.

For example, as this post here and the IBF rules you you lifted (without even *thinking whether this approach was an indication of your limitations on the matter) from a non-IBF website similar to this . . .


->https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-ibf-morning-weigh-in-rule-bs-or-good.479433/ But still allowed your post to claim otherwise . . . .



[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #34] [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388 How did he refuse to comply? And don't give me this "breach of conduct" nonsense. Otherwise, half of Trump's cabinet would need to resign. Look. Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you. 'There shall be a second day weigh-in on the morning of the event. The promoter of the event shall arrange for the use of the scale at the prearranged time and location for the second day weigh-in. At this weigh-in, boxers cannot weigh more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit. If a boxer weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, he will have two (2) hours thereafter to make the prescribed weight. If after two (2) hours he still weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, the fight cannot proceed as a championship bout. If the Champion fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the title will be vacated. If the Challenger fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the fight may be staged with the understanding that the Champion shall retain his title whether he wins or loses the bout' Taken from the IBF website. Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit. Your move, matey. [/QUOTE]

Shows.



[/QUOTE] In any regards, I am glad you have now agreed to address all the outstanding points; and hopefully learn from your mistakes. If only I had the confidence you could do it without going off track again and introducing the requirement for yet another "novella" that details all your evasive and baseless claims/moves. Also, with your newfound confidence to address all your outstanding points and hopefully learn from your mistakes, please don't forget all my outstanding requests for you to explain the origin of your below post #34's IBF "rules" will you?
Please don't forget to "cut to the chase" on that matter, will you? You know the one . . . It's the post that - even now - underpins your latest non-dilemma (post #62) and desperate straw-clutch (that will suffer the same fate as all your previous claims) - that you still need help interpreting. Here it is . . .

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #34]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388 How did he refuse to comply? And don't give me this "breach of conduct" nonsense. Otherwise, half of Trump's cabinet would need to resign.
(KB has already back flipped on this comment). Look. Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you.
(KB insult and hypocritical comment). 'There shall be a second day weigh-in on the morning of the event. The promoter of the event shall arrange for the use of the scale at the prearranged time and location for the second day weigh-in. At this weigh-in, boxers cannot weigh more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit. If a boxer weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, he will have two (2) hours thereafter to make the prescribed weight. If after two (2) hours he still weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, the fight cannot proceed as a championship bout. If the Champion fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the title will be vacated. If the Challenger fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the fight may be staged with the understanding that the Champion shall retain his title whether he wins or loses the bout'
Taken from the IBF website.
(KB is yet to confirm where he lifted this from and whether that is why he is on the dilemma he is in). Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit. Your move, matey

[/QUOTE]
What's more it does seem that your failure to do so may explain some of your oversights, mistakes, and new non-dilemmas; including those within your post #62. You see, it all gets back to you learning from your mistakes, reading the past posts, and bringing all your previous arguments/claims and their oversights up to speed before;


A) Introducing new ones.
B) Asking others to substantiate your new flawed claims and points.

Fast learner right here folks. Love it !!!!! Hey KB . . . I can kick your azz on these matters (that you started) all day long. Either now. Or when you get back from your weight lifting activities and furnish us with your next release and supposed address of all your outstanding points. It don't matter to me. It's easy. Just as you can easily pretend to know what you're talking about and start arguments over that and not know when to quit - it's similarly easy for me to flog you, kick your azz, and write novellas that expose just how hypocritical, flawed, and ludicrous your claims are. The real question is at what point will you meaningfully realise your time spent trying to call out forum members on matters you have questionable knowledge of, is both, harming your reputation as a writer and also better spent on someone you are smarter than. Oh, before I go, please don't forget that - along with your newfound commitment to addressing all your outstanding points - should also be an explanation of all your conflicts that are contained with post #59 that (if we're being fair) is (yet) another big fat novella that you probably contributed to more than me. Please note I have pasted the link to that novella post just here . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110526&viewfull=1#post110526

For your ease of perusal. And, of course, just so you don't "accidentally" miss any learning points. Like how you "accidentally" missed post #22.



[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #19 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110324&viewfull=1#post110324 Tell you what I will do . . . Since I am (inherently) a nice
Storm. and since I want to give you the opportunity to save what I may post in response to your "interesting" posts #14 and #15 . . . .
I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts. Your call. Cheers,
Storm.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #22 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110359&viewfull=1#post110359
Perhaps it's now (before I address your post #14) time to rethink your earlier approach and claims; is it not? It's probably more fun for me if you don't.
I'm just (being a nice/fair
Storm., and) thinking of your reputation.


[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #25 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110371&viewfull=1#post110371 Look, (
to be fair; and I am a fair
Storm. that doesn't really want you to invest in evasion/fiction on this Lemieux matter so much that the combination of my obligation to expose it and your addiction to it, simply destroys your reputation
) there?s no doubt that avoiding the hard questions that expose emotionally charged claims and rants directed at others (such as your post #14 which got you into the situation where you seem to heave released hyped claims that you now can't meaningfully explain) in this way is not uncommon KB; as it?s Donkey signature is perhaps as well known around here - as you yourself appear to be fascinated and familiar with it.

[/QUOTE]

You run off now and start reading up on all the posts you claimed were not there, learning from all your mistakes, and attempt to substantiate your own points. When you have done that to my satisfaction I will decide whether or not to continue kicking your azz over your new and equally laughable claims. Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-Kid Blast :

From #22" "A) That the fight was originally sanctioned by the IBF and
intended to be for an IBF title; and as such compliance with their rules was required." What title would that be Storm? A world title? If so, I concede on the spot. If not, please apologize and break out the white flag. It's as simple as that. It really is. I could do this as a syllogism, but why bother? You would only send me a 10-page response. So can you end this NOW?




-Kid Blast :

From #22" "A) That the fight was originally sanctioned by the IBF and
intended to be for an IBF title; and as such compliance with their rules was required." What title would that be Storm? A world title? If so, I concede on the spot. If not, please apologize and break out the white flag. It's as simple as that. It really is. I could do this as a syllogism, but why bother? You would only send me a 10-page response. So can you end this NOW?




-stormcentre :


-Kid Blast :

Can we agree that Jacobs flouted the IBF Rules on the second day weigh-in? Yes or no?


-Kid Blast :

Can we agree that Jacobs flouted the IBF Rules on the second day weigh-in? Yes or no?


-stormcentre :

last; post #65];
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110575&viewfull=1#post110575
Now I will address your "points" . . . after I finish training for my next event and working through the pain of a damaged gracilis muscle sprain which is almost as difficult as reading your novellas.
I'll be back.









From your post #57 . . .

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #57]
I concede. You win. I lose. DL is a cheating, no account, slime ball, scumbag, rumpswab, deceptive rat. Worse of all, he is a flouter.

== DL



= = Me[/QUOTE]




So now . . . Please go forth my Dr. of consistency and start addressing all the outstanding points of your previous oversights, claims, and arguments first; as you have already agreed to do. As per your agreement to to so and also all my subsequent and previous requests for you to follow through on that agreement/commitment, that you have neatly circumvented . . .
Please, now start at your post #34 (of which a cut/paste is provided below) and explain;


1)
Why this post (contrary to it?s own claims) appears to have not been sourced directly (by you) from an IBF website?

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #34]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388 How did he refuse to comply? And don't give me this "breach of conduct" nonsense. Otherwise, half of Trump's cabinet would need to resign.
(KB has already back flipped on this comment). Look. Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you.
(). 'There shall be a second day weigh-in on the morning of the event. The promoter of the event shall arrange for the use of the scale at the prearranged time and location for the second day weigh-in. At this weigh-in, boxers cannot weigh more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit. If a boxer weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, he will have two (2) hours thereafter to make the prescribed weight. If after two (2) hours he still weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, the fight cannot proceed as a championship bout. If the Champion fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the title will be vacated. If the Challenger fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the fight may be staged with the understanding that the Champion shall retain his title whether he wins or loses the bout' Taken from the IBF website.
(). Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit. Your move, matey

[/QUOTE]
2)
Whether this may well be why you?re in the dilemma you?re in.

Once that is done I will look at the other outstanding matters you have committed to addressing but to date failed to do so, and present them to you; as they will all assist you to both, learn from past mistakes and answer the question to your new latest/new non-dilemma. From there I will decide how/when to step you through your latest non-dilemma and expose it; promise. So, once again . . . . Go forth my well educated and pizza and flat bread loving friend. Look and examine your own mistakes. Read the previous posts. Learn from them all. Do your own research. Learn. Deliver on your already outstanding commitments and promises to address all questions/issues that are in your lap; unveil the answers to your own non-dilemma.
Then, once you have "cut to the chase" and done that, and when I am ready, then I will come your new question. Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-Kid Blast :

If Jacobs did not flout the rules (you said no), how could DL have flouted the rules. What part of brevity and logic don't you get?




-stormcentre :


-stormcentre :


-stormcentre :


-Kid Blast :

By not being able to agree to a simple request, you have successfully blocked my ability to bury you and your electronic music. But make no mistake, it was my request that triggered the end. Adios amigo. I am done.




-Kid Blast :

By not being able to agree to a simple request, you have successfully blocked my ability to bury you and your electronic music. But make no mistake, it was my request that triggered the end. Adios amigo. I am done.




-stormcentre :


-stormcentre :


-stormcentre :


-deepwater2 :

Haven't seen this in awhile. :) Storm will either get you by way of avalanche or death by a 1000 cuts. The flat bread loving stuff is a dig to get you upset. Don't get emotional. Stay on course Kid. If you have the goods than lay it down If in fact Storm has the goods than it's ok, he isn't that bad. I'm one of the only guys he couldn't bury! I lost a few but didn't die and I'm still alive to fight another day. Storm does has some scalps on his belt for sure.


-deepwater2 :

Haven't seen this in awhile. :) Storm will either get you by way of avalanche or death by a 1000 cuts. The flat bread loving stuff is a dig to get you upset. Don't get emotional. Stay on course Kid. If you have the goods than lay it down If in fact Storm has the goods than it's ok, he isn't that bad. I'm one of the only guys he couldn't bury! I lost a few but didn't die and I'm still alive to fight another day. Storm does has some scalps on his belt for sure.


-Kid Blast :

Haven't seen this in awhile. :) Storm will either get you by way of avalanche or death by a 1000 cuts. The flat bread loving stuff is a dig to get you upset. Don't get emotional. Stay on course Kid. If you have the goods than lay it down If in fact Storm has the goods than it's ok, he isn't that bad. I'm one of the only guys he couldn't bury! I lost a few but didn't die and I'm still alive to fight another day. Storm does has some scalps on his belt for sure.
Thanks Deep. I have not conceded defeat. He just tries to wear you out with post after post after post--each a book in length. I pick my spots and slow him down with jabs and an occasional low blow. He goes for the KO with each post and lacks the stamina to stay with it. I can take anything he can throw at me, but in the name of decency and all that is holy, I need to take a rest from his inanities and Trump=like foolishness. I have not conceded. Just stymied by his refusal to engage. Reminds me of when Oliver McCall started crying against Lennox. Lewis didn't know what to do so he did nothing. I'm like Lewis. Cheers lad and thanks for the advice and encouragement.


-Kid Blast :

Haven't seen this in awhile. :) Storm will either get you by way of avalanche or death by a 1000 cuts. The flat bread loving stuff is a dig to get you upset. Don't get emotional. Stay on course Kid. If you have the goods than lay it down If in fact Storm has the goods than it's ok, he isn't that bad. I'm one of the only guys he couldn't bury! I lost a few but didn't die and I'm still alive to fight another day. Storm does has some scalps on his belt for sure.
Thanks Deep. I have not conceded defeat. He just tries to wear you out with post after post after post--each a book in length. I pick my spots and slow him down with jabs and an occasional low blow. He goes for the KO with each post and lacks the stamina to stay with it. I can take anything he can throw at me, but in the name of decency and all that is holy, I need to take a rest from his inanities and Trumpish foolishness. I have not conceded. Just stymied by his refusal to engage. Reminds me of when Oliver McCall started crying against Lennox. Lewis didn't know what to do so he did nothing. I'm like Lewis. Cheers lad and thanks for the advice and encouragement.


