English Español
Advertisement
Page 3 of 35 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 348

Thread: GGG a straight killer.

  1. #21
    Advanced Users brownsugar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Home of the Buckeyes
    Posts
    4,550

    Re: GGG a straight killer.

    Quote Originally Posted by stormcentre View Post
    Dude, I want some of what you're smoking. Ward, IMHO, would embarrass, wreck and destroy GGG right now.

    There is a reason GGG is not avoiding guys with slick complete styles that have power.

    Everything else you said I have no issue with.

    Cheers.

    SC.
    About 3 decades ago I used sell what I was smoking or rather it sold itself.
    Because the quality was top of the line and everybody wanted some.
    That's how good GGG is.... His performances and pedigree will eventually propel him into the upper echelons of the sport and eventually PPV. (well his last fight wasn't free)

    And by the way ... GGG has already called out BHOP after he defeated Cloud and Ward several times.
    Wards response was call out the far more inferior Chavez Jr.
    Ward is using the excuse that Quillen..Martinez... and the rest of them are using " This guy is a nobody " ..... even though GGG has defended his title 6 times and gets MASSIVE PRESS and accolades every time he fights...
    Chavez may be the son of a Champion but he hasn't held a title and already failed to obtain one when he was defeated by Martinez...11 out of 12 rounds.

  2. #22

    Re: GGG a straight killer.

    Hey BS,

    Thanks for your response.

    Did GGG officially call out B-Hop? Or did he just say he'd like to fight him? I never read anything official about GGG officially calling out B-Hop; but I guess that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

    Same for Ward, I haven't heard of 3G officially calling out B-Hop, or of Ward dismissing the challenge.

    I think, for now, we will have to agree to disagree on the outcome of Ward and GGG fighting now; as I think Ward will win.

    Can you please direct me to the press release or other information related to 3G officially calling out B-Hop and Ward, and them dismissing/ducking him. I recall some releases that suggested those fights might be good/entertaining, but none that officially had GGG and his management seriously offering both Ward and Hopkins the fight and them being unreasonably evasive. I must have missed them.

  3. #23
    Advanced Users brownsugar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Home of the Buckeyes
    Posts
    4,550

    Re: GGG a straight killer.

    Quote Originally Posted by stormcentre View Post
    Hey BS,

    Thanks for your response.

    Did GGG officially call out B-Hop? Or did he just say he'd like to fight him? I never read anything official about GGG officially calling out B-Hop; but I guess that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

    Same for Ward, I haven't heard of 3G officially calling out B-Hop, or of Ward dismissing the challenge.

    I think, for now, we will have to agree to disagree on the outcome of Ward and GGG fighting now; as I think Ward will win.

    Can you please direct me to the press release or other information related to 3G officially calling out B-Hop and Ward, and them dismissing/ducking him. I recall some releases that suggested those fights might be good/entertaining, but none that officially had GGG and his management seriously offering both Ward and Hopkins the fight and them being unreasonably evasive. I must have missed them.
    How could you miss it ? It's everywhere. I even posted a thread on it each time.
    Did you not listen to the commentary between Ward and Max during the GGG / Rosado fight?.
    Are you not aware that GGG sparred with Cloud for the BHOP fight in Big Bear... And did so well he figured he was ready for the master? Its not hard to find.
    I can't keep schooling you and do your homework at the same time.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    South Central
    Posts
    1,473

    Re: GGG a straight killer.

    B-sug I think it's only right for Ward to want to fight Chavez Jr cuz he know it makes the most sense financially. GGG has to pay a little more dues before he can get a shot at Ward. If he beats Sergio or the Froch, Kessler winner Hopkins even Chad Dawson then that would make it worth Ward wild.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    South Central
    Posts
    1,473

    Re: GGG a straight killer.

    B-sug r u saying Ward is ducking GGG?

  6. #26
    Advanced Users brownsugar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Home of the Buckeyes
    Posts
    4,550

    Re: GGG a straight killer.

    Quote Originally Posted by ali View Post
    B-sug I think it's only right for Ward to want to fight Chavez Jr cuz he know it makes the most sense financially. GGG has to pay a little more dues before he can get a shot at Ward. If he beats Sergio or the Froch, Kessler winner Hopkins even Chad Dawson then that would make it worth Ward wild.
    On the plus side Chavez rehydrates up to 185lbs on fight night while being much stronger than the drained middleweight he used to be.....
    But Let him first treat us to a showcase performance proving he's even worthy enough to fill Wards water bottle. Ward has not ruled out fighting GGG but like everyone else it's always some far away date.
    GGG fights again in June...after that Somebody is going to have to fall on their sword and fight this guy in the fall... Somebody with a name... Don't let GGG MOVE up to supermiddleweight and run the whole super six alumni to lightheavy.

  7. #27

    Re: GGG a straight killer.

    Quote Originally Posted by brownsugar View Post
    How could you miss it ? It's everywhere. I even posted a thread on it each time.
    Did you not listen to the commentary between Ward and Max during the GGG / Rosado fight?.
    Are you not aware that GGG sparred with Cloud for the BHOP fight in Big Bear... And did so well he figured he was ready for the master? Its not hard to find.
    I can't keep schooling you and do your homework at the same time.



    You're a laugh BS.

    You're schooling me eh?

    I think you're leaning on that crack pipe a little too much, smoking the white stuff and perhaps investing in the alternative definitions for your BS acronym; whilst at the same time also forgetting the past and failing to learn from it.

    Let’s put your claim to the test then?

    You will note that in my post to which you respond I differentiated between hearsay and something more tangible; with respect to what 3G and his management team may or may not have done in relation to officially offering others to fight.

    I did that for several reasons.

    One of them is because someone having a hypothetical discussion about whether someone would like to fight someone else is entirely different from team "A" officially offering team "B" the opportunity for a fight, and then one of those team's officially dismissing, ducking, diving and/or declining it.

    Another reason is because in your previous posts (some of which I detail below) you mention the importance of fact over fiction and how important truth is.

    With that in mind; I note that with your strong and personalized response you have not provided any proof as you often claim is necessary and as I requested. This is becoming quite a common trait with your posts BS, particularly those that (disingenuously) attempt to claim that others are hurling unfounded accusations and are untruthful - whilst in fact you're doing it yourself.

    Now to your other remarkable and utterly inconsistent claim that you're “schooling me”; which appears designed to deflect from the provision of what I was requesting from you - a follow through on your own preaching and proof.

    Let’s look at your claim that you're “schooling me” closely. You will hopefully appreciate that if in fact it is true and you're not being hypocritical, there should be very little mistakes and inconsistencies on your part - as you “school” me.

    Strange it is then that when we look back at just some of your claims and performances they're littered with inconsistencies, hypocrisy, and evasiveness.

    I will only refer to some of those examples that you have furnished us with - not all - just some. As time is not on my side today and I only have 15 minutes to give to this.

    OK . . . when we were discussing what testing Bradley had agreed to and whether his PED comments and approaches were worthy of suspicion - when I suggested his switch from VADA to USAD was concerning; you came up with this as a rebuttal to my comment that Bradley suspiciously canned VADA and went for USADA.

    Here is your comment.
    Re: Bradley Deals With Fallout From "Win" Which Resulted in Death Threats”
    “Bradley has already agreed to VADA TESTING for his next fight... also when Bradley defeated Peterson ....there's no way to measure how high a concentration Peterson was using that day as he was beaten from pillar to post while eventually being floored. Suspicion is much easier to manufacture than proof. Anybody on the street can hurl an unfounded accusation....with little effort. Truth supported by facts is a much harder commodity to obtain”.
    It can be found here; http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...ll=1#post26837

    Your post - replete with capitalization and bold text which best approximates the raised and vehement voice of an authority - appears to have been written with all the authority of someone that believes their own hype and that they are “schooling” others that have less knowledge then themselves.

