English Español
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

  1. #1
    Senior Member stormcentre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4,165

    The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

    The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them.

  2. #2
    Senior Member stormcentre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4,165

    Re: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

    This thread is a golden opportunity for anyone to explain how the IBF rules work.

    We have many experts here, but . . .

    Who will step up?


    I have started the ball rolling here;



    But some involved in the discussion seem to twist and turn and chop/change their stories to suit.

    Some even blame others for their inability to explain how they think the IBF rules work.

    All as they try and (perform yet another) back flip from their previous admissions of defeat on matter pertaining to the IBF rules that they (incredibly) had actually lifted from places other than claimed/the IBF website.



    Furthermore, such is the confusion (for some) around the IBF rules that initially some actually claimed that fighters whom are actually in violation of the IBF rules did the right thing - then they changed and said that the same fighters now aren’t in violation of the rules - only to then flip again and/or state that even if the fighters in question are in violation of the IBF rules then they’re apparently not penalized anyway (even though they may well be); and on it goes.

    Like someone whom admits defeat and then pretends that they haven’t, all as they have a little cry about their loss.


    So . . .

    With so many experts about and so many excuses as to why people (whom refuse to accept they may be wrong, that also) can’t explain the stance they themselves possess with respect to the IBF rules; a good question is . . .

    Who can do more than blame others for their inability to explain themselves about the IBF rules?


    Who here can demonstrate their knowledge about the rules and how they apply to the fights that matter; such that they can explain how previous admissions of defeat on such matters can be reversed without anyone raising an eyebrow.

    Whomever you are; this thread is for you.


    Here, within this thread you and/or anyone can show us all your IBF powerful knowledge, you can demonstrate your mastery of the subject, and you can explain how the rules work in the circumstances you believe fit.



    Naturally, if no-one steps up to plate and meaningfully demonstrates they have balls and can "walk" their own "talk" on the matter, then Storm will follow through and explain.

    But before that inevitably happens . . .

    Let’s see whom amongst us can explain the IBF rules as well as they defend their positions/claims pertaining to them.



    Fire away TSS forum posters and IBF experts, as this thread is just for you.

    Tell us how the IBF rules work for the Jacobs V Triple, and also the Lemieux V Stevens fights.




    OK, let's see whom steps up.



    Cheers,

    Storm.






  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,067

    Re: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

    A cheap and sneaky trick. Much like what Jacobs did to GGG and therefore had the "world title" consideration removed from the fight. But he could have care less because by fighting well or even winning, he would achieve much in the way of potential earnings. He was successful in that strategy even though he flouted the 10-pound rule and came in markedly heavier than GGG.

    some called it strategic. Others called it something else. It did warrant much comment from the HBO announcers.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,067

    Re: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

    See you in April

  5. #5
    Senior Member stormcentre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4,165

    Re: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast View Post
    See you in April
    Ahhh . . KB.

    Glad you could chime in.

    Surprised to see you chime in, run off, and offer nothing substantial, though.


    Can you please (meaningfully, non-ambiguously, and with references) elaborate on your view on how the IBF rules work?

    You shouldn't need any delay/time and/or to push it out until an undefined date in April.


    As within the other posts/threads (that are linked within above posts within this thread) you have time and time again effectively claimed to be in possession of information that;

    A) Not only, reverses your previous admissions of defeat/losing and nullifies your claims to explain.


    B) But also, (supposedly) can offer new light on this matter and "bury" people.



    Now, with this thread that I started (for IBF experts just like you) there is no real/imagined "roadblock" to the new brilliant light that you claim to offer that also seemingly has the potential to "bury" people.



    So, without further ado . . . .

    Let's hear it.



    This is the golden opportunity that you have been saying was previously not available to you to "bury" your opponents and also explain how the IBF rules work, within the context of all your previous;

    1) Assertion rollbacks.

    2) Admissions of defeat rollbacks

    3) Commitment to fully explain and learn from past mistakes, failures.

    4) Misdirection.



    Perhaps you can start by furnishing the forum with another cut/paste job of the IBF rules that directly supports your claims and stance.

    This time, please make sure it really comes from the IBF themselves won't you?