-Kid Blast :

Ha ha ha . . I knew you were clueless and unable to back your claims up all along. Your last post is nothing more than another lie that tries to hide this fact. I knew the cut/past job of the IBF rules you furnished us all with (your post #34) along with all your other oversights would be your undoing. Love it !!!! You were easy; "Dr. consistency". You may recall that way back when you started this matter with your lame post #14 and then went on to successively ignore all my many warnings for you to slow down - even back then I told you that I would (effectively) kick your azz from here to Kingdom come and/or go through you like a dose of salts, on this matter. Which was why I gave you a few days to think about what you were doing first.



Anyway, I'm glad to hear you have finally given in (again) and that you are finished. In case you forgot, I had already beaten you way back at the time you released your post #57.



So, your continuation of the (forever changing) matter and all your excuses that supposedly excused such foolish behavior on your part was always going to do nothing more than simply prove how lacking in substance your old/new claims are. Now to why your last post is (yet) another lie, another form of misdirection, and another attempt to hang your failures (including those to adequately explain yourself) on others. Within your last post #76 (as you conveniently ignore all the questions I had already answered for you and all those that you had left outstanding despite your agreement to answer them) you effectively say/infer that due to my not responding to your simple request you now can't prove yourself and/or "bury" me. What you're trying to do here is blame me for the fact you failed. If you can really "bury" me as you say, you would do it anyway.
I know this because; I can bury you on this matter as easily as I have, with/without your involvement, and when I please. That is already proven from your above pasted post #57, and also your last post #76. Its also proven from the following . . . So, listen up "Dr. Consistency", because school is about to start. Aside from the fact that (as the last 3 or so posts from me prove) the ball is actually in your court to explain yourself . . .


1) First reason KB's last post and its claims are fraudulent;

OK, lets just say you wanted (needed; because you don’t know what you're talking about and are too scared to explain it by yourself) me to help you explain how your latest back flip supposedly now solves all your problems and somehow substantiates you’re right on your new claims.

This is the supposed basis of your last posts lie and/or lame claim; ""By you not being able to agree to a simple request, you have successfully blocked my ability to bury you"".

Unfortunately, this is as false as your laughable post #34's claims that assert that you know the IBF rules and that you sourced that posts cut/paste job of the IBF's rules directly from the IBF website. Here's why the game is up for you with this claim . . . . If what you say is true, then in that case all you needed to do - to “bury” me - then was to (not ignore the posts/information that doesn’t suit, but instead and as per my last and previous posts) simply follow through on your previous commitments (post #65) to learn from all your mistakes and explain yourself. Starting with your post #34 and the mystery IBF website you sourced its “amazing” content from; see my last post (and all you again skipped over) for more details on that. So . . . You see, I haven't blocked you at all. My dear "Dr. Consistency" I would venture to dispute that it was actually your fear of following through on what you (below post #65) claimed you would do combined with the terror/termites that obviously runs through your veins/mind whenever you think of having to explain your "brilliant" post #34's lies, that stopped you. That is the real reason you have failed with your latest back flip and straw clutch. You see it must be that because, if not and if indeed what your last post claims is correct, then you could easily (circumvent how you questionably say I am blocking you, and) "bury" me this way.
Not in the least as within my last/previous posts I explicitly state (and request you to read it twice) . See? Here, below, in
your very own post/words is where
you say you will address the outstanding points I refer to.


From your latest post #65 . . . .






And, here is (one but many posts/places) where I explicitly state I will help you with your new questions and dilemmas.

So, you see all your last post's crying about supposedly you not being able to "bury" me through no fault of your own and because I wont help you, is as nonsensical as your claims that you know the IBF rules and have (within your post #34) copied them from the IBF website.
Perhaps it is that, because this option (point 1; where you need me to supposedly help you "bury" me) actually involves you following through on your previous commitments to learn from all your mistakes and explain yourself (starting with your post #34); it is the very act of "you" explaining yourself that has really blocked any ability you may have (real or imagined) to supposedly "bury" me? Which - if we're being real - is (the real reason) why you haven’t done it.
Because as we all know you’re simply too afraid to publicly acknowledge what following through on your previous commitments, learning from all your mistakes, and explaining yourself (including your brilliant post #34), really means for your past/new theories/questions, and also how you got yourself into this smelly Donkey mess. OK, so that is that lie of yours exposed and dealt with. Let's now (in the below point 2) look at the other option you have to supposedly "bury" me that completely circumvents my involvement and therefore supposed block of any ability you may have (real or imagined) to supposedly "bury" me; by way of its complete reliance solely and only on your claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to supposedly "bury" me.






2) Second reason KB's last post and its claims are fraudulent;

Alternatively, lets just (to be nice) say that (you're not a fraud with this matter, and that) as per your last post infers/suggests, you (by way of some miracle) really are in a position to “bury me” . . . . because supposedly (despite all your remarkably evasive and questionable posts {including post #34 that you're running from explaining} that suggest otherwise) you really do know your stuff . . . Well, then, (even) in that case, all you really need to do in order to prove yourself (without my input and engagement) is as per the last paragraph of my last post #75 . . . . .

""Either that or
start a new thread all by yourself (without asking for my help) and you - in detail - explain how the IBF rules work and supposedly support your new claims"".

And, just because I am a nice/thoughtful
Storm and know how "forgetful" you can truly be with information that doesn't suit you, here (above) is the last paragraph of my last post #75, just for you.
Why can't you simply start a new thread all by yourself (without asking for my help) and you - in detail - explain how the IBF rules work and supposedly support your new claims? Wouldn't that circumvent the supposed way you and your last posts claim I have blocked you from "burying" me? If what you say in your last post is true; then why can't you just employ your claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to supposedly "bury" me, and do it completely independent of and/or without me; via the commencement of a brand new thread that both, kicks my azz on this matter (and all you have morphed it into) and also leaves us all in absolute wonderment of how truly all encompassing your knowledge of the IBF rules really are? So, as we can all see (just like all those before them that you authored) your last post is nothing new; and it too (like all the rest) smells almost as much as that which it overlooks to arrive at its own conjecture driven and flawed conclusions. As, it too is nothing more than a vehicle by which you can both, fail to follow through on your previous claims to explain, and continue pretending; by introducing (yet) more questionable lies/claims - all so you don’t have to . . . Explain.



If not, then . . . And, if you truly do have the capacity to "bury" me, then . . . . Do, either;


Option (A) Use Dr. Consistency's knowledge of the IBF rules to "bury"
StormCentre; with
StormCentre's help.

Stop running. Follow through on your claims to explain yourself. Go forth my well educated and pizza and flat bread loving friend. Look and examine your own mistakes. Read the previous posts. Learn from them all. Do your own research. Learn. Deliver on your already outstanding commitments and promises to address all questions/issues that are in your lap; unveil the answers to your own non-dilemma.
And, then I will assist you to answer your own non-dilemma and (as you say) “bury me”.


Option (B) Use Dr. Consistency's knowledge of the IBF rules to "bury"
StormCentre; without
StormCentre's help.

Alternatively, if option "
(A)" scares you and you simply can't deliver on your commitments (to deliver on your already outstanding commitments and promises to address all questions/issues that are in your lap) then, as per my last post #75, you can simply . . .


Start a new thread all by yourself (without asking for my help) and you - in detail - explain how the IBF rules work and supposedly support your new claims.

This would be the perfect opportunity for you and that PhD mind of yours to employ your claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to supposedly "bury" me, whilst doing it completely independent of and/or without me.
Why not chose this option to "bury" me; particularly if what your last post says is true? Why not put all that endless energy you currently put into evasively circumventing all the questions/points you have committed to explaining, that, in turn, makes the above options "
1" and "
(A)" unpopular to you . . . . put all that energy/effort right into circumventing how you say I am blocking you from "burying" me; by utilizing your claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to "bury" me in a manner that's completely independent of all my supposed blocks of you "burying" me - by you doing it completely without me . . . . . Just as the above options
2" and "
(B)" describe. So . . . . Now, go forth my pizza and flatbread loving master of consistency, and . . . Prove you can do it . . . . I beg of you . . . "Bury" me all by your own, without my involvement, and solely with that incredible knowledge (of all matters pertinent) that you profess to have in your possession.



As we can all now see, your last post and it's ridiculous claims should be treated in the same light as all the previous claims/posts you authored that got you in this mess.

Hey, you're not the first fool I have seen rush in, wouldn't be told to slow down, and ultimately begged to be flogged over a matter they themselves knew they couldn't explain. You probably wont be the last either. Nothing personal KB, but suck it up princess; after all (God only knows) you (if not begged, then you certainly) asked for it. Cheers,
Storm. :) :) Hot electronic trance tune right here . . . . .
Here is some good advice. I once told a salesperson who was talking too much that once you have the sale, stfu. Keep on talking and you might lose it.

BTW, Good song


-stormcentre :

rmCentre; post #75]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110682&viewfull=1#post110682 Pssst . . .

Before I go here's a little secret hint as to why you're both, running and in the stinking/embarrassing mess you're in . .


->https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-ibf-morning-weigh-in-rule-bs-or-good.479433/
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110410&viewfull=1#post110410

Live with it (self confessed {your post #57}) loser.




The above "
A" - "
F" points perfectly explain the substance (or lack thereof) within Dr. Consistency KB's arguments and claims. As, in the real world and as we all know, there really is no reason why (if Dr. Consistency KB is truly correct and definately in a position to ?bury?
Storm; as he claims) he simply can't substantiate himself and do as I suggest within my last post #78. . . . .

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #78]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110698&viewfull=1#post110698 And, if you truly do have the capacity to "bury" me, then . . . . Do, either;


Option (A) Use Dr. Consistency's knowledge of the IBF rules to "bury"
StormCentre; with
StormCentre's help.

Stop running. Follow through on your claims to explain yourself. Go forth my well educated and pizza and flat bread loving friend. Look and examine your own mistakes. Read the previous posts. Learn from them all. Do your own research. Learn. Deliver on your already outstanding commitments and promises to address all questions/issues that are in your lap; unveil the answers to your own non-dilemma.
And, then I will assist you to answer your own non-dilemma and (as you say) ?bury me?.


Option (B) Use Dr. Consistency's knowledge of the IBF rules to "bury"
StormCentre; without
StormCentre's help.

Alternatively, if option "
(A)" scares you and you simply can't deliver on your commitments (to deliver on your already outstanding commitments and promises to address all questions/issues that are in your lap) then, as per my last post #75, you can simply . . .




This would be the perfect opportunity for you and that PhD mind of yours to employ your claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to supposedly "bury" me, whilst doing it completely independent of and/or without me.
Why not chose this option to "bury" me; particularly if what your last post says is true? Why not put all that endless energy you currently put into evasively circumventing all the questions/points you have committed to explaining, that, in turn, makes the above options "
1" and "
(A)" unpopular to you . . . . put all that energy/effort right into circumventing how you say I am blocking you from "burying" me; by utilizing your claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to "bury" me in a manner that's completely independent of all my supposed blocks of you "burying" me - by you doing it completely without me . . . . . Just as the above options
2" and "
(B)" describe. So . . . . Now, go forth my pizza and flatbread loving master of consistency, and . . . Prove you can do it . . . . I beg of you . . . "Bury" me all by your own, without my involvement, and solely with that incredible knowledge (of all matters pertinent) that you profess to have in your possession.





[/QUOTE] You see, even if Dr. Consistency?s wild claims with respect to
Storm supposedly being responsible for Dr. Consistency?s (seemingly limitless) inability to bury
Storm (which in itself is a highly questionable claim), the fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no reason why Dr. Consistency can't . . .
Simply start a new thread all by himself (without asking for
Storm's help) and - in detail - explain how the IBF rules work and supposedly support both, his past and new claims.
Why can't Dr. Consistency do this; as per the options that ?2? and ?B? within my above post #78 also explain/provide? It would be the perfect opportunity for Dr. Consistency to employ his claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to supposedly "bury"
Storm in a completely independent manner and one that also circumvents Dr. Consistency?s own claimed (but highly dubious) reasons as to why he supposedly/currently can't (explain himself and) ?bury?
Storm right now? Why can't Dr. Consistency chose the above-mentioned options to "bury"
Storm; particularly if what his last post and it?s claims say are true? Finally, and I only say/do this because I am a nice
Storm (time provided and if/when I chose to do so); if after a few months Dr. Consistency has still not availed himself of the above-mentioned options to prove his own claims and also ?bury?
Storm, then I may just start a new post or thread that really educates him and explains how the IBF rules work.
Please note how such an endeavor is (unlike Dr. Consistency KB's claims about his knowledge on the matter) completely and utterly independent of Dr. Consistency KB's input and involvement. This goes directly to the above discussion, including that which opened this post about the importance of knowing what you're talking about and before you debate it; whether or not you're in the market for a beat-down. OK, that?s it for now. Love your gig and new avatar D2. Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)




PS: Lately (particularly during all his premature victory dances and prior to consuming pizza and flat bread) Dr. Consistency KB has dedicated quite a few (dismissive) songs for
Storm. In reciprocation/relation to that interesting pursuit, here is one that
Storm has especially selected . . . . Just for Dr. Consistency. Whom was warned (to consider his reputation) time and time again, but would not listen.

PPS:

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #19 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110324&viewfull=1#post110324 Tell you what I will do . . . Since I am (inherently) a nice
Storm. and since I want to give you the opportunity to save what I may post in response to your "interesting" posts #14 and #15 . . . .
I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts. Your call. Cheers,
Storm.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #22 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110359&viewfull=1#post110359
Perhaps it's now (before I address your post #14) time to rethink your earlier approach and claims; is it not? It's probably more fun for me if you don't.
I'm just (being a nice/fair
Storm., and) thinking of your reputation.


[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #25 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110371&viewfull=1#post110371 Look, (
to be fair; and I am a fair
Storm. that doesn't really want you to invest in evasion/fiction on this Lemieux matter so much that the combination of my obligation to expose it and your addiction to it, simply destroys your reputation
) there?s no doubt that avoiding the hard questions that expose emotionally charged claims and rants directed at others (such as your post #14 which got you into the situation where you seem to heave released hyped claims that you now can't meaningfully explain) in this way is not uncommon KB; as it?s Donkey signature is perhaps as well known around here - as you yourself appear to be fascinated and familiar with it.

[/QUOTE]


-stormcentre :

Thanks Deep. I have not conceded defeat.
* Just stymied by his refusal to engage. Reminds me of when Oliver McCall started crying against Lennox. Lewis didn't know what to do so he did nothing. I'm like Lewis. Cheers lad and thanks for the advice and encouragement.


[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #57]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110506&viewfull=1#post110506
* DL is a cheating, no account, slime ball, scumbag, rumpswab, deceptive rat. Worse of all, he is a flouter. [/QUOTE]



[QUOTE=StormCentre;post #78]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110698&viewfull=1#post110698


[/QUOTE] If you can't explain yourself and/or your post #34's IBF claims (which is the entire basis for all your claims and admissions of loss) then, given your constantly changing stance on the matter, your lack of success with it, and how delusional about it clearly you are; why not start a new thread all by yourself (without asking for my help) and you - in detail - show us your knowledge and explain how the IBF rules work and supposedly support your new claims There's a real simple solution and short post for you. Cheers,
StormCentre :) :)


-stormcentre :

rmCentre; post #75]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110682&viewfull=1#post110682 Pssst . . .

Before I go here's a little secret hint as to why you're both, running and in the stinking/embarrassing mess you're in . .


->https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-ibf-morning-weigh-in-rule-bs-or-good.479433/
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110410&viewfull=1#post110410

Live with it (self confessed {your post #57}) loser.




The above "
A" - "
F" points perfectly explain the substance (or lack thereof) within Dr. Consistency KB's arguments and claims. As, in the real world and as we all know, there really is no reason why (if Dr. Consistency KB is truly correct and definately in a position to “bury”
Storm; as he claims) he simply can't substantiate himself and do as I suggest within my last post #78. . . . .

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #78]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110698&viewfull=1#post110698 And, if you truly do have the capacity to "bury" me, then . . . . Do, either;


Option (A) Use Dr. Consistency's knowledge of the IBF rules to "bury"
StormCentre; with
StormCentre's help.

Stop running. Follow through on your claims to explain yourself. Go forth my well educated and pizza and flat bread loving friend. Look and examine your own mistakes. Read the previous posts. Learn from them all. Do your own research. Learn. Deliver on your already outstanding commitments and promises to address all questions/issues that are in your lap; unveil the answers to your own non-dilemma.
And, then I will assist you to answer your own non-dilemma and (as you say) “bury me”.


Option (B) Use Dr. Consistency's knowledge of the IBF rules to "bury"
StormCentre; without
StormCentre's help.

Alternatively, if option "
(A)" scares you and you simply can't deliver on your commitments (to deliver on your already outstanding commitments and promises to address all questions/issues that are in your lap) then, as per my last post #75, you can simply . . .




This would be the perfect opportunity for you and that PhD mind of yours to employ your claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to supposedly "bury" me, whilst doing it completely independent of and/or without me.
Why not chose this option to "bury" me; particularly if what your last post says is true? Why not put all that endless energy you currently put into evasively circumventing all the questions/points you have committed to explaining, that, in turn, makes the above options "
1" and "
(A)" unpopular to you . . . . put all that energy/effort right into circumventing how you say I am blocking you from "burying" me; by utilizing your claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to "bury" me in a manner that's completely independent of all my supposed blocks of you "burying" me - by you doing it completely without me . . . . . Just as the above options
2" and "
(B)" describe. So . . . . Now, go forth my pizza and flatbread loving master of consistency, and . . . Prove you can do it . . . . I beg of you . . . "Bury" me all by your own, without my involvement, and solely with that incredible knowledge (of all matters pertinent) that you profess to have in your possession.





[/QUOTE] You see, even if Dr. Consistency’s wild claims with respect to
Storm supposedly being responsible for Dr. Consistency’s (seemingly limitless) inability to bury
Storm (which in itself is a highly questionable claim), the fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no reason why Dr. Consistency can't . . .
Simply start a new thread all by himself (without asking for
Storm's help) and - in detail - explain how the IBF rules work and supposedly support both, his past and new claims.
Why can't Dr. Consistency do this; as per the options that “2” and “B” within my above post #78 also explain/provide? It would be the perfect opportunity for Dr. Consistency to employ his claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to supposedly "bury"
Storm in a completely independent manner and one that also circumvents Dr. Consistency’s own claimed (but highly dubious) reasons as to why he supposedly/currently can't (explain himself and) “bury”
Storm right now? Why can't Dr. Consistency chose the above-mentioned options to "bury"
Storm; particularly if what his last post and it’s claims say are true? Finally, and I only say/do this because I am a nice
Storm (time provided and if/when I chose to do so); if after a few months Dr. Consistency has still not availed himself of the above-mentioned options to prove his own claims and also “bury”
Storm, then I may just start a new post or thread that really educates him and explains how the IBF rules work.
Please note how such an endeavor is (unlike Dr. Consistency KB's claims about his knowledge on the matter) completely and utterly independent of Dr. Consistency KB's input and involvement. This goes directly to the above discussion, including that which opened this post about the importance of knowing what you're talking about and before you debate it; whether or not you're in the market for a beat-down. OK, that’s it for now. Love your gig and new avatar D2. Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)




PS: Lately (particularly during all his premature victory dances and prior to consuming pizza and flat bread) Dr. Consistency KB has dedicated quite a few (dismissive) songs for
Storm. In reciprocation/relation to that interesting pursuit, here is one that
Storm has especially selected . . . . Just for Dr. Consistency. Whom was warned (to consider his reputation) time and time again, but would not listen.

PPS:

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #19 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110324&viewfull=1#post110324 Tell you what I will do . . . Since I am (inherently) a nice
Storm. and since I want to give you the opportunity to save what I may post in response to your "interesting" posts #14 and #15 . . . .
I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts. Your call. Cheers,
Storm.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #22 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110359&viewfull=1#post110359
Perhaps it's now (before I address your post #14) time to rethink your earlier approach and claims; is it not? It's probably more fun for me if you don't.
I'm just (being a nice/fair
Storm., and) thinking of your reputation.


[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #25 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110371&viewfull=1#post110371 Look, (
to be fair; and I am a fair
Storm. that doesn't really want you to invest in evasion/fiction on this Lemieux matter so much that the combination of my obligation to expose it and your addiction to it, simply destroys your reputation
) there’s no doubt that avoiding the hard questions that expose emotionally charged claims and rants directed at others (such as your post #14 which got you into the situation where you seem to heave released hyped claims that you now can't meaningfully explain) in this way is not uncommon KB; as it’s Donkey signature is perhaps as well known around here - as you yourself appear to be fascinated and familiar with it.

[/QUOTE]


-stormcentre :

rmCentre; post #75]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110682&viewfull=1#post110682 Pssst . . .

Before I go here's a little secret hint as to why you're both, running and in the stinking/embarrassing mess you're in . .


->https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-ibf-morning-weigh-in-rule-bs-or-good.479433/
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110410&viewfull=1#post110410

Live with it (self confessed {your post #57}) loser.




The above "
A" - "
F" points perfectly explain the substance (or lack thereof) within Dr. Consistency KB's arguments and claims. As, in the real world and as we all know, there really is no reason why (if Dr. Consistency KB is truly correct and definately in a position to ?bury?
Storm; as he claims) he simply can't substantiate himself and do as I suggest within my last post #78. . . . .

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #78]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110698&viewfull=1#post110698 And, if you truly do have the capacity to "bury" me, then . . . . Do, either;


Option (A) Use Dr. Consistency's knowledge of the IBF rules to "bury"
StormCentre; with
StormCentre's help.

Stop running. Follow through on your claims to explain yourself. Go forth my well educated and pizza and flat bread loving friend. Look and examine your own mistakes. Read the previous posts. Learn from them all. Do your own research. Learn. Deliver on your already outstanding commitments and promises to address all questions/issues that are in your lap; unveil the answers to your own non-dilemma.
And, then I will assist you to answer your own non-dilemma and (as you say) ?bury me?.


Option (B) Use Dr. Consistency's knowledge of the IBF rules to "bury"
StormCentre; without
StormCentre's help.

Alternatively, if option "
(A)" scares you and you simply can't deliver on your commitments (to deliver on your already outstanding commitments and promises to address all questions/issues that are in your lap) then, as per my last post #75, you can simply . . .




This would be the perfect opportunity for you and that PhD mind of yours to employ your claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to supposedly "bury" me, whilst doing it completely independent of and/or without me.
Why not chose this option to "bury" me; particularly if what your last post says is true? Why not put all that endless energy you currently put into evasively circumventing all the questions/points you have committed to explaining, that, in turn, makes the above options "
1" and "
(A)" unpopular to you . . . . put all that energy/effort right into circumventing how you say I am blocking you from "burying" me; by utilizing your claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to "bury" me in a manner that's completely independent of all my supposed blocks of you "burying" me - by you doing it completely without me . . . . . Just as the above options
2" and "
(B)" describe. So . . . . Now, go forth my pizza and flatbread loving master of consistency, and . . . Prove you can do it . . . . I beg of you . . . "Bury" me all by your own, without my involvement, and solely with that incredible knowledge (of all matters pertinent) that you profess to have in your possession.





[/QUOTE] You see, even if Dr. Consistency?s wild claims with respect to
Storm supposedly being responsible for Dr. Consistency?s (seemingly limitless) inability to bury
Storm (which in itself is a highly questionable claim), the fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no reason why Dr. Consistency can't . . .
Simply start a new thread all by himself (without asking for
Storm's help) and - in detail - explain how the IBF rules work and supposedly support both, his past and new claims.
Why can't Dr. Consistency do this; as per the options that ?2? and ?B? within my above post #78 also explain/provide? It would be the perfect opportunity for Dr. Consistency to employ his claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to supposedly "bury"
Storm in a completely independent manner and one that also circumvents Dr. Consistency?s own claimed (but highly dubious) reasons as to why he supposedly/currently can't (explain himself and) ?bury?
Storm right now? Why can't Dr. Consistency chose the above-mentioned options to "bury"
Storm; particularly if what his last post and it?s claims say are true? Finally, and I only say/do this because I am a nice
Storm (time provided and if/when I chose to do so); if after a few months Dr. Consistency has still not availed himself of the above-mentioned options to prove his own claims and also ?bury?
Storm, then I may just start a new post or thread that really educates him and explains how the IBF rules work.
Please note how such an endeavor is (unlike Dr. Consistency KB's claims about his knowledge on the matter) completely and utterly independent of Dr. Consistency KB's input and involvement. This goes directly to the above discussion, including that which opened this post about the importance of knowing what you're talking about and before you debate it; whether or not you're in the market for a beat-down. OK, that?s it for now. Love your gig and new avatar D2. Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)




PS: Lately (particularly during all his premature victory dances and prior to consuming pizza and flat bread) Dr. Consistency KB has dedicated quite a few (dismissive) songs for
Storm. In reciprocation/relation to that interesting pursuit, here is one that
Storm has especially selected . . . . Just for Dr. Consistency. Whom was warned (to consider his reputation) time and time again, but would not listen.