    Lucky us eh?

    Too bad that almost the entire post was BS and no attempt on your part to arm yourself with the truth or apologize was observed - not even when it was offered to you. Yet, according to you “the truth supported by facts is a much harder commodity to obtain”.

    Well the saying that "the truth supported by facts is a much harder commodity to obtain” will sure ring true every time for you when you run from it and also turn a blind eye to it on those times when you can't run fast enough to escape it. Yet you're “schooling” me eh?

    That comment of yours was blatantly incorrect and whilst I could have deemed my substantiation of the matter as “schooling you” (particularly given the capitalized, unnecessary and strong nature of your response that not only suggested I hadn’t checked but also strongly inferred that I was propagating unfounded accusations {all of which you were actually doing}); I didn’t.

    Needless to say BS, when I offered the forum further proof (by anyone emailing me for the link to the video that debunked your above claims and your unnecessary and inappropriate attempt to stage manage and orchestrate matters to appear as if I was as insincere as you) that you had waded in feet first on that matter with the intention of correcting not just me but also others, and instead had got it all wrong ; you were not interested. No response was received from you.

    Yet, according to you “the truth supported by facts is a much harder commodity to obtain”, and yet there we were with you not the least bit interested in the (real) truth - certainly not to the same extent that you were interested in claiming I hadn’t subscribed to it and should be judged on that basis.

    Oh, but your “schooling” me - that’s right.

    Anyway, after I was advised (by Dino) that I could post a URL to the video on the forum (that substantiated your claims were wrong, I was correct and that you were a hypocrite with respect to the matter) there was no apology from you at all.

    What “schooling” lesson was that I wonder? How to lose sorely?

    Not even after I wrote http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...ll=1#post26921 which comprehensively detailed all you should need to know about why you are not “schooling” me; did an honorable apology or recalibration of your views come forward with 1/3 of the pace that your hypocritical accusations were launched with.

    It didn’t bother me, and I didn’t highlight the matter. In fact the offer to email me for the video that preceded the URL posting was to save you the embarrassment associated with those related and your recent claims.

    Perhaps you may need to re-read some of your own posts before making such unfounded accusations; such as you “schooling” me.

    But just in case you don’t and just in case you do continue treat it and this matter like the video link for the above-mentioned forum post here’s another gem . . .

    Recently (http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...ll=1#post28026 ) you suggested that Gennady Golovkin is better than Mayweather, Pacquiao and Martinez. At least the 2013 versions you claimed; which doesn’t close the door for other-year comparisons; even if it were required.

    BS stated: “GGG isn't on the same level as Martinez, Alvarez, Paqman, and Mayweather. GGG is BETTER THAN Martinez, Alvarez, Paqman and Mayweather”.

    That claim alone tells us all we need to know about what research goes into some of your claims. I mean on what basis did you make those fantastic assessments?

    BS, get boxrec up and put Mayweather and Pacquiao’s records up alongside Golovkin’s professional record.

    You will note that one of them is the odd one out.

    If for no other reason that there is your motive to be cautious and not embarrass yourself as an advanced TSS poster. If not that, then the fact that most of GGG’s fights clearly have the decks stacked heavily in his favor, despite his abilities; should have been another warning for you to restrain from cheerleading and overlooking the obvious - in a similar fashion to your interesting and inconsistent remarks associated with Bradley and PEDs.

    See the difference between class of opponents between Mayweather and Pacquiao, and Gennady’s records? Still, it is your opinion. One thing though, just don’t get surprised when we ask you for proof of your claims the same way you ask of, and hold out on, with us.

    Before the Ishida fight you were drinking up big GGG cool aid and others on the forum were politely advising you to calm down. It was almost as if you needed a revelation to ride through the forum and remind everyone that you're still here.

    At one stage you advised; “Ishida is the guy who fights the fighters all the other fighters run from”. ( http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...ll=1#post27734 )

    At another stage you advised “If 3G is able to take out Ishida,.. it'll be a great litmus test to judge how he will be able to compete with the big name boxers”. ( http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...ll=1#post27750 )

    Both were curious remarks if one looks at them in the light provided by your above-mentioned comments; particularly those related to how you're “schooling” me.

    So, according to the teacher whom is “schooling” me you're saying GGG has achieved a better (in all senses of the word) performance than say Mayweather Vs Oscar, Castillo, Hatton, Chavez, Gatti . . and the list goes on.

    You're also saying then that GGG has, so far, given us a performance better (in all senses of the word) than Mayweather V Cotto.

    Really? Who would it be that GGG has fought that presented as much of a calculated challenge as Cotto did to Mayweather? Particularly given that only weeks before the Cotto fight Mayweather was going to jail and clearly distracted, and Floyd allowed Cotto to come in at a comfortable weight - something 3G doesn’t always do for his opponents?

    Who would it be that GGG fought that is a big ticket fighter, has the same experience and remaining ability to use it; as Floyd has with Cotto?

    Who would it be that had GGG holding on and digging deep - like Cotto did to Mayweather?

    Are we talking about the same GGG here that just fought Ishida whom, most knowledgeable and savvy boxing followers, knew was easy pickings at the weight 3G fought him at? The same Ishida that you thought was going to be a decent challenge?

    The same Ishida that I said (in writing) would literally wear 3G’s right hands; as was the case and also how the fight ended?

    Yet, you're “schooling” me aren’t you? If so, how come you got all that wrong then?

    And to your remarkable claim in the context of Pacquiao.

    BS stated: “GGG isn't on the same level as Martinez, Alvarez, Paqman, and Mayweather. GGG is BETTER THAN Martinez, Alvarez, Paqman and Mayweather”.

    Who is it that 3G has fought that’s on the same level as Marquez? When has 3G fought back to back champions like Manny has?

    Man, I like 3G too but you're high and delusional with these claims, and usually when people get like that and believe they're “schooling” others with the BS - it doesn’t take too long before the comments like the ones from you that this post responds to, follows.

    That’s why it’s always best to talk only of what you know, and if you don’t or simply can't do that, then it’s best not to do so and at the same time call others out for busting a hole in facts as a diversion. As that’s a sure fire way to get your azz exposed for being a hypocrite - which is something I have already tried to save you from (by not posting the Bradley video URL straight away) even though you have unreasonably, unnecessarily and inappropriately subjected me to it.

    Please dude . . . . I know forums are to discuss the topic of your interest, and I know it must feel nice to have people (that believe you) treat you like you're an authority. But, at the same time, if you're really an authority; you don’t need to remind people of it, and you certainly don’t need to call them out for the wrongs that you're doing.

    Furthermore, if you're calling people out for exposing their jaw line, yours should be protected.

    What this means is that your BS is not “schooling” me. You have a long way to go, and if the above is not enough reason why, then here’s more proof…..

    Now (whilst still addressing your above comments related to 3G and Mayweather and Pacquiao, and how you're “schooling” me and doing my homework) before you get on the high ground and add a new rider or condition to your fantastic “GGG is better than Mayweather, Pacquiao and Martinez” and other claims; by way of pointing to 3G’s current linear position as a professional fighter and his fight count; it may be beneficial for you to take stock of a few facts.

    For instance;

    1) Gennady Golovkin Cheerleading: A good comparison to how and where GGG is in his professional career (and whether he is better than Mayweather, Pacquiao and Martinez, or even at similar levels for the amount of fights) can be found by comparing GGG to Kostya Tszyu (whom most TSS forum posters believe is not in the same league as Mayweather).

    That and other related facts were (as you “schooled” me) posted here by me . . .

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...ll=1#post27754

    From this we can deduct the following things;

    a) 3G, for the amount of (amateur or professional) fights he has had, is basically fighting guys that Kostya Tszyu was fighting 10 years earlier. (Such is 3G’s aversion to serious risk).
    b) 3G, for the amount of (amateur or professional) fights he has had, is basically fighting guys that Mayweather was fighting before him. (Such is 3G’s aversion to serious risk).
    c) 3G has not begun to enter the realm of serious marquee fights that Mayweather, Tszyu, Pacquiao and Martinez have.
    d) Your above-mentioned (no committed) claim about whether (not “when”) GGG can take out Ishida, suggests you were not entirely sure if GGG could take out Ishida and that (particularly in combination with your other posts related to GGG) you were sold on the fact that Ishida was a decent challenge and that he was not going to be a walk in the park for Gennady.

    A part of this certainty on your part appears to come from your above-mentioned remarkable claims;

    “Ishida is the guy who fights the fighters all the other fighters run from”.

    “If Ishida is able to take out Ishida,.. it'll be a great litmus test to judge how he will be able to compete with the big name boxers”

    Which clearly suggest that as you were “schooling” me and doing my “homework” for me, you believed Ishida presented a serious challenge to GGG where the outcome was not entirely certain because, amongst several matters, Ishida would be seriously competitive, he was the guy others ran from and if 3G beat him it would be an indication that Gennady could compete with the big name boxers.

    Aside from the fact that as you're “schooling” me you seem to explicitly and acknowledge that GGG has not been competing with the big name boxers; whilst interestingly and completely inconsistently still upholding the nonsensical belief that GGG is better than Mayweather and Pacquiao - whom are and have competed with “big name boxers”.

    So, putting to side the inconsistency associated with how, if GGG has not - as you say - competed with the big name boxers; he can be seriously determined to be better than Mayweather and Pacquiao - whom have?

    And we still are left with a “schooling” from you that is akin to what one may get from a toilet wall.

    For instance, it seems as if you read all the promotional material associated with GGG and sucked it up like crack through a pipe and/or fizzy cool aid through a straw.

    Dude, for someone that’s been in and around the game as long as you; I would have thought you’d know how much and where to invest your faith in fighters and their opponents. And I would have thought also that you’d know when/who to call out with your (to use your previously misplaced claim) unfounded accusations; such as how you're supposedly “schooling” me.

    Not in the least because if you're “schooling” me, how come you were so easily misled and advertised to with respect to Ishida; that you made outrageous claims that even simple checks could have shown you were the wrong item to place money down on?

    You're not “schooling” me. Your BS is fooling yourself. Furthermore, the pattern of you not only making accusations that I am wrong and un-researched; when you are wrong, and at the same time you're also both unable and unwilling to provide proof for your latest round of new and unsubstantiated claims - is becoming almost as reliable as clockwork.

    Which is precisely the purpose of your latest curious claim suggesting that you don’t want to do my homework for me. Of course you don’t. it must be hard for someone like you to carry me along - you being so correct all the time.

    Still, that consistent lack of proof associated with the loud hypocrisy and inconsistent claims is at complete odds with your claims, that you're “schooling” me and the other fantastic set of claims that you wheeled out during that above-mentioned hypocritical extravaganza that was as much your exposing disgrace as it was Bradley’s PED scandal.

    Dear “schooling ” teacher, if Ishida is the fearless guy that others are running from and if he really presented the risks and challenges to 3G, as you claim; then (as verified in my above-mentioned post http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...0-%20post27754 ) why did Ishida selectively fight Kirkland - someone whose style is completely and utterly reliant upon all the things (sparring and stamina) he would be deprived of in jail more than most styles - directly upon Kirkland’s release; if he was not meant to be the easy fight GBP lined up for James?

    If Ishida is that awesome what's he doing looking for fights like that where the chances Kirkland will go all out and burn out early are extremely high?

    And, if that win was not unexpected by Ishida, and if he is as you say; then why did Ishida move straight on, 6 months after Kirkland, to fight Espinoza - who was debuting in his first ever fight?

    Espinoza had never had a professional fight before he met Ishida.

    Or is it that, as you're “schooling” me and didn’t want to do my “homework” for me?

    Or maybe, because “the truth supported by facts is a much harder commodity to obtain”, the truth of the matter is that you overlooked that and/or believed that a professional fighter just coming off of a 1st round KO win with approximately 15 fights under his belt - as was Ishida - should be fighting guys making their debut.

    Because that’s what guys do that no-one else will fight?

    And if you're “schooling” me, then how come you didn’t say Ishida was not a decent challenge for GGG, and/or agree with me when I explicitly stated words to that effect? How come you got that all wrong, if you're “schooling” me?

    And, furthermore, what about the pattern that forms from all this GGG matter and also that related to your comments with Bradley and PEDs; where it appears you're prepared to say whatever is in your mind; regardless of whether it makes sense or is true - whilst at the same time quoting to us all principles of trust, truth and how we should all exercise caution and research before making claims.

    All whilst you clearly don’t - but refer to yourself as the teacher whom his “schooling” us.

    They say the greatest form of deception is when you are deceived and you don’t know it. BS, that typically happens when you believe your own BS.

    e) Then we have your claim ( http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...ll=1#post27750 ) “If 3G is able to take out Ishida,.. it'll be a great litmus test to judge how he will be able to compete with the big name boxers”.

    That was provided as you no doubt “schooled” us with that hesitant, unconfident and undecided assertion led with “If”; not when.

    You may recall that in my above-mentioned post I not only was not as “sold” on Ishida and 3G as you were - but my comments were also more committed and accurate.

    In fact if you had bothered to check (before making hilarious claims like you're “schooling” me, whilst overlooking how many inaccurate and hypocritical claims you had actually made) you will even notice that my prediction of how or what punch will take out Ishida was as correct, as how - in direct conflict with your claims - easy I said Ishida would be for 3G.

    I don’t usually make predictions or emphasize their accuracy after the fact.

    However, given the extremely wide berth (again) between your claims and the truth, and also in consideration of the fact that your last post/comments was not only way off the mark and wildly inaccurate, but how it also (again) offered no absolutely proof whilst emotionally (and hilariously) suggesting and relying upon the misconception that you (or anyone, including me) that lists a TSS forum topic and writes about it - whether it’s in a different or the same context to how it was originally (only discussed); actually constitutes the originally quoted discussion that others had becoming (more) official happenings and fact; I made an exception.


    2) Peterson V Holt ignoring and misquoting facts. There are quite a few other examples (than Peterson V Holt) that I could detail, but perhaps one more will suffice.

    Recently there was a post about Peterson V Holt and the WADA PED scam, shame and test results. The post can be found here http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...nned-substance

    In what was perhaps an example that you may have not learned from your above-mentioned Bradley PED testing discussion, where you hypocritically reacted and incorrectly claimed that I was making unfounded accusations, had not checked my facts and, astonishingly (particularly given the total lack of substance behind your “schooling”), inferred that I was unable to sort fact from fiction . . . .

    BS states: “Suspicion is much easier to manufacture than proof. Anybody on the street can hurl an unfounded accusation....with little effort. Truth supported by facts is a much harder commodity to obtain”. (http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...ll=1#post26837 )

    Which was, unsurprisingly and unfortunately, as incorrect and inconsistent as some of your best “schooling” teachings; dealt with above in this post.

    However, with respect to that remarkable claim, and just to recap and correctly establish just how much you're “schooling” me (because I know you don’t like unfounded accusations); we have these following observations from your post . . .

    a) When I offered the forum and you proof of what Bradley said, you failed to meaningfully respond, check and/or recalibrate your approach, and it appears you did this because you were not only wrong; but guilty of almost everything you bizarrely and wrongly claimed I was.
    b) Your entire post was a mess and as concerning as you wrongly claimed mine was - without you so much as checking yourself whilst also falsely asserting that I had done the same.
    c) Almost the entirety of your post was incorrect, false and misleading.
    d) I originally offered an email form of evaluating the truth for you, so your oversights and inconsistencies were not as public as they now are; because I sensed this matter may live on in you for a while and eventually manifest itself like your last unfortunate, incorrect and hypocritical post. You didn’t use that opportunity.
    e) Contrary to what you claimed and your post (and as the recent Peterson V Holt and also my other related claims now further support), my claims were not unfounded; yours actually were.
    f) You actually were hurling unfounded accusations - not me.
    g) You not only failed to apply your “Truth supported by facts is a much harder commodity to obtain” dictum yourself - whilst claiming/inferring others should, but hadn’t, lived by it; but when given the chance to personally apply that principle and correct yourself - we heard absolutely nothing from you BS. It was as if oversights on your part were not as significant as those you imagine that you observe from others; regardless of whether you're delusional and/or correct - or not.

    So, within your post for the Peterson V Holt thread, and in response to me saying that I wouldn’t be surprised whether either of them (Peterson or Holt) were using PEDs and/or tested positive; you followed up with the double edged claim . .

    “We know that when it comes to boxing-news.... sensationalism, accusations, and condemnation always precedes the truth”.

    Which I think - particularly given the above and your previous oversights, posts and ongoing need to be correct at all costs - most would find it difficult to interpret as if you were not prematurely celebrating the ill conceived fact that my suggestion (which was also indirectly associated with, and really a continuation of, the previous and above-mentioned Bradley PED related post that you were also exposed on) may be wrong, and that you were again wrongly accusing me of reacting without reason - which was incredibly exactly what you had done previously and were doing again at the time of that post.

    And here’s why and how the hypocrisy (or as you neatly say the “schooling”) continued . .

    The problem with this claim of yours (aside from it being a veiled accusation and a continuation from another {Bradley PED post} matter where you didn’t learn that you're, contrary to your beliefs, not “schooling” anyone) is that it is at odds not just with your fantastic claim that you're “schooling” me - but once again also you have released an accusatory claim that is at odds with the facts, probability and logic.

    Almost as if you can't stop.

    For instance; my post (to which you replied with the veiled accusation) accurately, and quite moderately, forecast the events that followed.

    You seem to have forgotten that such consistency and accuracy are prerequisites, particularly for those obsessed with accusing others of “sensationalism and condemnation before they are assumed to have no knowledge of the truth”; as you are.

    So, again from you, we have a repeat of your Bradley foot in mouth extravaganza - where you're out of the traps making false and misleading accusation so soon that you don’t even know (or care) yourself what the facts are, or how hypocritical you come across as, or whether the person you're desperately hoping to be wrong; is really wrong.

    GGG walked forward into Kassim Ouma’s traps all night long without any adjustment and the irony of that and your above-mentioned claims and oversights is not lost on me. If not for Ouma’s lack of power GGG would have been in real trouble. You are effectively doing the same with this delusion of yours where, in your dreams, you're the teacher “schooling” me.

    Only problem is you're the one making all the embarrassing mistakes. Time and time again. And you don’t seem to be learning from them.

    For instance, within the same post (http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...nned-substance ) you claimed that Peterson was pronounced innocent of all charges; when that was as patently wrong as it would have otherwise, particularly if not detected for the ruse it was, served to make your unfounded accusations about whether my comments were unreasonable, seem well founded and correct - when they simply weren’t.

    Placing this behavior with your accusations and management of facts in relation to the above-mentioned Bradley TSS thread; it becomes more difficult by the minute to believe that you simply don’t write what you please (particularly if it is supported by an early and untested publication) to suit your agenda - including those agendas associated with retaliating and attempting to humiliate those that have already observed your interesting approach to the facts - whilst using the evasive, accusatory deflection that others are releasing false and misleading claims - when in fact that is exactly what you're doing.

    It’s almost like you despise those whom observe your hypocrisy and want to hold us accountable for it - as if we’re actually responsible for your hypocrisy just because we see it.

    And that’s aside from the complete absence of any action on your part to address or correct all these oversights as you “school” us.

    Fact; Peterson was not officially pronounced innocent. The fact was that there wasn’t enough information released publicly to determine who was innocent or guilty, and given his previous and validated positive tests for similar and associated banned substances the probability must go towards Peterson.

    In any regard, before the ambiguity and scandal reached maximum proportions I had already and rightly said that either guy could test positive. And Holt’s explanations were as suspicious as your BS claims that your “schooling” me - when in fact we have the entire above-mentioned track record being overlooked on your part like a positive PED test result on Golden Girls.

    Perhaps there’s more than a simple coincidence there that you overlook so much principle on the same subject as Golden Girl, and in the same way; whilst you both preach of integrity and other great motives, as we get the very opposite. I mean, you're very quick to place logic, fact and probability to one side to defend against PEDs.

    Even for guys that have tested positive.

    Actually, when these comments are placed with the delusions associated with you believing that your “schooling” me, and also those related to your claims that presume to place a high value on facts and the truth; it’s not an overstatement to say that your comments are underwhelming and that your actions are short on substance and real principle.

    In response to your claims in that post which included the fantastically convenient (and unsubstantiated) interpretation that Peterson was pronounced innocent of all charges; I then offered the following post (http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...ll=1#post27962 ), and requested . . .

    “Where did you hear this BS? Was it reliable, or something unconfirmed at this stage? Interested to know whether VADA or USADA made the mistake. Or why/how Lamont didn't declare the substances beforehand; if they're legitimate. Also, Lamont's use of testosterone pellets is still very concerning IMO. Particularly given the sporting, masking and competitive advantages they provide; even if they are medically justified. Anyway, time will tell. Thanks for your unbias response BS”.

    In an effort to ensure I followed your above-mentioned dictum that you advised me of previously when “schooling” me; “Truth supported by facts is a much harder commodity to obtain”.

    However, unfortunately and again, you armed yourself with and/or offered no proof - just as with your reply to my earlier request for your references and proof in relation to your claims that Ward and Hopkins will lose to and are ducking 3G, that this very posts addresses - which can be found here . . . .

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...t-killer/page3

    And has given rise to this response to your delusional and fantastic claims, that look right past all your own oversights, to assume you're “schooling” me.

    There are a few well accepted phrases for those that can't or won’t support their own claims but keep hypocritically making them; even if they're not hypocritically asserting others are doing the same - as you are. No need to revisit them all here, as I think it is quite clear what is happening - as is your claim that you're “schooling” me.

    Because if you are “schooling” me BS, then I wonder what you're “schooling” me in.

    Is it BS?

    Is it hypocrisy?

    Is it how to make false and misleading allegations that others are making unfounded accusations and don’t know the truth; when in fact you are?

    Is it how to run from your own mistakes?

    Is it how to pretend guessing and pretend games are real?

    Is it how to be susceptible to marketing and advertising?

    Is it how to be a cheerleader and shake pom-poms?

    Because that’s all you have been doing in the above mentioned posts with your hypocrisy and double standards and duplicity; that’s captured in your own words/writing.

    So, in summary we had your unfounded claims about Peterson’s innocence that simply could not be verified because no such information was released from those whom could verify it even if they wanted to; which was one aspect of what I was saying at the time. And we also had your overtones that simply swept aside the probability of the matter, no doubt in an effort to “school” me on how it was unreasonable and inaccurate of me to not be surprised that either fighter would test positive.

    We have the fact that Peterson couldn’t have been properly pronounced innocent and how it would have suited you if he could. We have you leaving that oversight without address; like all your others - as you claim you're “schooling” me.

    And we have the fact that not only did the entire Peterson V Holt PED matter pretty much follow the lines of what I was (implicitly and explicitly opposed by you for) saying - but it also showed that the majority of what I had said with respect to both the Peterson V Holt PED matter and also the above-mentioned Bradley posts (which you also hypocritically and incorrectly opposed); was correct.

    This view was further supported by my detailed post that covered the matter ( http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...ll=1#post27972 ).

    Interestingly, on that occasion, that is when I released the detailed post in relation to the Peterson V Holt matter; I did so, again, due to and in the complete absence of any meaningful response or proof from you as to your hypocritical claims. As prior to the detailed post about the matter, I had asked you where you got your facts from and asked the following questions . . .

    “Where did you hear this BS? Was it reliable, or something unconfirmed at this stage? Interested to know whether VADA or USADA made the mistake. Or why/how Lamont didn't declare the substances beforehand; if they're legitimate. Also, Lamont's use of testosterone pellets is still very concerning IMO. Particularly given the sporting, masking and competitive advantages they provide; even if they are medically justified..

    I forwarded that request from you in an effort to ensure we all had our facts right. And, of course, to ensure that we all were following the axioms associated with your “schooling” approach - the same ones that you had forwarded to me on all those occasions where you (incorrectly) advised me of how you knew better.

    Remember; “Suspicion is much easier to manufacture than proof. Anybody on the street can hurl an unfounded accusation....with little effort. Truth supported by facts is a much harder commodity to obtain”.

    Well, from your very own responses - or lack thereof - it appears those rules didn’t apply to you. As I received no response. No doubt because, as with the Bradley PED posts; your making it up as you go along.

    And to tell you the truth BS; from all this it is much easier to see how easy you simply write thing down, believe them regardless of whether they're fact or fiction, mislead yourself and, laughingly, convince yourself that as you trail in the wake of so many unforced errors and inconsistencies; you're “schooling” me.

    As I said before. I want what your smoking. Because it must be good if it can stave off so much reality.

    Perhaps even more remarkable than all this is the fact that you have evaded the provision of meaningful facts again as you get the pom-poms out, cheerlead for GGG and mislead us that GGG would beat Ward and that Ward and/or Hopkins have ducked a serious and meaningful offer from 3G to fight them; by claiming that your are weary of doing my homework for me.

    Let’s look at how evasive and inconsistent that post from you is, and what its real purposes are . . . .

    BS states: http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...t-killer/page3

    “How could you miss it ? It's everywhere. I even posted a thread on it each time”. Did you not listen to the commentary between Ward and Max during the GGG / Rosado fight?.
    Are you not aware that GGG sparred with Cloud for the BHOP fight in Big Bear... And did so well he figured he was ready for the master? It’s not hard to find. I can't keep schooling you and do your homework at the same time”.

    In response to StormCentre stating; http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...t-killer/page3

    “Hey BS, Thanks for your response. Did GGG officially call out B-Hop? Or did he just say he'd like to fight him? I never read anything official about GGG officially calling out B-Hop; but I guess that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Same for Ward, I haven't heard of 3G officially calling out B-Hop, or of Ward dismissing the challenge. I think, for now, we will have to agree to disagree on the outcome of Ward and GGG fighting now; as I think Ward will win. Can you please direct me to the press release or other information related to 3G officially calling out B-Hop and Ward, and them dismissing/ducking him. I recall some releases that suggested those fights might be good/entertaining, but none that officially had GGG and his management seriously offering both Ward and Hopkins the fight and them being unreasonably evasive. I must have missed them”.

    In response to this marvelous BS “schooling” lesson;

    a) “How could you miss it”; I already stated that I missed 3G and his management team officially calling out and offering a fight to Ward and B-Hop; so I am unsure what purposes your comments in relation to that mean. That is other than evasion and to hide the fact that you appear to be talking about hearsay and non-official matters to progress a view as if it is fact - whereas I am not, and am in fact really asking you to make a distinction between the two so we can see the substance of your claims in relation to GGG - particularly those that say he is better than some of the top guys out there and that they are officially ducking him due to his abilities.
    b) “It's everywhere”: Amazing it is then that if its everywhere you're unable to find what it is I am asking for and directly respond to my questions without misinterpreting them and releasing more false and misleading accusations to progress a view as if it is fact.
    c) “Did you not listen to the commentary between Ward and Max during the GGG / Rosado fight”; that question was already answered in the post to which you replied. Did you not read it? Or perhaps you did but didn’t like what you read because I was asking you to make a distinction between the a commentary discussion and an official offer to fight - so we can understand the substance of your claims in relation to GGG and learn more of the value of some of your above-mentioned axioms associated with how you call others out for being incorrect and un-researched - when in fact you bumble from day to day doing just that yourself?
    d) “Are you not aware that GGG sparred with Cloud for the BHOP fight in Big Bear... And did so well he figured he was ready for the master”? Yes, but, unfortunately BS, a spar does not constitute an official offer to fight, from one camp to another, and one party ducking the other. Like you have said in your previous above-mentioned, inconsistent, and unfortunate posts; “the truth supported by facts is a much harder commodity to obtain”. Given your free use of such hypocritical claims I would have thought you’d be as quick to live by them and offer proof; as you are to wrongly assume that others have not adopted your axioms and have also obstructed them. I want facts, not BS or light discussion BS. After all you're making some wild claims about GGG and you couldn’t even see how much of easy win Ishida was.

    If you’re really “schooling” me then I want to know you're not just making this up as you go along - like your Bradley VADA claims. If you're really “schooling” me, then why is the value of what you're teaching similar to what I find on a toilet wall?
    e) “I can't keep schooling you and do your homework at the same time”; No of course you can't. It must be a terribly great strain for you to consistently come out with unsubstantiated and incorrect facts all the time, and avoid exposure not just on them - but also on just how easily you can be advertised and convinced to accept fiction as fact and also release wild and unfounded accusations, particularly when others aren’t sold quite as easily on them as you are.

    Not only that, I guess it must be awfully hard to go forward each day pretending and believing in the illusion that you're “schooling” those that have literally let all your blunders pass in the hope of letting bygones be bygone; only to find that you're so out of touch with reality, your own oversights and inconsistencies, and so addicted to blundering in this obvious and helpless manner - that you drank your own kool-aid, smoked your own crack, mistook my kindness for a weakness and believed your own (and 3G’s) hype, and with it all still somehow managed to successfully mislead yourself and pretend that despite the appalling, inconsistent, hypocritical, double standards, and the duplicity that your above track record exhibits (which is by no means complete); you're still “schooling” me.