    I would imagine that whatever you provide it will need to (at least) explain how the IBF provided for a same and/or second day weigh in (and also the +10 pound rule) within the Lemieux V Stevens fight; when - as you now (with your latest back flip {we're up to about 3 back flips from you on this matter}) seem to assert - it was not required and/or not a violation of the IBF rules to fail to attend it.



    In any regard, I would have thought that, from your past/recent comments about this matter, that this information would be right at your fingertips; and ready to go.





    Cheers,

    Storm.


  6. #6
    Senior Member stormcentre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4,165

    Re: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast View Post
    See you in April
    Ahhh . . KB.

    Glad you could chime in.

    Surprised to see you chime in, run off, and offer nothing substantial, though.


    Can you please (meaningfully, non-ambiguously, and with references) elaborate on your view on how the IBF rules work?

    You shouldn't need any delay/time and/or to push it out until an undefined date in April.


    As within the other posts/threads (that are linked within above posts within this thread) you have time and time again effectively claimed to be in possession of information that;

    A) Not only, reverses your previous admissions of defeat/losing and nullifies your claims to explain.


    B) But also, (supposedly) can offer new light on this matter and "bury" people.



    Now, with this thread that I started (for IBF experts just like you) there is no real/imagined "roadblock" to the new brilliant light that you claim to offer that also seemingly has the potential to "bury" people.



    So, without further ado . . . .

    Let's hear it.



    This is the golden opportunity that you have been saying was previously not available to you to "bury" your opponents and also explain how the IBF rules work, within the context of all your previous;

    1) Assertion rollbacks.

    2) Admissions of defeat rollbacks

    3) Commitment to fully explain and learn from past mistakes, failures.

    4) Misdirection.



    Perhaps you can start by furnishing the forum with another cut/paste job of the IBF rules that directly supports your claims and stance.

    This time, please make sure it really comes from the IBF themselves won't you?

    I would imagine that whatever you provide it will need to (at least) explain how the IBF provided for a same and/or second day weigh in (and also the +10 pound rule) within the Lemieux V Stevens fight; when - as you now (with your latest back flip {we're up to about 3 back flips from you on this matter}) seem to assert - it was not required and/or not a violation of the IBF rules to fail to attend it.



    In any regard, I would have thought that, from your past/recent comments about this matter, that this information would be right at your fingertips; and ready to go.





    Cheers,

    Storm.


  7. #7

    Re: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

    Good luck in Moultonborough, Kid. Lift through the pain. Do it!

  8. #8
    Senior Member stormcentre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4,165

    Re: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

    Perhaps unsurprisingly . . . . .


    It seems KB has chosen to drop his latest (incomplete/questionable) explanation and answers with respect to how the IBF rules supposedly work within the context of his back flipping claims, within the thread that he previously stated restricted him from doing so and the thread which most conceals them.


    Here is the post/excuse where KB previously said that (due to factors out of his control) he couldn't (in that thread) explain himself . . . .


    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #76 - Pretending He Is Done & That Others Are The Reason He Lost & Can't Explain

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=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.

    Clearly the excuse we received from KB in post #76 as to why he can't explain himself and substantiate the argument he started, was fraudulent; as now KB has posted another questionable and incomplete explanation in (not the IBF thread specifically designed for it, but right back in) the very thread that he previously claimed that (due to factors out of his control) he couldn't explain himself in . . .. .


    Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we set out to deceive . . . .

    Why is it so hard to tell the truth and cut to the chase?


    Anyway, here is Dr. Consistency's latest response . . . .




    Please note how, once again, KB's response is evasive and incomplete.


    Please note how no URL link accompanies KB's response.

    So, (as proof of yet more evasion) we can't easily identify if Dr. Consistency has really sourced the correct IBF rules.

    Or, if he has (yet again) delivered us rules that are "pretend" for the circumstances.


    Please note also how KB's latest response fails to explicitly support his very own claim that underpins his latest back flip (that he seems to think reverses his previous admission of defeat). . . .


    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #62

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=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.