PPS:

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #19 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110324&viewfull=1#post110324 Tell you what I will do . . . Since I am (inherently) a nice
Storm. and since I want to give you the opportunity to save what I may post in response to your "interesting" posts #14 and #15 . . . .
I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts. Your call. Cheers,
Storm.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #22 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110359&viewfull=1#post110359
Perhaps it's now (before I address your post #14) time to rethink your earlier approach and claims; is it not? It's probably more fun for me if you don't.
I'm just (being a nice/fair
Storm., and) thinking of your reputation.


[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #25 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110371&viewfull=1#post110371 Look, (
to be fair; and I am a fair
Storm. that doesn't really want you to invest in evasion/fiction on this Lemieux matter so much that the combination of my obligation to expose it and your addiction to it, simply destroys your reputation
) there?s no doubt that avoiding the hard questions that expose emotionally charged claims and rants directed at others (such as your post #14 which got you into the situation where you seem to heave released hyped claims that you now can't meaningfully explain) in this way is not uncommon KB; as it?s Donkey signature is perhaps as well known around here - as you yourself appear to be fascinated and familiar with it.

[/QUOTE]


-stormcentre :

Thanks Deep. I have not conceded defeat.
* Just stymied by his refusal to engage. Reminds me of when Oliver McCall started crying against Lennox. Lewis didn't know what to do so he did nothing. I'm like Lewis. Cheers lad and thanks for the advice and encouragement.


[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #57]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110506&viewfull=1#post110506
* DL is a cheating, no account, slime ball, scumbag, rumpswab, deceptive rat. Worse of all, he is a flouter. [/QUOTE]



[QUOTE=StormCentre;post #78]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110698&viewfull=1#post110698


[/QUOTE] If you can't explain yourself and/or your post #34's IBF claims (which is the entire basis for all your claims and admissions of loss) then, given your constantly changing stance on the matter, your lack of success with it, and how delusional about it clearly you are; why not start a new thread all by yourself (without asking for my help) and you - in detail - show us your knowledge and explain how the IBF rules work and supposedly support your new claims There's a real simple solution and short post for you. Cheers,
StormCentre :) :)


-stormcentre :

rmCentre; post #75]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110682&viewfull=1#post110682 Pssst . . .

Before I go here's a little secret hint as to why you're both, running and in the stinking/embarrassing mess you're in . .


->https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-ibf-morning-weigh-in-rule-bs-or-good.479433/
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110410&viewfull=1#post110410

Live with it (self confessed {your post #57}) loser.




The above "
A" - "
F" points perfectly explain the substance (or lack thereof) within Dr. Consistency KB's arguments and claims. As, in the real world and as we all know, there really is no reason why (if Dr. Consistency KB is truly correct and definately in a position to “bury”
Storm; as he claims) he simply can't substantiate himself and do as I suggest within my last post #78. . . . .

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #78]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110698&viewfull=1#post110698 And, if you truly do have the capacity to "bury" me, then . . . . Do, either;


Option (A) Use Dr. Consistency's knowledge of the IBF rules to "bury"
StormCentre; with
StormCentre's help.

Stop running. Follow through on your claims to explain yourself. Go forth my well educated and pizza and flat bread loving friend. Look and examine your own mistakes. Read the previous posts. Learn from them all. Do your own research. Learn. Deliver on your already outstanding commitments and promises to address all questions/issues that are in your lap; unveil the answers to your own non-dilemma.
And, then I will assist you to answer your own non-dilemma and (as you say) “bury me”.


Option (B) Use Dr. Consistency's knowledge of the IBF rules to "bury"
StormCentre; without
StormCentre's help.

Alternatively, if option "
(A)" scares you and you simply can't deliver on your commitments (to deliver on your already outstanding commitments and promises to address all questions/issues that are in your lap) then, as per my last post #75, you can simply . . .




This would be the perfect opportunity for you and that PhD mind of yours to employ your claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to supposedly "bury" me, whilst doing it completely independent of and/or without me.
Why not chose this option to "bury" me; particularly if what your last post says is true? Why not put all that endless energy you currently put into evasively circumventing all the questions/points you have committed to explaining, that, in turn, makes the above options "
1" and "
(A)" unpopular to you . . . . put all that energy/effort right into circumventing how you say I am blocking you from "burying" me; by utilizing your claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to "bury" me in a manner that's completely independent of all my supposed blocks of you "burying" me - by you doing it completely without me . . . . . Just as the above options
2" and "
(B)" describe. So . . . . Now, go forth my pizza and flatbread loving master of consistency, and . . . Prove you can do it . . . . I beg of you . . . "Bury" me all by your own, without my involvement, and solely with that incredible knowledge (of all matters pertinent) that you profess to have in your possession.





[/QUOTE] You see, even if Dr. Consistency’s wild claims with respect to
Storm supposedly being responsible for Dr. Consistency’s (seemingly limitless) inability to bury
Storm (which in itself is a highly questionable claim), the fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no reason why Dr. Consistency can't . . .
Simply start a new thread all by himself (without asking for
Storm's help) and - in detail - explain how the IBF rules work and supposedly support both, his past and new claims.
Why can't Dr. Consistency do this; as per the options that “2” and “B” within my above post #78 also explain/provide? It would be the perfect opportunity for Dr. Consistency to employ his claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to supposedly "bury"
Storm in a completely independent manner and one that also circumvents Dr. Consistency’s own claimed (but highly dubious) reasons as to why he supposedly/currently can't (explain himself and) “bury”
Storm right now? Why can't Dr. Consistency chose the above-mentioned options to "bury"
Storm; particularly if what his last post and it’s claims say are true? Finally, and I only say/do this because I am a nice
Storm (time provided and if/when I chose to do so); if after a few months Dr. Consistency has still not availed himself of the above-mentioned options to prove his own claims and also “bury”
Storm, then I may just start a new post or thread that really educates him and explains how the IBF rules work.
Please note how such an endeavor is (unlike Dr. Consistency KB's claims about his knowledge on the matter) completely and utterly independent of Dr. Consistency KB's input and involvement. This goes directly to the above discussion, including that which opened this post about the importance of knowing what you're talking about and before you debate it; whether or not you're in the market for a beat-down. OK, that’s it for now. Love your gig and new avatar D2. Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)




PS: Lately (particularly during all his premature victory dances and prior to consuming pizza and flat bread) Dr. Consistency KB has dedicated quite a few (dismissive) songs for
Storm. In reciprocation/relation to that interesting pursuit, here is one that
Storm has especially selected . . . . Just for Dr. Consistency. Whom was warned (to consider his reputation) time and time again, but would not listen.

PPS:

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #19 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110324&viewfull=1#post110324 Tell you what I will do . . . Since I am (inherently) a nice
Storm. and since I want to give you the opportunity to save what I may post in response to your "interesting" posts #14 and #15 . . . .
I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts. Your call. Cheers,
Storm.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #22 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110359&viewfull=1#post110359
Perhaps it's now (before I address your post #14) time to rethink your earlier approach and claims; is it not? It's probably more fun for me if you don't.
I'm just (being a nice/fair
Storm., and) thinking of your reputation.


[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #25 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110371&viewfull=1#post110371 Look, (
to be fair; and I am a fair
Storm. that doesn't really want you to invest in evasion/fiction on this Lemieux matter so much that the combination of my obligation to expose it and your addiction to it, simply destroys your reputation
) there’s no doubt that avoiding the hard questions that expose emotionally charged claims and rants directed at others (such as your post #14 which got you into the situation where you seem to heave released hyped claims that you now can't meaningfully explain) in this way is not uncommon KB; as it’s Donkey signature is perhaps as well known around here - as you yourself appear to be fascinated and familiar with it.

[/QUOTE]


-stormcentre :

rmCentre; post #75]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110682&viewfull=1#post110682 Pssst . . .

Before I go here's a little secret hint as to why you're both, running and in the stinking/embarrassing mess you're in . .


->https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-ibf-morning-weigh-in-rule-bs-or-good.479433/
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110410&viewfull=1#post110410

Live with it (self confessed {your post #57}) loser.




The above "
A" - "
F" points perfectly explain the substance (or lack thereof) within Dr. Consistency KB's arguments and claims. As, in the real world and as we all know, there really is no reason why (if Dr. Consistency KB is truly correct and definately in a position to ?bury?
Storm; as he claims) he simply can't substantiate himself and do as I suggest within my last post #78. . . . .

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #78]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110698&viewfull=1#post110698 And, if you truly do have the capacity to "bury" me, then . . . . Do, either;


Option (A) Use Dr. Consistency's knowledge of the IBF rules to "bury"
StormCentre; with
StormCentre's help.

Stop running. Follow through on your claims to explain yourself. Go forth my well educated and pizza and flat bread loving friend. Look and examine your own mistakes. Read the previous posts. Learn from them all. Do your own research. Learn. Deliver on your already outstanding commitments and promises to address all questions/issues that are in your lap; unveil the answers to your own non-dilemma.
And, then I will assist you to answer your own non-dilemma and (as you say) ?bury me?.


Option (B) Use Dr. Consistency's knowledge of the IBF rules to "bury"
StormCentre; without
StormCentre's help.

Alternatively, if option "
(A)" scares you and you simply can't deliver on your commitments (to deliver on your already outstanding commitments and promises to address all questions/issues that are in your lap) then, as per my last post #75, you can simply . . .




This would be the perfect opportunity for you and that PhD mind of yours to employ your claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to supposedly "bury" me, whilst doing it completely independent of and/or without me.
Why not chose this option to "bury" me; particularly if what your last post says is true? Why not put all that endless energy you currently put into evasively circumventing all the questions/points you have committed to explaining, that, in turn, makes the above options "
1" and "
(A)" unpopular to you . . . . put all that energy/effort right into circumventing how you say I am blocking you from "burying" me; by utilizing your claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to "bury" me in a manner that's completely independent of all my supposed blocks of you "burying" me - by you doing it completely without me . . . . . Just as the above options
2" and "
(B)" describe. So . . . . Now, go forth my pizza and flatbread loving master of consistency, and . . . Prove you can do it . . . . I beg of you . . . "Bury" me all by your own, without my involvement, and solely with that incredible knowledge (of all matters pertinent) that you profess to have in your possession.





[/QUOTE] You see, even if Dr. Consistency?s wild claims with respect to
Storm supposedly being responsible for Dr. Consistency?s (seemingly limitless) inability to bury
Storm (which in itself is a highly questionable claim), the fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no reason why Dr. Consistency can't . . .
Simply start a new thread all by himself (without asking for
Storm's help) and - in detail - explain how the IBF rules work and supposedly support both, his past and new claims.
Why can't Dr. Consistency do this; as per the options that ?2? and ?B? within my above post #78 also explain/provide? It would be the perfect opportunity for Dr. Consistency to employ his claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to supposedly "bury"
Storm in a completely independent manner and one that also circumvents Dr. Consistency?s own claimed (but highly dubious) reasons as to why he supposedly/currently can't (explain himself and) ?bury?
Storm right now? Why can't Dr. Consistency chose the above-mentioned options to "bury"
Storm; particularly if what his last post and it?s claims say are true? Finally, and I only say/do this because I am a nice
Storm (time provided and if/when I chose to do so); if after a few months Dr. Consistency has still not availed himself of the above-mentioned options to prove his own claims and also ?bury?
Storm, then I may just start a new post or thread that really educates him and explains how the IBF rules work.
Please note how such an endeavor is (unlike Dr. Consistency KB's claims about his knowledge on the matter) completely and utterly independent of Dr. Consistency KB's input and involvement. This goes directly to the above discussion, including that which opened this post about the importance of knowing what you're talking about and before you debate it; whether or not you're in the market for a beat-down. OK, that?s it for now. Love your gig and new avatar D2. Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)




PS: Lately (particularly during all his premature victory dances and prior to consuming pizza and flat bread) Dr. Consistency KB has dedicated quite a few (dismissive) songs for
Storm. In reciprocation/relation to that interesting pursuit, here is one that
Storm has especially selected . . . . Just for Dr. Consistency. Whom was warned (to consider his reputation) time and time again, but would not listen.

PPS:

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #19 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110324&viewfull=1#post110324 Tell you what I will do . . . Since I am (inherently) a nice
Storm. and since I want to give you the opportunity to save what I may post in response to your "interesting" posts #14 and #15 . . . .
I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts. Your call. Cheers,
Storm.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #22 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110359&viewfull=1#post110359
Perhaps it's now (before I address your post #14) time to rethink your earlier approach and claims; is it not? It's probably more fun for me if you don't.
I'm just (being a nice/fair
Storm., and) thinking of your reputation.


[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #25 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110371&viewfull=1#post110371 Look, (
to be fair; and I am a fair
Storm. that doesn't really want you to invest in evasion/fiction on this Lemieux matter so much that the combination of my obligation to expose it and your addiction to it, simply destroys your reputation
) there?s no doubt that avoiding the hard questions that expose emotionally charged claims and rants directed at others (such as your post #14 which got you into the situation where you seem to heave released hyped claims that you now can't meaningfully explain) in this way is not uncommon KB; as it?s Donkey signature is perhaps as well known around here - as you yourself appear to be fascinated and familiar with it.

[/QUOTE]


-stormcentre :

rmCentre; post #75]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110682&viewfull=1#post110682 Pssst . . .

Before I go here's a little secret hint as to why you're both, running and in the stinking/embarrassing mess you're in . .


->https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-ibf-morning-weigh-in-rule-bs-or-good.479433/
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110410&viewfull=1#post110410

Live with it (self confessed {your post #57}) loser.




The above "
A" - "
F" points perfectly explain the substance (or lack thereof) within Dr. Consistency KB's arguments and claims. As, in the real world and as we all know, there really is no reason why (if Dr. Consistency KB is truly correct and definately in a position to “bury”
Storm; as he claims) he simply can't substantiate himself and do as I suggest within my last post #78. . . . .

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #78]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110698&viewfull=1#post110698 And, if you truly do have the capacity to "bury" me, then . . . . Do, either;


Option (A) Use Dr. Consistency's knowledge of the IBF rules to "bury"
StormCentre; with
StormCentre's help.

Stop running. Follow through on your claims to explain yourself. Go forth my well educated and pizza and flat bread loving friend. Look and examine your own mistakes. Read the previous posts. Learn from them all. Do your own research. Learn. Deliver on your already outstanding commitments and promises to address all questions/issues that are in your lap; unveil the answers to your own non-dilemma.
And, then I will assist you to answer your own non-dilemma and (as you say) “bury me”.


Option (B) Use Dr. Consistency's knowledge of the IBF rules to "bury"
StormCentre; without
StormCentre's help.

Alternatively, if option "
(A)" scares you and you simply can't deliver on your commitments (to deliver on your already outstanding commitments and promises to address all questions/issues that are in your lap) then, as per my last post #75, you can simply . . .




This would be the perfect opportunity for you and that PhD mind of yours to employ your claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to supposedly "bury" me, whilst doing it completely independent of and/or without me.
Why not chose this option to "bury" me; particularly if what your last post says is true? Why not put all that endless energy you currently put into evasively circumventing all the questions/points you have committed to explaining, that, in turn, makes the above options "
1" and "
(A)" unpopular to you . . . . put all that energy/effort right into circumventing how you say I am blocking you from "burying" me; by utilizing your claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to "bury" me in a manner that's completely independent of all my supposed blocks of you "burying" me - by you doing it completely without me . . . . . Just as the above options
2" and "
(B)" describe. So . . . . Now, go forth my pizza and flatbread loving master of consistency, and . . . Prove you can do it . . . . I beg of you . . . "Bury" me all by your own, without my involvement, and solely with that incredible knowledge (of all matters pertinent) that you profess to have in your possession.





[/QUOTE] You see, even if Dr. Consistency’s wild claims with respect to
Storm supposedly being responsible for Dr. Consistency’s (seemingly limitless) inability to bury
Storm (which in itself is a highly questionable claim), the fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no reason why Dr. Consistency can't . . .
Simply start a new thread all by himself (without asking for
Storm's help) and - in detail - explain how the IBF rules work and supposedly support both, his past and new claims.
Why can't Dr. Consistency do this; as per the options that “2” and “B” within my above post #78 also explain/provide? It would be the perfect opportunity for Dr. Consistency to employ his claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to supposedly "bury"
Storm in a completely independent manner and one that also circumvents Dr. Consistency’s own claimed (but highly dubious) reasons as to why he supposedly/currently can't (explain himself and) “bury”
Storm right now? Why can't Dr. Consistency chose the above-mentioned options to "bury"
Storm; particularly if what his last post and it’s claims say are true? Finally, and I only say/do this because I am a nice
Storm (time provided and if/when I chose to do so); if after a few months Dr. Consistency has still not availed himself of the above-mentioned options to prove his own claims and also “bury”
Storm, then I may just start a new post or thread that really educates him and explains how the IBF rules work.
Please note how such an endeavor is (unlike Dr. Consistency KB's claims about his knowledge on the matter) completely and utterly independent of Dr. Consistency KB's input and involvement. This goes directly to the above discussion, including that which opened this post about the importance of knowing what you're talking about and before you debate it; whether or not you're in the market for a beat-down. OK, that’s it for now. Love your gig and new avatar D2. Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)




PS: Lately (particularly during all his premature victory dances and prior to consuming pizza and flat bread) Dr. Consistency KB has dedicated quite a few (dismissive) songs for
Storm. In reciprocation/relation to that interesting pursuit, here is one that
Storm has especially selected . . . . Just for Dr. Consistency. Whom was warned (to consider his reputation) time and time again, but would not listen.

PPS:

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #19 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110324&viewfull=1#post110324 Tell you what I will do . . . Since I am (inherently) a nice
Storm. and since I want to give you the opportunity to save what I may post in response to your "interesting" posts #14 and #15 . . . .
I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts. Your call. Cheers,
Storm.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #22 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110359&viewfull=1#post110359
Perhaps it's now (before I address your post #14) time to rethink your earlier approach and claims; is it not? It's probably more fun for me if you don't.
I'm just (being a nice/fair
Storm., and) thinking of your reputation.


[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #25 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110371&viewfull=1#post110371 Look, (
to be fair; and I am a fair
Storm. that doesn't really want you to invest in evasion/fiction on this Lemieux matter so much that the combination of my obligation to expose it and your addiction to it, simply destroys your reputation
) there’s no doubt that avoiding the hard questions that expose emotionally charged claims and rants directed at others (such as your post #14 which got you into the situation where you seem to heave released hyped claims that you now can't meaningfully explain) in this way is not uncommon KB; as it’s Donkey signature is perhaps as well known around here - as you yourself appear to be fascinated and familiar with it.

[/QUOTE]


-stormcentre :

rmCentre; post #75]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110682&viewfull=1#post110682 Pssst . . .

Before I go here's a little secret hint as to why you're both, running and in the stinking/embarrassing mess you're in . .


->https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-ibf-morning-weigh-in-rule-bs-or-good.479433/
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110410&viewfull=1#post110410

Live with it (self confessed {your post #57}) loser.




The above "
A" - "
F" points perfectly explain the substance (or lack thereof) within Dr. Consistency KB's arguments and claims. As, in the real world and as we all know, there really is no reason why (if Dr. Consistency KB is truly correct and definately in a position to ?bury?
Storm; as he claims) he simply can't substantiate himself and do as I suggest within my last post #78. . . . .

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #78]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110698&viewfull=1#post110698 And, if you truly do have the capacity to "bury" me, then . . . . Do, either;


Option (A) Use Dr. Consistency's knowledge of the IBF rules to "bury"
StormCentre; with
StormCentre's help.

Stop running. Follow through on your claims to explain yourself. Go forth my well educated and pizza and flat bread loving friend. Look and examine your own mistakes. Read the previous posts. Learn from them all. Do your own research. Learn. Deliver on your already outstanding commitments and promises to address all questions/issues that are in your lap; unveil the answers to your own non-dilemma.
And, then I will assist you to answer your own non-dilemma and (as you say) ?bury me?.


Option (B) Use Dr. Consistency's knowledge of the IBF rules to "bury"
StormCentre; without
StormCentre's help.

Alternatively, if option "
(A)" scares you and you simply can't deliver on your commitments (to deliver on your already outstanding commitments and promises to address all questions/issues that are in your lap) then, as per my last post #75, you can simply . . .




This would be the perfect opportunity for you and that PhD mind of yours to employ your claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to supposedly "bury" me, whilst doing it completely independent of and/or without me.
Why not chose this option to "bury" me; particularly if what your last post says is true? Why not put all that endless energy you currently put into evasively circumventing all the questions/points you have committed to explaining, that, in turn, makes the above options "
1" and "
(A)" unpopular to you . . . . put all that energy/effort right into circumventing how you say I am blocking you from "burying" me; by utilizing your claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to "bury" me in a manner that's completely independent of all my supposed blocks of you "burying" me - by you doing it completely without me . . . . . Just as the above options
2" and "
(B)" describe. So . . . . Now, go forth my pizza and flatbread loving master of consistency, and . . . Prove you can do it . . . . I beg of you . . . "Bury" me all by your own, without my involvement, and solely with that incredible knowledge (of all matters pertinent) that you profess to have in your possession.





[/QUOTE] You see, even if Dr. Consistency?s wild claims with respect to
Storm supposedly being responsible for Dr. Consistency?s (seemingly limitless) inability to bury
Storm (which in itself is a highly questionable claim), the fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no reason why Dr. Consistency can't . . .
Simply start a new thread all by himself (without asking for
Storm's help) and - in detail - explain how the IBF rules work and supposedly support both, his past and new claims.
Why can't Dr. Consistency do this; as per the options that ?2? and ?B? within my above post #78 also explain/provide? It would be the perfect opportunity for Dr. Consistency to employ his claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to supposedly "bury"
Storm in a completely independent manner and one that also circumvents Dr. Consistency?s own claimed (but highly dubious) reasons as to why he supposedly/currently can't (explain himself and) ?bury?
Storm right now? Why can't Dr. Consistency chose the above-mentioned options to "bury"
Storm; particularly if what his last post and it?s claims say are true? Finally, and I only say/do this because I am a nice
Storm (time provided and if/when I chose to do so); if after a few months Dr. Consistency has still not availed himself of the above-mentioned options to prove his own claims and also ?bury?
Storm, then I may just start a new post or thread that really educates him and explains how the IBF rules work.
Please note how such an endeavor is (unlike Dr. Consistency KB's claims about his knowledge on the matter) completely and utterly independent of Dr. Consistency KB's input and involvement. This goes directly to the above discussion, including that which opened this post about the importance of knowing what you're talking about and before you debate it; whether or not you're in the market for a beat-down. OK, that?s it for now. Love your gig and new avatar D2. Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)




PS: Lately (particularly during all his premature victory dances and prior to consuming pizza and flat bread) Dr. Consistency KB has dedicated quite a few (dismissive) songs for
Storm. In reciprocation/relation to that interesting pursuit, here is one that
Storm has especially selected . . . . Just for Dr. Consistency. Whom was warned (to consider his reputation) time and time again, but would not listen.

PPS:

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #19 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110324&viewfull=1#post110324 Tell you what I will do . . . Since I am (inherently) a nice
Storm. and since I want to give you the opportunity to save what I may post in response to your "interesting" posts #14 and #15 . . . .
I'll give you a day or so to rethink and/or recalibrate your aforementioned post(s); before I run through them like a dose of salts. Your call. Cheers,
Storm.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #22 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110359&viewfull=1#post110359
Perhaps it's now (before I address your post #14) time to rethink your earlier approach and claims; is it not? It's probably more fun for me if you don't.
I'm just (being a nice/fair
Storm., and) thinking of your reputation.


[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #25 Trying to get KB to slow down & think]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110371&viewfull=1#post110371 Look, (
to be fair; and I am a fair
Storm. that doesn't really want you to invest in evasion/fiction on this Lemieux matter so much that the combination of my obligation to expose it and your addiction to it, simply destroys your reputation
) there?s no doubt that avoiding the hard questions that expose emotionally charged claims and rants directed at others (such as your post #14 which got you into the situation where you seem to heave released hyped claims that you now can't meaningfully explain) in this way is not uncommon KB; as it?s Donkey signature is perhaps as well known around here - as you yourself appear to be fascinated and familiar with it.

[/QUOTE]


-Kid Blast :

This warrants analysis from someone or some institution with a more firm grasp of how the brain works than me. But that post was like DL, Very scary and somewhat overweight. Scary, in part, because the late Freddie Mercury is a very strange looking person.
->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04854XqcfCY So now you choose to be the salesperson who was talking too much even though you "had the sale." stfu. I warned that if you kept on talking (which is your wont) you might lose it. But no, you devoted hours and hours to throw out one last self-aggrandizing, ego-maniacal, chest thumping book. OK, I'll remain in this fray but bear in mind that I will be gone most of next week as I am six days out from the Tri-State championships and must shift my focus. When I return, I shall become a submarine captain and order the periscope to point to down under whereupon I may just launch the finishing torpedoes that will finally end once and for all this insanity. And oh by the way, I trust you realize that by keeping my posts short and concise AND LOGICAL, I have affirmed you already exposed and well-documented propensity towards verbosity.
->https://daily.jstor.org/full-disclosure-say-much-write-online/ So I shall return in a few days. Count on it. Think of me as Ricky Hatton come to retire Kostya Tszyu. Your thang seems to be verbosity. Mine is tenacity, And don't try that stale trick of trying to co-op other posters like Radam, DW, etc. That simply speaks of your need to gang up on me, but those lads (all of whom I too respect0 won't buy into your cheap trick. Are you that desperate? "Hasta la vista, baby"
->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YEG9DgRHhA


-Kid Blast :

This warrants analysis from someone or some institution with a more firm grasp of how the brain works than me. But that post was like DL, Very scary and somewhat overweight. Scary, in part, because the late Freddie Mercury is a very strange looking person.
->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04854XqcfCY So now you choose to be the salesperson who was talking too much even though you "had the sale." stfu. I warned that if you kept on talking (which is your wont) you might lose it. But no, you devoted hours and hours to throw out one last self-aggrandizing, ego-maniacal, chest thumping book. OK, I'll remain in this fray but bear in mind that I will be gone most of next week as I am six days out from the Tri-State championships and must shift my focus. When I return, I shall become a submarine captain and order the periscope to point to down under whereupon I may just launch the finishing torpedoes that will finally end once and for all this insanity. And oh by the way, I trust you realize that by keeping my posts short and concise AND LOGICAL, I have affirmed you already exposed and well-documented propensity towards verbosity.
->https://daily.jstor.org/full-disclosure-say-much-write-online/ So I shall return in a few days. Count on it. Think of me as Ricky Hatton come to retire Kostya Tszyu. Your thang seems to be verbosity. Mine is tenacity, And don't try that stale trick of trying to co-op other posters like Radam, DW, etc. That simply speaks of your need to gang up on me, but those lads (all of whom I too respect0 won't buy into your cheap trick. Are you that desperate? "Hasta la vista, baby"
->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YEG9DgRHhA


-Kid Blast :

See you in April


-stormcentre :

at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110709&viewfull=1#post110709 Thanks Deep. Just stymied by his refusal to engage. Reminds me of when Oliver McCall started crying against Lennox. Lewis didn't know what to do so he did nothing. I'm like Lewis. Cheers lad and thanks for the advice and encouragement.


[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #57]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110506&viewfull=1#post110506
* DL is a cheating, no account, slime ball, scumbag, rumpswab, deceptive rat. Worse of all, he is a flouter. [/QUOTE]

Then a good question might be . . . . Why call me out and say you're going to prove a point; when all you do is just avoid the task altogether and then blame others for not being able to successfully do it?


Why complain about posts and their length (and ignore how your lies contributes) when to date in a thread where you have (i) called me out, (ii) started a senseless debate, (iii) ignored warnings to slow down, (iv) (over and over) claimed you're going to prove a point, and (v) embarrassed yourself . . . . When - despite the post count in that same thread now being more than 80 - you, to date, still (aside from a fake IBF quote) have not offered anything to substantiate your claims, and all your script and story-line changes. All you have proven is that you can lie and run; as (contrary to your claims that underpin your entire and constantly changing stance on this matter) you can't even source rules from the IBF website correctly.

This is the behavior of a pretender. Someone whom starts arguments and fights that they simply can't back up anywhere near as excellently and familiar as they are with the acts of releasing false claims and running. Dr. Consistency, why beat your chest (as you have done from post #14 onwards and effectively claim you have the dynamite answer), when all you really can do is behave evasively, lie, and run? Of course I could be wrong with all this, and in that case you would be able to easily/quickly show me where, within your posts that follow your post #65 you have addressed the outstanding points (as you claimed you would) in order to justify your admissions of defeat rollback and stance on this matter. Happy to see those posts Dr. Consistency. Of course this optional response "
A" to your last few posts (that also, like the rest, fail to offer anything by way of all your unfulfilled claims) might also include a reminder that you could always start your own thread and prove your own points . . . Just, as I suggest here . . .

[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #78]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110698&viewfull=1#post110698


[/QUOTE] A good question might be;

""If (as you claim in post #76) you're so capable of "burying" me, and if you're not running . . . . . then why (long ago) didn't you simply create such a thread all by yourself and in doing so remove your brain's
~imaginary
~roadblock (above pasted post #76) and both, "bury" me" and explain yourself?"

Had you done that, perhaps this matter would have finished days ago. But then had you done that you would have explained/exposed yourself, and it's clear you're allergic to doing that. Furthermore, had you actually done that and/or thought about what you were getting yourself into, and heeded the warnings I provided, this entire matter (and all your running) would not have started; would it?

But then another good response might also be . . . .


B) Excellent, Dr. Consistency because since you have played your last ?get out of jail free? card as to how you supposedly can't explain yourself, follow through on your claims/commitments, win, and quit . . . . .

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #76 - Pretending He Is Done & That Others Are The Reason He Lost & Can't Explain]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110683&viewfull=1#post110683
By not being able to agree to a simple request, you have successfully
~
blocked my ability to bury you and your electronic music.
But make no mistake, it was my request that triggered the end. Adios amigo. I am done. [/QUOTE]

We have a thread especially made for you and your powerful IBF expertise/knowledge. Here it is . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110733&viewfull=1#post110733

I hope you don?t mind that I created it for you? It?s just that waiting on you to follow through and explain yourself has (over the course of your last 10 or so evasive posts) proven to offer both, nothing substantial (even within the context of your own claims) and also be quite exhausting. Oh, by the way, with respect to your last comments about a "brain specialist"; please remember that they?re no good if you don?t tell the truth KB. And, sadly, we can all clearly see from the glaring conflict between your above/pasted posts #82 and #57 (effectively constituting your "cry for help") it's clear that you simply can't help yourself but lie, pretend, and evade. Whether or not it is in the context of trying to round the troops up for support as you sink ever Deeper. So, please remember, if I can catch you out lying . . . A brain specialist certainly will. Anyway, it's nice to see you have finally recognized that you have a (brain related) problem, and need help.


As, the last 10 or so posts from you have abjectly failed to deliver on your own commitments to explain - whilst also directly conflicting with your very own admissions of defeat; all as you continue to progress flawed (and numerously back flipped) claims and introduce new ones - without so much as offering one single piece of referenced evidence from a genuine IBF or other website.

There's that PhD working for you again, isn't it? Anyway, now that you have played all your many/varied excuses (as to why you {supposedly} can't explain and {supposedly have the capability to, but} are {supposedly} unable to "bury" me) out and in doing so shown that your contempt for TSS's reader's intelligence is limitless, please feel free to hop over here . . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110733&viewfull=1#post110733

There you can explain yourself within the context of your below posts. Which, I might add appear to be the primary foundation for all your fictions, evasiveness, and, of course, your latest "get out of jail free" and new non-dilemma . . .

[QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #62]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110545&viewfull=1#post110545 "Explicitly mentions both, champions and the +10 pound rule; along with how that all applies to the second/same-day weigh in.' Yes, world champions like Jacobs. DL was not a world champion in this fight. I have no issues with what Jacobs did. It was wrong.
But where---where---in the IBF rule does it state that a non-world champion must do the +10 pond rule. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #68]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110624&viewfull=1#post110624 From #22" "A) That the fight was originally sanctioned by the IBF and
intended to be for an IBF title; and as such compliance with their rules was required." What title would that be Storm? A world title? If so, I concede on the spot. If not, please apologize and break out the white flag. It's as simple as that. It really is. I could do this as a syllogism, but why bother? You would only send me a 10-page response. So can you end this NOW? [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kid Blast; post #74]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110662&viewfull=1#post110662 If Jacobs did not flout the rules (you said no), how could DL have flouted the rules.
What part of brevity and logic don't you get? [/QUOTE]



OK, in closing I will say is this . . . . . Thanks for agreeing to explain your above posts in the other and above-linked thread. I am so happy about that. As now that we have finally;


A) Removed your brain's
~imaginary
~roadblock; which was, according to you (your above pasted post #76) conveniently and supposedly preventing you from both, explaining yourself and also "burying" me.

As, you neatly claimed to be without the correct forum to explain yourself and "bury" me.

And, in that respect (suspending logic and providing the benefit of the doubt to yet another fantastic excuse/claim that you have authored that really does nothing other than misdirect away from your inability to prove/explain yourself on matters that you start debates with) we now have (just for you) the above-linked and brand new thread, "
The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them." Which now provides for both, your (well overdue) explanations and my (supposed) "burial".
So, please, no more excuses. Please, now, just provide only referenced data that backs up your (constantly changing) claims.




B) Dragged you to a point where you have agreed to explain.

My God this is going to be fun. Fools like this whom profess to have all the answers - but explain nothing and run, rarely come along often enough for me to have the fun that I will have with you. I am going to kick your azz so hard on this. And, what's more I will laugh as I do it. Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)


-Kid Blast :

Taken from: IBF/USBA RULES GOVERNING CHAMPIONSHIP CONTESTS Effective September 1, 2006 with amendments of October 21, 2010, February 25, 2011, October 7, 2011, December 2, 2011, April 18, 2013, October 17, 2013, January 27, 2014, May 17, 2015, October 9, 2015, January 4, 2016, and December 13, 2016. Posted and Effective: December 19, 2016 International Boxing Federation/United States Boxing Association 899 Mountain Ave., Suite 2C Springfield, NJ 07081 Phone: (973)564-8046 Fax: (973)564-8751
1.A. Timing of Initial Weigh-In The initial weigh-in shall be no less than twenty (20) nor more than thirty (30) hours before the scheduled start of the first bout on the bout card. If either Champion or Challenger fails to make the prescribed weight at the initial weigh-in time, each will have two (2) hours thereafter to make the prescribed weight. 1. Champion’s Failure to Make Weight If a Champion shall fail to make the prescribed weight prior to the expiration of the two (2) additional hours, the title shall be forfeited on the scale. The contest may be staged, however, as a fight for the vacant title. If the Challenger, having made the prescribed weight, shall win, he will be declared the winner of the vacant title. However, should the former Champion win, the title will remain vacant. 2. Challenger’s Failure to Make Weight If the Champion makes the weight and the Challenger fails to do so, the fight may be staged with the understanding that the Champion will retain his title whether he wins or loses the bout. 3. Failure to Make Weight in Fight for Vacant Title or Elimination Bout If a contestant failing to make weight in a fight for a vacant title or an elimination bout wins the bout, he shall not be declared the winner and the title shall remain vacant. If a contestant who makes the weight defeats a contestant who did not make the weight, he shall be declared the winner of the vacant title or the elimination bout. . Both Boxers’ Failure to Make Weight In the event both contestants in a vacant title or elimination bout fail to make the prescribed weight, the sanction of the bout will be withdrawn. oth contestants in a vacant title or elimination bout fail to make the prescribed weight or fail to appear for the second day weigh-in, the sanction of the bout will be withdrawn.
]1.B. Timing of Second Day Weigh-In There shall be a second weigh-in between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on the morning of the event, unless otherwise approved by the IBF/USBA. At this weigh-in, boxers cannot weigh more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit. If a boxer weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, he will have two (2) hours thereafter to make the prescribed weight. If after two (2) hours he still weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, the fight can proceed only as described below. 1. Champion’s Failure to Make Weight or to Appear for the Second Day Weigh-In If a Champion shall fail to make the prescribed weight at the second day weigh-in or prior to the expiration of the two (2) additional hours, or in the event the Champion fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the title shall be forfeited on the scale. The contest may be staged, however, as a fight for the vacant title. If the Challenger, having made the prescribed weight, shall win, he will be declared the winner of the vacant title. However, should the former Champion win, the title will remain vacant. 2. Challenger’s Failure to Make Weight or to Appear for the Second Day Weigh-In If the Champion makes the weight at the second day weigh-in and the Challenger fails to do so or fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the fight may be staged with the understanding that the Champion will retain his title whether he wins or loses the bout. 3. Failure to Make Weight or Appear at the Second Day Weigh-In in Fight for Vacant Title or Elimination Bout If a contestant failing to make weight at the second day weigh-in or failing to appear for the second day weigh-in for an elimination bout or a fight for a vacant title wins the bout, he shall not be declared the winner of the title. If a contestant who makes the weight defeats a contestant who did not make the weight or did not appear for the second day weigh-in, he shall be declared the winner of the vacant title or the elimination bout. 4. Both Boxers’ Failure to Make Weight or to Appear for the Second Day Weigh-In In the event both contestants in a vacant title or elimination bout fail to make the prescribed weight or fail to appear for the second day weigh-in, the sanction of the bout will be withdrawn.
res ipsa loquitur. Res judicata. My work is done here.


-Kid Blast :

Taken from: IBF/USBA RULES GOVERNING CHAMPIONSHIP CONTESTS Effective September 1, 2006 with amendments of October 21, 2010, February 25, 2011, October 7, 2011, December 2, 2011, April 18, 2013, October 17, 2013, January 27, 2014, May 17, 2015, October 9, 2015, January 4, 2016, and December 13, 2016. Posted and Effective: December 19, 2016 International Boxing Federation/United States Boxing Association 899 Mountain Ave., Suite 2C Springfield, NJ 07081 Phone: (973)564-8046 Fax: (973)564-8751
1.A. Timing of Initial Weigh-In The initial weigh-in shall be no less than twenty (20) nor more than thirty (30) hours before the scheduled start of the first bout on the bout card. If either Champion or Challenger fails to make the prescribed weight at the initial weigh-in time, each will have two (2) hours thereafter to make the prescribed weight. 1. Champion’s Failure to Make Weight If a Champion shall fail to make the prescribed weight prior to the expiration of the two (2) additional hours, the title shall be forfeited on the scale. The contest may be staged, however, as a fight for the vacant title. If the Challenger, having made the prescribed weight, shall win, he will be declared the winner of the vacant title. However, should the former Champion win, the title will remain vacant. 2. Challenger’s Failure to Make Weight If the Champion makes the weight and the Challenger fails to do so, the fight may be staged with the understanding that the Champion will retain his title whether he wins or loses the bout. 3. Failure to Make Weight in Fight for Vacant Title or Elimination Bout If a contestant failing to make weight in a fight for a vacant title or an elimination bout wins the bout, he shall not be declared the winner and the title shall remain vacant. If a contestant who makes the weight defeats a contestant who did not make the weight, he shall be declared the winner of the vacant title or the elimination bout. . Both Boxers’ Failure to Make Weight In the event both contestants in a vacant title or elimination bout fail to make the prescribed weight, the sanction of the bout will be withdrawn. oth contestants in a vacant title or elimination bout fail to make the prescribed weight or fail to appear for the second day weigh-in, the sanction of the bout will be withdrawn.
]1.B. Timing of Second Day Weigh-In There shall be a second weigh-in between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on the morning of the event, unless otherwise approved by the IBF/USBA. At this weigh-in, boxers cannot weigh more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit. If a boxer weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, he will have two (2) hours thereafter to make the prescribed weight. If after two (2) hours he still weighs more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit, the fight can proceed only as described below. 1. Champion’s Failure to Make Weight or to Appear for the Second Day Weigh-In If a Champion shall fail to make the prescribed weight at the second day weigh-in or prior to the expiration of the two (2) additional hours, or in the event the Champion fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the title shall be forfeited on the scale. The contest may be staged, however, as a fight for the vacant title. If the Challenger, having made the prescribed weight, shall win, he will be declared the winner of the vacant title. However, should the former Champion win, the title will remain vacant. 2. Challenger’s Failure to Make Weight or to Appear for the Second Day Weigh-In If the Champion makes the weight at the second day weigh-in and the Challenger fails to do so or fails to appear for the second day weigh-in, the fight may be staged with the understanding that the Champion will retain his title whether he wins or loses the bout. 3. Failure to Make Weight or Appear at the Second Day Weigh-In in Fight for Vacant Title or Elimination Bout If a contestant failing to make weight at the second day weigh-in or failing to appear for the second day weigh-in for an elimination bout or a fight for a vacant title wins the bout, he shall not be declared the winner of the title. If a contestant who makes the weight defeats a contestant who did not make the weight or did not appear for the second day weigh-in, he shall be declared the winner of the vacant title or the elimination bout. 4. Both Boxers’ Failure to Make Weight or to Appear for the Second Day Weigh-In In the event both contestants in a vacant title or elimination bout fail to make the prescribed weight or fail to appear for the second day weigh-in, the sanction of the bout will be withdrawn.
res ipsa loquitur. Res judicata. My work is done here.


-stormcentre :

s-Stevens&p=110545&viewfull=1#post110545 "Explicitly mentions both, champions and the +10 pound rule; along with how that all applies to the second/same-day weigh in.' Yes, world champions like Jacobs. DL was not a world champion in this fight. I have no issues with what Jacobs did. It was wrong.
But where---where---in the IBF rule does it state that a non-world champion must do the +10 pond rule.


Where in the rules that you have quoted does it explicitly support your above post #62's claims and explicitly say that a non-world champion DOES NOT HAVE TO do the +10 pound rule?

Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-Kid Blast :

Where does it state that he has to? Check Checkmate That all said, we can always say that we agree to disagree. I'm willing to do that in the name of all that is holy.


-Kid Blast :

Where does it state that he has to? Check Checkmate That all said, we can always say that we agree to disagree. I'm willing to do that in the name of all that is holy.


-stormcentre :

Go over here . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782

It's a thread made especially for you to; stop running, prove all your claims, show how you will "bury" me, and remove the constraints to doing all that you you have episodically/previously claimed existed. Oh by the way, your last response in your above post #95 was evasive, inadequate, incorrect, and also in conflict with both;


A) Your past (pre-LastKB back flip on the IBF rules) posts; which pretty much is earmarked by your posts that preceded your above post #57's admission of defeat.
B) Your current (post-LastKB back flip on the IBF rules) posts; which pretty much is earmarked by your posts that succeeded your avove post #57's admission of defeat.

In summary, your above post #95 is (just as much as it shows you don't know contracts and/or what you're talking about) flawed at so many levels. ~90 posts in this thread and (with all your claims the IBF rules support you) you're still delivering incomplete, evasive and inaccurate posts, answers, and claims; and furnishing them with fake victory celebrations. No wonder (just as we get you to start explaining) you want to assume the high morale ground and run. I wonder what it takes you to explain yourself and cut to the chase. Anyway, see you over here . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782

Cheers,
Storm. :) :)


-deepwater2 :

I know
StormCentre and who he really is. He's alright. Some people don?t realize that
Storm thinks before he posts, and that he has (real) world experience. And, that, as simple as it sounds, this (not post length) is pretty much how
Storm wins. Sure, post content (and therefore length) serves a purpose, but by/large that is a direct function of and therefore dictated by the amount of questionable/unfulfilled claims that others make. Some say
Storm wins by an avalanche - or by other means; and
Storm appreciates their praise. However,
Storm has - time and time again - in the midst of forum wars that others senselessly bring to him, delivered long/short posts and proven that either way the fools that rush in simply can't answer the hard questions about their own arguments. This stands whether the questions are delivered in long or short posts. From there (once it is established that the fools that rush in simply can't answer the hard questions about their own arguments whether the questions are delivered in long or short posts) it usually goes downhill for them. All the long posts really do is keep their ever changing and desperate claims and goal-post changes, in check; performing the function of a log of false and misleading claims - if you like. Some others don?t like to think that
Storm wins in the above-mentioned manner; as that is more damaging to their reputation and views of themselves. As it makes them look a bit like Silly Sam. So, they propagate the fiction that
Storm wins by long posts, an avalanche, etc . . . . Long posts that they will almost always not like - because it demonstrates an adeptness with the computer whilst also creating a referential trail of all their questionable claims, desperate assumptions, and failures to ignore how nice
Storm was at the start when he said something like;

?"Are you really sure you want to do this - take some time to reconsider . . . .?"?

So, the loss that these folks (whom don?t think sensibly and/or before they act/post) experience often comes down to jealousy as much as their own stupidity and inability to recognize limitations. At the end of the day all they are usually left with is an option to admit they foolishly got themselves into a situation they can't handle - or they can revert to what was once a popular complaint authored by all those that previously got (their azzes kicked and) expectations confused by their limitation;
Storm's naughty post length. Since, by the time they get to this point of their failed arguments they usually have already been busted losing and lying; what's another lie going to hurt? Especially a popular one that seeks to misdirect away from the lack of substance in their claims whilst attempting to blame post length on the real reason they lost. So - just as Hopkins chose to quit and/or lose in his own special way against Dawson and Smith - they then chose to lose this way. Dr. Consistency has done a similar thing with his exit from this matter, as his last post seeks to blame others for his inability to explain himself and truly win. I address it in full later in this post. However, make no mistake, the ""I'm losing and unable to explain myself because of someone else's long posts that hold me to account"" excuse is just that; and excuse. Psychologically it (the ""I'm losing and unable to explain myself because of someone else's long posts that hold me to account"" excuse) can also form a cry for help (and call to arms) to all those that lost before them in the same (failure to heed warnings) way. Amongst other things; what they are all usually saying with the aforementioned ?cry for help? (and "I'm losing and unable to explain myself because of someone else's long posts that hold me to account"" excuse) is; ?"please come and help me misdirect away from my loss and attempt to "bury" this guy, that"";


A) We all have something (our losses) in common with.
B) It appears I have embarrassingly bitten off more than I can chew with.

Unfortunately though, and as
Storm?s debating and/or ?forum war? posts have already proven; within the history of almost any any debate it can easily be shown (by
Storm) that the loser?s evasiveness and questionable claims, and also their ever increasing inability to explain and/or substantiate themselves, is not a function of
Storm?s post length. So they fail in this respect too. And this is what we have seen happen with Dr. Consistency. You see, long or short,
Storm?s posts almost always contain appropriate answers/questions to result in the opposition realizing both, they got themselves into something they can't successfully solve and they?re unable to explain themselves.
This is a proven point. As, is the fact that
Storm has single-handedly (both, for free and during tough economical times for TSS) cleaned up the forum by (not picking wars that have no basis to them, but instead by) dealing with them head on as they present themselves. Thank
Storm later for it. TSS forum now has far less bullying and hyperbolic claims. The hyperbolic claims and the senseless defence of them (irrespective of how flawed the claims really were) were to some extent what then motivated the hyperbolic claim?s authors and others (whom had adopted a freedom of speech definition that simply defied the imagination) to then enter into needless forum wars with other forum members (
Storm included); and that is why they were out of control, not necessarily beneficial, and removed. Additionally,
Storm is not scared of boxing writers, Puppys, bullies, or anyone. Another proven point. History lesson . . . .
Storm is one of the most longstanding and respected posters here. Some people don?t respect that and/or (whether they admit it or not) become jealous of it. Many years ago, whilst seconded to the UK and Russia,
Storm was unable to post for some reason. Upon his return to TSS website and adoption of the name ?
StormCentre?
Storm was (without any provocation on his part) immediately set up (by ?Ali?) and attacked in the forum by a poster whom (I won?t name, but) was then regarded as the very top dog around here. The name of this top dog won?t be mentioned, because that cat is cool and he accepted the way things turned out. As a matter of coincidence as that unnecessary forum war erupted none other than the distinguished Mr. Lee Wylie (whom used to write for this site) also decided
Storm?s presence was a threat.

*
->https://www.youtube.com/user/LeeWylie1
->https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Mr.+Lee+Wylie+
->http://www.thefightcity.com/category/lee-wylie/
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/feature-articles/15793-the-breakdown-how-marquez-beat-pacquiao
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/feature-articles/16611-how-he-did-it-mayweathers-scintillating-display
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/feature-articles/18780-the-wylie-dissection-cotto-was-master-of-ring-domain

Aside from having one of his fight breakdowns recommended by *Jim Lampley midstream of a live fight broadcast; Mr. Lee Wylie had, on TSS website, been releasing some excellent pieces of various fights - replete with very good technical breakdowns. Unfortunately, just at the point where everyone had Deeply invested in a decent post fight report that Lee had delivered
Storm raised (and proved) some technical issues that Wylie had injected into it. It revealed a few things, one of them being a lack of deep technical knowledge on the matter at hand. Additionally, this, in turn, unintentionally highlighted some liberties with reader?s knowledge of boxing that Lee may have also taken. As everyone here that matters knows, the aforementioned top dog conceded, and Mr. Lee Wylie also became exposed. Mr. Wylie no longer writes for TSS and (after effectively asking
Storm for a challenge that in pure boxing terms and technicalities became more than he could handle, he) decided to exit with tail between legs.
Storm did not ask for that battle. Some people underestimate
Storm and then sometimes they get jealous. Some times it happens the other way around. I will not (in detail) revisit what I refer to as the ?Puppy forum wars? and Silly Sam?s senseless and ultimately futile attempts to occupy what position here he saw me in; because all attempts to beat up
Storm failed, and out of it came some cool things. Additionally, I respect D2, Amayseng and (sometimes) Random now. It has not been easy to respect Random because he sometimes struggles with the truth so much so that it becomes difficult to ignore. That said (since
Storm has asked him to explain) he has improved. Amayseng (unlike KB) finally and graciously accepted his loss (individually and also as a part of the aforementioned Puppy group); he moved on, and now he really contributes to the site. His breakdown of the Triple V Jacobs fight was pretty spot on. Furthermore, his boxing knowledge, if not in the ?A? class division, has always been in the top ?B? class; and that?s way more than many here - some writers included. Same for D2. D2 finally and graciously accepted his loss (as a part of the aforementioned Puppy group), moved on, and now he too contributes to the site in the top class manner that he is capable of. Make no mistake though, during the puppy wars
Storm deliberately took it easy on D2 (and never tried to take him out and/or ?bury? him) due to the fact that when surrounded by numbers
Storm will usually take out the main protagonists and/or ring leaders first; then watch the rest squirm.
Storm mentions this because he is unsure about D2?s rendition of when he, Amayseng, Random, and quite a few others (for extremely questionable reasons and those that they failed to adequately substantiate) ganged up on
Storm here in this forum; and as a result
Storm was faced with no option other than to take them all on (at times with the numbers dictating; 5 to 1). The result was that
Storm (as D2 accurately states) collected a few scalps. In that case Storm was satisfied that everyone eventually receded with their tails between their legs. In any case - as D2 knows - whilst it would have been justified,
Storm didn?t really try to "bury" him. This doesn?t mean
Storm can't; but since D2 basically knows what he's talking about and has that "New York boxing" gig going on - (dare I say it) I have come to like D2. We also see eye to eye on Trump; and that's cool Plus (to some extent) D2 knows (the virtual)
Storm. D2?s contributions and boxing knowledge, if not in the ?A? class division, has always been in the top ?B? class; and that?s more than many here. In fact, both D2 and Amayseng have top class boxing knowledge, and it is usually only on matters of opinion that we now differ; and that?s OK. Random, well, what can you say other than this . . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?20462-Tally-List-Of-Un-Substantiated-Posts&p=79438&viewfull=1#post79438

I just want what drugs he takes; as they must be better than the Meth I cook up. OK, one of the most important lessons here, is this . . .
Storm . . . . .
Never had a forum ?war? here that he himself started. And, he has never lost one either. Almost all the forum wars
Storm has been dragged into usually in some form or another involve another forum member(s) whom seeks to prove a (not very well thought out) point in a way that involves them attacking
Storm and
Storm asking the new victim to reconsider his approach before the "debate" starts. Unfortunately, usually when
Storm asks the new victim to reconsider their approach (before
Storm accepts their challenge and gives their rump a right royal kicking) they (due to a mixture of ego and stupidity) will then themselves usually mistake
Storm?s kindness for a weakness. Its always other clowns that want what
Storm has got and/or want to see his status within the forum toppled, that start it; and as such they decide to try and take
Storm down. And, trying to take
Storm down may sound good in theory.

But, as Zab Judah discovered when he fought Kostya Tzyu, sometimes theory and practice are strange bedfellows. Sometimes someone mistakes their limitation with their ambition. Sometimes mouths write checks that azzes can't cash. Sometimes it all comes crashing down. And, sometimes someone gets knocked out in front of everybody.

A simple look at Dr. Consistency?s post #14 in this thread and all those that followed it (including the posts where it?s obvious that the new victim failed to reconsider his approach when
Storm politely/kindly suggested it; only to then go on to increasingly fail to explain himself and/or fail to use the very IBF rules that were misleadingly claimed to be sourced from the IBF website to justify his position) clearly substantiates this. Look, if someone wants what
Storm has got and/or they want to try and take it and/or
Storm down . . . . . Then, I guess that?s OK. I mean, if you want what
Storm has got, I guess it is your right to try and take it. There are better ways to communicate, though. In any regard all
Storm can say to that is is; ?"try it Dr. Consistency?s and see what happens/happened"?. If not (and this is
Storm's preferred communication option), then let?s just all be cool and we can all have fun. OK, within my last/above post #78 it is clear that KB has given up and can't adequately explain himself. He has failed to (even begin to) adequately explain himself for about the last 10 or so posts. This doesn?t mean he won?t back flip again or come back with another senseless claim and/or post. But for now Dr. Consistency has conceded defeat (again) and failed (again) to explain both, himself and the basis of his arguments/claims; albeit by introducing another porky pie that not only seeks to remove the accountability of his own questionable claims and failures - but (incredibly) blame others for them. Furthermore, within the same above-mentioned post #78 of mine I clearly laid out the (options available to KB, and therefore the) reasons why KB?s post # 76 (including it?s porky pie that seeks to remove the accountability of his own claims/failures, and blame others for them) was absolute rubbish and nothing more than a continuation of all the previous failures on his part to fulfill his earlier claims to meaningfully explain himself. Dr. Consistency KB, has for some time now within this thread been promising to explain himself - but abjectly failing. It's nothing new for Dr. Consistency KB and most others that start forum wars without knowing what they're talking about. In fact, with respect to Dr. Consistency KB, it (namely, promising to explain himself - but abjectly failing) has happened so much that, it - combined with his love of misdirecting and pretending - appears to have facilitated Dr. Consistency KB?s ultimate lie (contained within his last post #76) . . . . And that was that
Storm (not Dr. Consistency himself and all his unproven/exposed claims) was somehow supposedly responsible for the reason why Dr. Consistency KB himself, couldn?t;


A) Follow through on his own claims to address outstanding points and explain himself.
B) Couldn?t explain the lies within his post #34.
C) Accept the previously admitted defeat that he publicly conceded.
D) Behave in a consistent manner with respect to an argument that he had foolishly brought to the forum.
E) Adequately explain his new theory, that supposedly suggested that because Lemieux was not a champion when both him and Stevens fought, this somehow means Dr. Consistency KB?s self serving interpretation (which he was careful to never elaborate upon in detail and/or provide proof/substantiation of) of the IBF rules provides him with a ?get out of jail free? card.
F) Adequately explain his new theory (as per above point ?
E?) and use it to supposedly ?bury?
Storm -
without the help of
Storm.

Think about this "
F" point for a minute folks; as it (incredibly) means that (with all the history of Dr. Consistency?s posts within this thread behind him, and also how thoroughly
Storm has already flogged/exposed him for all his questionable claims and evasiveness) Dr. Consistency?s new theory of supposedly winning and saving himself now relied upon
Storm circumventing Dr. Consistency?s own inability and fear to state how the IBF rules supposedly justified his new and ever changing stance. Therefore, Dr. Consistency hung the success of his new ?get out of jail free? theory (that was supposedly going to ?bury?
Storm) directly on a reliance that
Storm himself would help Dr. Consistency KB himself both, explain and understand how the IBF rules supposedly ?bury?
Storm !! From this it seems that, sadly, throughout this entire matter, it never meaningfully crossed Dr. Consistency KB's mind that; the fact he himself clearly possessed a direct reliance upon
Storm to assist with the explanation and understanding of how the IBF rules supposedly ?buried?
Storm - actually proved and/or meant that Dr. Consistency KB himself couldn't do, and also didn't understand the IBF rules, as he claimed. Genius.



And, perhaps more than anything, including what I have already exposed about Dr. Consistency KB (and this foolish argument of his that he would not heed warnings about and also chose to start) here/below within the closing sections of my post #75, where I say . . .

The above "
A" - "
F" points perfectly explain the substance (or lack thereof) within Dr. Consistency KB's arguments and claims. As, in the real world and as we all know, there really is no reason why (if Dr. Consistency KB is truly correct and definately in a position to ?bury?
Storm; as he claims) he simply can't substantiate himself and do as I suggest within my last post #78. . . . .

You see, even if Dr. Consistency?s wild claims with respect to
Storm supposedly being responsible for Dr. Consistency?s (seemingly limitless) inability to bury
Storm (which in itself is a highly questionable claim), the fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no reason why Dr. Consistency can't . . .
Simply start a new thread all by himself (without asking for
Storm's help) and - in detail - explain how the IBF rules work and supposedly support both, his past and new claims.
Why can't Dr. Consistency do this; as per the options that ?2? and ?B? within my above post #78 also explain/provide? It would be the perfect opportunity for Dr. Consistency to employ his claimed/supposed ability (real or imagined) to supposedly "bury"
Storm in a completely independent manner and one that also circumvents Dr. Consistency?s own claimed (but highly dubious) reasons as to why he supposedly/currently can't (explain himself and) ?bury?
Storm right now? Why can't Dr. Consistency chose the above-mentioned options to "bury"
Storm; particularly if what his last post and it?s claims say are true? Finally, and I only say/do this because I am a nice
Storm (time provided and if/when I chose to do so); if after a few months Dr. Consistency has still not availed himself of the above-mentioned options to prove his own claims and also ?bury?
Storm, then I may just start a new post or thread that really educates him and explains how the IBF rules work.
Please note how such an endeavor is (unlike Dr. Consistency KB's claims about his knowledge on the matter) completely and utterly independent of Dr. Consistency KB's input and involvement. This goes directly to the above discussion, including that which opened this post about the importance of knowing what you're talking about and before you debate it; whether or not you're in the market for a beat-down. OK, that?s it for now. Love your gig and new avatar D2. Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)




PS: Lately (particularly during all his premature victory dances and prior to consuming pizza and flat bread) Dr. Consistency KB has dedicated quite a few (dismissive) songs for
Storm. In reciprocation/relation to that interesting pursuit, here is one that
Storm has especially selected . . . . Just for Dr. Consistency. Whom was warned (to consider his reputation) time and time again, but would not listen.

PPS:







What a Wonderful Post! Thanks for sharing. Glad you like the pic.


-stormcentre :

What a Wonderful Post! Thanks for sharing. Glad you like the pic.
Yes, I, too, myself thought it contained some really beautiful shades of pink over grey - and it did so without ever losing sight of its own wonderfully positive destiny. Which was clearly purveying an almost innocent and bewitching kind of delicate enchantment to the faithful readers about how wonderful TSS forum life can really be as the winds of aversity wisps around and caresses the theatre of their consciousness. Best of all (if I can indulge in a little false modesty) was, perhaps, the way the poetic tapestry held itself firmly together whilst still providing enough compliancy to facilitate the treausured readers to imbibe all the separate and unique qualities of the post's fermented spirit; without so much as even beginning to hint at diluting the special character each individual actor within the overall script was afforded - whom, themselevs, I might add, were also meticulously sewn into the craftwork of the piece's tapestry. Imparted into it, element by element as it were, and as if the final construct itself was a living entity within its own rights. Glad a fellow connoisseur like yourself can both recognize and appreciate the finer arts. Simply wonderful; I agree. Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)
PS: Anyone seen KB? Now that we have finally got to the point (within the below thread/posts) where he has to explain, he seems to have run off. Furthermore, I have lost one of my steel capped boots (the right one) and the last place I recall putting it was firmly in his behind.
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110804&viewfull=1#post110804
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110812&viewfull=1#post110812