    When in fact I am waiting for you to catch up and realize that a forum discussion thread or even a champion’s commentary remark about two fighters, doesn’t constitute one promoter (and their fighter) offering another promoter (and their fighter) a fight anymore than;

    a) Ishida was going to beat 3G.
    b) You were right about Bradley rejecting VADA.
    c) You were right about Peterson being completely innocent and/or exonerated.
    d) Gennady Golvkin can be distinguished as better than Ward, Mayweather or Pacquiao.
    e) You can live by the same aphorisms and dictums that you judge others by.
    f) You offer proof and responsibility for what you say.
    g) You accept when you're wrong.
    h) You have 1/10th the ability to “school” me in any subject.
    i) The hardest thing about this entire matter has not actually been trying to stop laughing as I type.

    BS, I like most of your posts. But the personal attacks and BS are completely unnecessary; even if they had a logical and truthful foundation. Nevertheless they are unnecessary, particularly when some of what you say is so out of alignment with fact, that I can easily laugh my way through, type the above, provide references, and with it all be pretty happy with its accuracy.

    You should know by now; don’t throw stones in glass houses.

    Finally, if you're schooling me BS, then pleased explain all the above oversights, inconsistencies, hypocrisy, double standards, the duplicity, and why you haven’t realized and appreciated that for the most part I have let the majority of the above (and more) slide; until your last unfortunate comment that itself has all the hallmarks of a ruse designed to avoid the provision of supporting facts - facts that easily have the potential to expose how (whilst deluding yourself that you're “schooling”) the reality is that you still haven’t learned from your previous Bradley PED post-blunder.

    Try spinning your fairy floss and BS with someone else BS. As with your above-mentioned and proven “interesting” track record with the truth; your chances of success in that vocation will be far better than those associated with you bringing your dream of “schooling” me to reality.

  8. #28
    Advanced Users
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    9,493

    Re: GGG a straight killer.

    Wow! Danggit! Stormcentre, welcome to my world, and this cyberspace [still wild] frontier. In the old chaotic [The Sweet Science] Universe, what has happened to you happened to me all the time. And as you have done, likewise, I would write a long, long retort to no avail. Then I would get cloned with knuckleheads saying the most outrageous nonsense.

    In this now Universe, you won't have to worry about that. The most that will happen to you here is that you will not be answered -- because you have proven your point. And grandstanding and diverting reality and actuality will never MAN UP and/or FESS UP! They just quiet da double fudge up for a bit. Because when the STORM is gone, they will get reenergised and fire away again.

    Alternate reality and inattention blindness are characteristics that some cats are apparently not aware that they have. Or maybe they just don't care. So take some advice from an old-schooler in time in the puglistic game: "Beware!" With you, they don't want to equally SHARE! And posting that they are wrong when they are wrong, don't you DARE!!! Making you follow their caste system, they now PREPARE! Oh, YUP! With latent grandiosity, that jive-time system covertly exists, I do DECLARE. Holla!

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    South Central
    Posts
    1,473

    Re: GGG a straight killer.

    Will B-sug respond? I sure hope so this would be a good thing for TSS we need more heated debates ABOUT BOXING not any of that other sh!t that ain't about nothing anyway.
    P.S Stormcentre I want to read your post but I need u to a make a long story short . One last thing u will have your hands full with B-sug he's a legend here on TSS.

  10. #30

    Re: GGG a straight killer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Radam G View Post
    Wow! Danggit! Stormcentre, welcome to my world, and this cyberspace [still wild] frontier. In the old chaotic [The Sweet Science] Universe, what has happened to you happened to me all the time. And as you have done, likewise, I would write a long, long retort to no avail. Then I would get cloned with knuckleheads saying the most outrageous nonsense.

    In this now Universe, you won't have to worry about that. The most that will happen to you here is that you will not be answered -- because you have proven your point. And grandstanding and diverting reality and actuality will never MAN UP and/or FESS UP! They just quiet da double fudge up for a bit. Because when the STORM is gone, they will get reenergised and fire away again.

    Alternate reality and inattention blindness are characteristics that some cats are apparently not aware that they have. Or maybe they just don't care. So take some advice from an old-schooler in time in the puglistic game: "Beware!" With you, they don't want to equally SHARE! And posting that they are wrong when they are wrong, don't you DARE!!! Making you follow their caste system, they now PREPARE! Oh, YUP! With latent grandiosity, that jive-time system covertly exists, I do DECLARE. Holla!


    It's all good RG.

    It's actually quite funny to me.

    The majority of the posters here do not deceive themselves about being an authority capable of policing what others post to the same (hypocritical or other) extent.

    Furthermore, very few would sweep aside all the indicators of misplaced faith, double standards, inconsistency, and still pronounce themselves as self-proclaimed teachers and authorities on the fight game.

    If you read most posts, even those that forum users feel strongly about; they mostly all have the common sense not to make rash and hypocritical statements, and if they do and they're wrong; they cough up.

    However, with Mr. BS; not so.

    He seems to think that he can attempt to expose others for what he does, and when he gets it all wrong and we let it pass; he then mistakes that kindness for a weakness and tries to load up again.

    But with even more hypocrisy and BS.

    It doesn’t bother me, but at the same time I wont let it slide without exposing and laughing at it.

    For my above post, a few of my boxing friends and I sat around as I constructed it, and almost wet ourselves with the hypocrisy, inconsistency and sheer garbage that came from his posts.

    Perhaps it wouldn’t be so embarrassing if he wasn’t hypocritically quoting sophisticated principles as he tries to assert you're doing the very thing he is guilty of.

    But then, I assume that no-one put a gun to his head and forced him to mistake “schooling” for “fooling”.

    In short, before and since I have returned to this forum I haven’t come across anyone that is so much all hat and no cattle (to use a Texas phrase). I haven’t come across anyone talking more about how others have it wrong; without the substance behind it himself.

    And maybe that’s OK, but if he’s going to try and feed me that BS and also attempt to convince me that his misconceptions about his ability to “school“ me are real” – all whilst I have actually been – to some extent - carrying him and letting most of his poodle poos pass; then that’s a different story.

    Dudefuckedwith the wrong guy and mistook my kindness for a weakness, and the best thing to so in that circumstance (in my opinion) is to have a laugh at it all.

    Furthermore, most people understand that even if you do take the time out to read every article on every boxing website that you can access; at best you're still only as informed as the reporters, whom themselves are far from impartial and objective.

    There is no substitute for real experience and this is particularly evident in the way the person involved regularly jumps up on the podium, and proclaims himself to be the authority and/or teacher whilst also shouting out about the supposed injustices that I was supposed to have been guilty of - because (according to his wrong logic) I hadn’t checked facts, wasn’t subscribing to the truth and instead was hurling unfounded accusations.

    When in fact dude himself didn’t have his own mouth in check, couldn’t tell that it was writing checks his own azz couldn’t cash, and perhaps even more hilariously he forgot that;

    a) On almost every occasion when the mouth was running off hurling unfounded accusations, subscribing to untruths as if they were fact, deluding himself and mistaking “schooling” for the “fooling”; fact was that he was actually doing exactly that himself. Plus, exhibiting all the signs of self-delusion and in general just telling us all fantastic and completely unsubstantiated tales of how;

    • Bradley agreed to VADA.
    • Peterson was exonerated.
    • 3G was in for a tough fight with the guy that fought opponents that others wouldn’t fight.
    • And how we should all push probability and logic to one side - like him - so we could drink cool aid, don the pom-poms and proclaim ourselves as qualified “teachers” with enough experience to teach everyone how Gennady Golovkin is better than Mayweather and Pacquiao.

    All, as we overlook the obvious flaw, that the same guy didn’t even see through Ishida - or apply any of his principles that he saw fit to thrust upon us during one of his many uncontrolled fits -where he thought he’d try and correct us for mistakes (that we actually didn’t make) – when in reality those mistakes were actually created from his own hypocritical inability to stop, think, check, and apply any of those principles that he claimed we were guilty of not subscribing to.

    The fact that the guy has done this, not once, but several times; (even aside from his self-delusions associated with being an authority and/or someone capable of “schooling” anyone) tells a tale of a pathological infliction.

    Dude can’t learn from his own mistakes, cause he’s too busy trying to append them to others and sell them the fantastic story that he can school them.

    Now, the fact that that entire paragraph can be written like that and is an accurate representation of what has; alone provides enough humor and insight as to what has really been happening.

    In fact, not only did the guy have it all wrong when the mouth was running off hurling unfounded accusations, subscribing to untruths as if they were fact, deluding himself and mistaking “schooling” for the “fooling”; but he was basically talking about himself and either didn’t know or didn’t care – or all.

    That’s a “special” person that does something like that repetitively and then blames others for it.

    b) On many occasions when we were getting “schooled” with all the brilliant teachings and approaches highlighted in my above and referenced post; even when deluded dude was seriously tripped up in/on his own BS – not even then did he stop, read his own poetry, or bother to listen and learn.

    Yet, despite dude himself introducing the very same set of duplicitous problems and inconsistencies that he both pretended to be appalled with (to justify the “fooling”) and also sought to accuse others for – and despite him personally and hypocritically busting his own doctrines apart with these actions of his whilst also subjecting me to them and the learning deficiencies they really represent, and despite him then still continuing on and mistaking my kindness for a weakness when it became obvious to him that I was aware of the pattern his BS was creating; what did the “schooling” authority do in response to all these obvious indicators that strongly suggested that he was redefining the word hypocrisy?

    And this is the real laughable part – particularly considering the following “fooling” and hypocritical comments that we have been lucky to receive and observe from him, as he has “schooled” us in the subjects of “fooling”, “duplicity” and “double standards” . .

    1) No need to respond unless you can back it up with evidence; (http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...-Threats/page5 ).

    That gem was audaciously released (to you) after BS made his foray up to the podium from where (on the same thread) he made the above-mentioned and utterly hypocritical and inconsistent Bradley VADA PED claims – both without checking or evidence – that, amongst many errors, asserted others were hurling unfounded accusations and didn’t check their work (when that was precisely what he was doing); which, in turn, led to the following (point 2) “principle” he furnished us with, that he, also, clearly didn’t apply to himself.

    Think about that. Read the thread and posts, and consider the amazing level of hypocrisy and double standards that have to apply in order to;

    • Make the utterly hypocritical, incorrect and inconsistent Bradley VADA PED claims (even if they were not made with the intent of exposing someone else for what he, himself was doing).
    • Then get busted for them.
    • Fail to address the matter; despite your wild claims such as “the truth supported by fact is a much harder commodity to obtain”, and “anybody on the street can hurl unfounded accusations”.
    • But, yet, somehow, still, feel you're on the high morale ground enough to tell others they shouldn’t respond unless they have evidence; as he did to you.

    I doubt there could be a greater example of hypocrisy, double standards, self-delusion and hapless disingenuinity; particularly given we’re talking about an internet forum. And it is not like it is a once off event, as recently I have politely asked him to provide references or tell of the source for some of his “interesting” claims that have also been used to wrongly and implicitly rehash and assert what he failed to do with the Bradley PED blunder (http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...ll=1#post27962 ). The result, as you can see, has mostly been either nothing, or (surprise, surprise) more hypocritical, disingenuine, evasive, false and misleading claims; such as those to which the above long post replied to, and of course BS’s delusions that he is “schooling” me.

    However, when asking others for the same information (http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...ll=1#post27967 ); they simply offer it up and there is no problem. No doubt because they have nothing to hide and/or fear, and because they're not twisting or leaning on the information to the same extent, trying to make it fit hidden agendas, and drawing conclusions from pure conjecture and failing to learn the lessons of their own failed “schoolings”.

    2) Anybody on the street can hurl unfounded accusations; (http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...-Threats/page5 ).

    That gem, intended to claim I had done exactly what it’s author was doing at the time it was released; provides a great insight into just how systemic this problem is for the person we’re speaking of. It does this, as much as it highlights the dangers of self-delusion and/or believing that because you think you're an expert in BS that then means that you can bluff others as well as you have done yourself.

    It goes without saying that as dude tricks himself into thinking he’s ready to school me, he doesn’t know what his own limits, or mistakes, are.

    I recall one of his own sayings that he used in a past post, it went along the lines of; “fool is such a fool, that he doesn’t know he’s a fool”.

    As you can see it now has great application to any discussion that seeks to promote the idea that hypocrisy is at large here with the person being discussed.

    3) The truth supported by fact is a much harder commodity to obtain; (http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...-Threats/page5 ).

    A beautiful piece of poetry that has had me and others laughing for weeks, particularly whenever I re-read why/how it was provided and how utterly inconsistent, hypocritical and poorly applied it really was.

    What it is, is a piece of poetry (probably borrowed, at least in its fundamental form, from somewhere/someone else) written by someone that was, quite literally, as he wrote it;

    a) Hypocritically running away from the truth himself.
    b) Stumbling over and ignoring the truth. (When actually shown the truth by those whom he falsely claimed didn’t know it).
    c) Was clearly afraid of the potential that the truth actually had to expose his own fantastic claims, lies and misplaced belief that he was “schooling”; nothing other than what was in his pants.

    4) Suspicion is much easier to manufacture than proof; (http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...-Threats/page5 ).

    Oh, this is a scream. Imagine writing and accusing someone (even if they didn’t check their work) like that, when it’s exactly what you're doing yourself and you haven’t even bothered to check to see if you're right.

    Talk about stupid.

    That was written like someone announcing the conclusive findings of a royal commission. The only problem was that;

    • As per above point 2, the author himself was not only hurling unfounded accusations. Which constituted yet another hypocritical assertion on his part, that he attempted to use to deflect from his own actions; by trying to append it to me.
    • But he was also actually guilty of suspecting (without any proof);
    o Someone else was doing exactly what it was that he was doing.
    o Someone else was responsible for all the claims I have quoted (from him) here.
    When the fact of the matter is that the author himself, in a blaze of double standards and hypocrisy, simply didn’t bother to check facts or arm himself with proof – as his own philosophy states is necessary.

    In fact, he didn’t even do this when it was clear that he was wrong and publicly fooling himself.

    To put it lightly, typically people exhibiting these uncontrolled and repetitive symptoms are called clowns or forum glory-hunters.

    In this case it’s obvious that BS has simply blundered forward whilst celebrating the freedom he feels from any morale that would ordinarily motivate most others to feel for the public embarrassment or hypocrisy associated with their actions. To a great extent, this has been facilitated by the inescapable fact that to date most reading what he splurts out have most likely been unable to ascertain whether what he writes it is true or not.

    That question has now been answered.

    5) Peterson has been pronounced innocent of all charges; (http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...ll=1#post27955 ).

    Another gem fabricated from, amongst other things, the ambiguity associated with the way PED tests and results are reported; which appears to have been designed to claw back credibility lost from the above-mentioned Bradley PED scam, that itself resulted from BS posts that failed to subscribe to the very principles they preached and those that others were incorrectly said to have obstructed – when in fact a simple apology would have set a far better example, been more appropriate, and perhaps even avoided the pathological conduct exposed herein.

    In conjunction with all I have previously said about the Peterson V Holt PED matter, including that written in my above post; the author to the above-mentioned self-serving, hypocritical and inaccurate claims appears to have conveniently overlooked many things, including;

    a) Checking and/or providing evidence; as he himself suggests we should do when he, consecutively, and wrongly accuses others of his own oversights and wrongdoings.
    b) Providing references; so we may know that there is more to the claims and foundations used – particularly those used to claim others are releasing release false and misleading claims (like he is) - than the fact that he himself started a TSS forum thread on the matter.
    c) Applying his own dictum used to wrongly and incorrectly claim others are doing what it is he is; “The truth supported by facts is a much harder commodity to obtain”.
    d) Applying his above-mentioned and own claim; “No need to respond unless you can back it up with evidence”, when and when not asked; as he expects others to do.
    e) That whilst not enough personal and conclusive information was released to ascertain precisely whom the positive test belonged to; Peterson has already tested positive for banned substances that both provide performance benefits and also mask other banned substances that provide performance benefits.
    f) That whilst not enough personal and conclusive information was released to ascertain precisely whom the positive (or the false positive) test belonged to; both Peterson and Holt can alter that situation by giving their permission for their personal information to be released.

    Such is the author’s (of all these marvelous axioms and hypocritical blunders) real world experience that he not only overlooked all his own teachings and preachings on this matter, but he also jumped so quickly to attention on a wide range of related subjects that all relate to highlighting the supposed oversights of others; that the irony of all this is that he is the one that can best benefit from his own “schooling”.

    However, the facts clearly show that he is unable to either “school” or “learn” from these factoid principles and/or (in general) himself.

    Therefore, that alone is very telling about his ability to “school” anyone.

    As clearly, like most hypocrites;

    • He seems unable to live by his own rules, and those he preaches and consistently wrongly judges others by.
    • He hasn’t learned from his own mistakes.
    • He seems unwilling to learn from his own mistakes.
    • He continues to not only repeat his own mistakes, but to also blame others for them.
    • For the most part he seems unable to make these mistakes without pretending that others own them.
    • There also appears to be a misplaced self-belief at large, whereby he believes that his hypocritical exhibitions and mistakes will be less obvious and easier passed off, if they're accompanied with disingenuous poetry; that he clearly believes will not only provide the appearance of someone that is righteous and an authority – but also prevent some from questioning and/or looking deeper.

    In general, it seems he simply can’t exist in this forum without pretending that he is a greater authority than is really the case; as much as he cant stop telling us that we should do as he says – regardless of whether he does, or if it is the truth.

    Therefore, it stands he is “schooling” no one, and “fooling” himself.

    6) 3G is better than Mayweather and Pacquiao; (http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...traight-killer ).

    Note that (conveniently and also contrary to his own “teachings” and the standards he judges others by) no real research, meaningful comparisons, evidence, or proof; is (again) offered.

    Yet, his own axioms, dictums and he himself tells us (when mistakenly accusing others and grandstanding) that; “the truth supported by facts is a much harder commodity to obtain”. And . . . “that there is no need to respond unless you can back it up with evidence”.

    And yet here we are, yet again, with no meaningful evidence or noticeable truth; from the very same author that was preaching its virtues.

    How wonderful it is to have the (flawed) rules apply to others (as you bumble and wrongly call them out), and then relax – or even forget them – when it comes to your own self!

    Still, we are being “schooled” in BS ladies and gentlemen.

    And if this level of double standards is OK, then we really shouldn’t complain about the concerning way that the PED scandals (which are coincidentally effectively defended by this BS) are managed by their respective promoters and fighters.

    As there are great similarities to how both GBP and BS manages the truth and a PED scandal.


    7) 3G hasn’t fought any big name fighters yet; (http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...obuhiro-Ishida )

    A claim from the same author as all above/below interesting claims, that is at complete odds with his own claim in point 6.

    Alone, this provides insight as to the link between (a) thinking and subscribing to one’s own principles that are hypocritically thrust onto others, and (b) what one says/writes.

    The question I would have thought that most would have considered before typing with 3G’s plums in your mouth; is how do I see the keyboard?

    No seriously, they question I would have thought that most would have considered before typing with 3G’s plums in your mouth; is how could 3G possibly be considered better than Mayweather or Pacquaio - if he hasn’t fought any big name fighters?

    And that’s even if you look the other way with respect to the facts in relation to how GGG stacks the deck in his favor with fights and what happened in the Ouma fight.

    8) Ishida fights all the guys that no one else fights; (http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...obuhiro-Ishida ) .

    A claim from the same author as all above/below interesting claims, that is almost completely at odds with not only his own claims and principles that are hypocritically thrust onto others - but also at odds with logic and common sense.

    Alone, it and the fact that had the author of it (and the principles that he hypocritically thrusts onto others when incorrectly claiming we have committed the crimes that he himself is guilty of) actually bothered to even check or subscribe to any of his own above-mentioned principles; it would have been patently clear that the way Ishida was described by himself is hardly the most accurate definition.

    In fact the provided description was far more reminiscent of a claim that has arrived from very little thought, proof and research; in order to serve one or two main purposes.

    And that appears to be to bolster the other provided and questionable views on Golovkin, so that;

    a) They not only appear to have more credibility and give the impression that they're not simply the product of a mind’s interpretation that both, is without meaningful scrutiny and has also been left to wander daily over several boxing websites’ publications without the willingness or the ability to discern fact from hype or fiction.
    b) But also so the sheer difference between the author’s self-perception of himself as someone that is an authority and capable of “schooling” us, and, what he really is; seems less apparent, and hopefully is not even questioned.

    The reality of the situation is that, as he preaches about GGG being the latest boxing savior, those that meaningfully exercise scrutiny, possess the ability to discern fact from hype or fiction, and those whom really follow the sport at all levels - including the amateurs - have known for years what Gennady Golovkin really represents.

    They know how he’s been handled and what both his strengths and weakness are.

    Those people also knew not to get too excited about Ishida and what he presented to 3G.

    The summary is the self proclaimed teacher has a long way to go and doesn’t even know when he is actually being “schooled”; whether it is by his own mistakes, or others.


    What he did, was simply pump out more BS, come unstuck with it more, and continue to fail to meaningfully realize the disingenuousness nature of his ways - so much so that the fact that his actions made the opening sequence of F-Troop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K4BvF_sb3Y ) look like a competent and well coordinated military exercise - didn’t even occur to him.

    Instead of taking stock of the above detailed exhibition of pure hypocrisy and double standards and stopping, he went ahead, continued and proceeded to publicly mistake “fooling” for “schooling” and deemed himself to be the teacher

    Even though there are many extremely good reasons to believe that he wouldn’t have even passed the student entry test; for even his own basic class. Let alone those he thinks he is “schooling”.

    So, to answer your questions or comment; I am not bothered with what he does, whether he answers or not. Neither will it surprise me if he does or doesn’t respond, because after all, and as you can see from his own above writing and posts; the guy has been disingenuous for some time know. And that was OK, until he started spinning his fairy floss in my direction.

    Inconsistency has its own momentum. Once you start one fantastic claim, you need another to follow up, and then another. And that in a nutshell is the problem here.

    And the problem will probably continue; unless, of course he can;

    o Refrain.
    o Tell the truth.
    o Research his own facts.
    o Provide evidence as he expects other to do.
    o Resist the urge to be a hypocrite.
    o Resist the temptation to ignore his own limitations, believe in his own BS and pretend he is good enough to expose others “assumed” and “imagined” shortcomings; dreamt up for no other reason than to grandstand.
    o And live by the philosophy he himself preaches.

    And at the end of the day his performance is there for all to see.

    OK, that’s enough laughter for 1 day.

    BS “schooling me”. LMFAO.

Posting Permissions

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