    As, where in the rules that Dr. Consistency has mysteriously quoted us does it explicitly support his above post #62's claims and explicitly say that a non-world champion DOES NOT HAVE TO do the +10 pound rule?




    It's time for KB to "connect" with reality and the truth.

    So . . . . you know what that means . . . .


    Get ready for more evasion and incomplete answers folks.




    Cheers,


    Storm.







  9. #9
    Senior Member stormcentre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4,165

    Re: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

    Perhaps unsurprisingly . . . . .


    It seems KB has chosen to drop his latest (incomplete/questionable) explanation and answers with respect to how the IBF rules supposedly work within the context of his back flipping claims, within the thread that he previously stated restricted him from doing so and the thread which most conceals them.


    Here is the post/excuse where KB previously said that (due to factors out of his control) he couldn't (in that thread) explain himself . . . .


    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #76 - Pretending He Is Done & That Others Are The Reason He Lost & Can't Explain

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=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.

    Clearly the excuse we received from KB in post #76 as to why he can't explain himself and substantiate the argument he started, was fraudulent; as now KB has posted another questionable and incomplete explanation in (not the IBF thread specifically designed for it, but right back in) the very thread that he previously claimed that (due to factors out of his control) he couldn't explain himself in . . .. .


    Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we set out to deceive . . . .

    Why is it so hard to tell the truth and cut to the chase?


    Anyway, here is Dr. Consistency's latest response . . . .




    Please note how, once again, KB's response is evasive and incomplete.


    Please note how no URL link accompanies KB's response.

    So, (as proof of yet more evasion) we can't easily identify if Dr. Consistency has really sourced the correct IBF rules.

    Or, if he has (yet again) delivered us rules that are "pretend" for the circumstances.


    Please note also how KB's latest response fails to explicitly support his very own claim that underpins his latest back flip (that he seems to think reverses his previous admission of defeat). . . .



    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #62

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=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.



    As, where in the rules that Dr. Consistency has mysteriously quoted us does it explicitly support his above post #62's claims and explicitly say that a non-world champion DOES NOT HAVE TO do the +10 pound rule?




    It's time for KB to "connect" with reality and the truth.

    So . . . . you know what that means . . . .


    Get ready for more evasion and incomplete answers folks.




    Cheers,


    Storm.







  10. #10
    Senior Member stormcentre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4,165

    Re: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

    Perhaps unsurprisingly . . . . .


    It seems KB has chosen to drop his latest (incomplete/questionable) explanation and answers with respect to how the IBF rules supposedly work within the context of his back flipping claims, within the thread that he previously stated restricted him from doing so and the thread which most conceals them.


    Here is the post/excuse where KB previously said that (due to factors out of his control) he couldn't (in that thread) explain himself . . . .


    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #76 - Pretending He Is Done & That Others Are The Reason He Lost & Can't Explain

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=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.

    Clearly the excuse we received from KB in post #76 as to why he can't explain himself and substantiate the argument he started, was fraudulent; as now KB has posted another questionable and incomplete explanation in (not the IBF thread specifically designed for it, but right back in) the very thread that he previously claimed that (due to factors out of his control) he couldn't explain himself in . . .. .


    Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we set out to deceive . . . .

    Why is it so hard to tell the truth and cut to the chase?


    Anyway, here is Dr. Consistency's latest response . . . .




    Please note how, once again, KB's response is evasive and incomplete.


    Please note how no URL link accompanies KB's response.

    So, (as proof of yet more evasion) we can't easily identify if Dr. Consistency has really sourced the correct IBF rules.

    Or, if he has (yet again) delivered us rules that are "pretend" for the circumstances.


    Please note also how KB's latest response fails to explicitly support his very own claim that underpins his latest back flip (that he seems to think reverses his previous admission of defeat). . . .



    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #62

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=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.



    As, where in the rules that Dr. Consistency has mysteriously quoted us does it explicitly support his above post #62's claims and explicitly say that a non-world champion DOES NOT HAVE TO do the +10 pound rule?




    It's time for KB to "connect" with reality and the truth.

    So . . . . you know what that means . . . .


    Get ready for more evasion and incomplete answers folks.




    Cheers,


    Storm.







Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •