Comments by "" (@seablock) on "Boxing Stars" channel.

@Baresi-Unico-Capitano He beat every man he ever faced other than Ward. And that's due to Ward refusing the rematch. Sorry, but you're talking about a legitimate ATG here. So what you're saying is grotesquely deluded. You only need to look at the many top fighters he beat to understand this. Hopefully one day you will.
3
@Baresi-Unico-Capitano Froch/Ward was a close fight that Ward won. If you think it was a schooling, maybe you should watch it again. Froch won a couple of the first 9 rounds, then swept the last third as Ward gassed out badly and went on his bike. However, Froch got his tactics wrong like he did in the first Kessler fight. He tried countering Ward who had faster hands and feet than him. He needed to push Ward back from the start. He got his chance at the rematch with Kessler and went about it a different way. You saw how clearly he won. But Ward never gave him the chance. He just made a load of delusional excuses. Strange reply though as you don't address the main point that you were horribly wrong with.
3
How can you school a fighter in an incredibly tight fight? I had Tua by a point by the way. But either way, there was no schooling on show. A schooling would Hopkins against Trinidad, Calzaghe against Lacy. They're schoolings.
2
If nobody had ever heard of him, how could he then be the "Great white hype"? I feel a more sinister thought process is in play in coming to this conclusion.
2
That ref was put there by no other than Don King. When you look at the corruption between King and the WBC, you need look no further. Throw in the fact Lewis wouldn't sign with King and him trying to freeze Lewis out of the Heavyweight picture, it's clear what happened that day. Lewis should have been allowed to continue.
2
@Baresi-Unico-Capitano Ward was in that fight because he won. But only due to Froch getting his tactics badly wrong as i've explained. Froch did so in the first Kessler fight too. But he turned it around by getting his tactics right the second time round. Still no wish to elaborate on Froch being supposedly "Overrated crap" and beating no one of class, even though he did it plenty of times?
2
I'm sorry, i don't get what you mean?
2
@boxingmonthly Again, another close fight. But one that Calzaghe won. No schooling took place.
1
@boxingmonthly He beat him down now? Haha. He didn't come close to beating him down. He moved constantly and then tried to get points taken from him late in the fight due to Calzaghe's constant pressure. He wanted points taken because he knew he was losing. Calzaghe knew he'd won.
1
@boxingmonthly 1) Anyone who uses words like "Casual" towards others is themselves, nothing but a casual trying to pretend they know what they're talking about. They don't. They're too obvious. Like you. 2) Nobody before Calzaghe had had the connect rate he did on Hopkins that night. 3) The pressure got to Hopkins so much, he feigned being hurt with a low blow that didn't even have anything on it. It was pathetic. Hopkins was gasping in the later rounds. 4) Calzaghe has never once said Hopkins won that fight. You're lying. 5) Looking at a few videos on your YouTube page, there's Khan and Naz there. Both, like Hopkins, are Muslim. So it's clear to see your bias there. Calzaghe won. Hopkins tried everything to get across the line, but it wasn't enough. And it wasn't even a top Calzaghe performance. He could have done much better. Hopkins though, couldn't top that performance.
1
@boxingmonthly No, i've been watching boxing for decades. You clearly haven't. You're childish. That is clear to see. Pointing out your bias due to them being Muslim is being "Anti Muslim"? Man are you idiotic in the extremes. You better be a troll. This is painful. Calzaghe won, not the judges. Remember where the fight was held. Hopkins is American. Calzaghe isn't. There would be no benefit for judges to rip Hopkins off. But as i said in my previous comment, it's clear why you're biased. Hopkins wasn't like most at 42. He was still a great fighter. He proved that before and after the Calzaghe fight. The fight could have happened years earlier, but Hopkins ducked the fight. He got what he asked for when negotiating the terms, but thought he gave a price they wouldn't be able to pay. Well, he was wrong. They agreed, but the next day asked for double what he and his team asked for. Hopkins knew how good Joe was from the get go. It's just that Hopkins couldn't run from the fight any more. Are you talking about the little nick Calzaghe had on his nose when he talk about supposed damage to his face? Haha. You're a full on dribbler. Too backwards for words. Show me where Calzaghe said he lost the fight like you claimed?
1
@boxingmonthly You're not a hardcore boxing fan of over 25 years. You're too obvious as i say. You come off as an 8 year old with a serious head injury. You're clueless about boxing. That is very clear.
1
@boxingmonthly I'm 40 years old, not in my 80's. I don't need to be wise where you're concerned. So you're not going to answer the question then? Thought as much.
1
@boxingmonthly Haven't you got a dog poo to poke or something? Anyone who spends time trolling is lacking in intellect. I won't reply to any other comment that doesn't have evidence of Calzaghe saying what you claimed he did. Which means i won't be replying to anything you comment because i know it's a lie.
1
@boxingmonthly I need to correct you on this comment. I said "I've been watching for decades", Not 40 years. You plank. Learn to read.
1
@boxingmonthly I haven't made any mention of where we come from. But it's clear you came from nothing. Now go away little boy.
1
@richardhutchinson9646 This is part 4 in a series of knock out video's. The fights you're talking about will probably be in one of the earlier video's. Did you say they were all fine? Yeah, Castillo getting knocked out by Smith where he twitches and spasms wasn't brutal at all. I'm surprised he didn't get straight up and put it on Callum. It was a nothing shot.
1
I'm sorry, what????? Who is doing this in this video? And which fighters do this overseas?
1
@ryanjustice2670 Asking me to watch every British fight isn't an answer, is it? I want actual fights and rounds to prove your point wasn't just the ramblings of an idiot. Joshua doing so in his first fight isn't exactly incriminating. It's like me saying every American does so because of Hopkins and Andre Ward. They did it in most fights. But the most hilarious thing here is, AJ didn't grab the back of the neck of Leo as you can see on the video. Leo in fact grabs AJ's arm. So you haven't even given me a single fight where it happens with a British fighter. Your example horribly fails. But my two examples clearly don't. Funny that isn't it? You must be American. This level of madness usually is.
1
Lewis jabbed at Grant only for him to duck under the shot. Lewis just kept his hand in place to get the uppercut off and keep himself balanced. Had Lewis grabbed at Grant and forced him down there, you'd have a point. But that didn't happen.
1
@MAGIKMARTIAN9526 He didn't hold his head down though. Grant dipped down and stayed there as he thought he was safe from getting hit. Just because Lewis' hand stayed after missing the jab, it doesn't mean he held him down. Grant got down there of his own movements. You think Lewis' left hand is more powerful than grant's legs to push himself back up? Hell no.
1
@constantine7382 Sorry, but what you're saying is preposterous. Whitaker was a great fighter. You're saying he beat Chavez's re-treads? Hilarious considering he beat Chavez and De La Hoya only to get robbed in both. But tell me who he ducked? Then tell me which fighters Chavez beat that weren't re-treads? I agree about him being a whiner. He was a straight diva. But that doesn't change the fact he was a great fighter. Mayweather, Haugen, Ramirez, Pendleton, Nelson, Trinidad, Chavez, De La Hoya, Paez, McGirt, Vasquez, Hurtado were unknowns and didn't have a chance to win due to being so low level? Hahahaha. Yeah, alright. Sure.
1
@constantine7382 I guess you accept i proved you wrong by your absence.
1
@constantine7382 Your comment isn't showing for me. It isn't in my notifications nor is it on screen.
1
@constantine7382 Sorry about this being a bit late. I've been busy. We'll address all this a couple of points at a time so as not to make it messy. You have no problem with Whitaker beating Chavez, but you do with De La Hoya on account of it being close. I agree, it was close. But Whitaker definitely won the fight. De La Hoya was ragged in desperately throwing lots of shots instead of doing what he should have been doing in putting Whitaker in position with the jab, then letting the back hand go like Trinidad perfectly did. That's the way to deal with someone who likes to dip and slip with awkward movement. The other point is, you said Chavez was fat when he fought Whitaker. How so? Chavez had ducked Whitaker for quite some time before the fight happened. He knew he couldn't beat him. Which proved to be the case when they did fight. That "Draw" was one of the biggest tragedies of the 90's.
1
@constantine7382 Duva was worried about putting the fight on for obvious reasons due to what happened in the Meldrick Taylor fight. They believed Taylor was ripped off with it being stopped with only seconds to go and Taylor being comfortably ahead on the cards. But Chavez himself didn't want it because he knew the stylistic matchup wasn't in his favour. So regardless of how Duva felt, Chavez still didn't want that fight. As for saying Chavez was fat, they were both the same size as each other. It wasn't even at the full Welterweight limit. It was at 145. That fight wasn't going to happen at Lightweight as Whitaker hadn't even been on the world stage for that long. By the time he'd had a few fights at world level, Chavez had moved up to 140.
1
@constantine7382 Chavez was taller than Whitaker. If it was fat for Chavez, then it's definitely fat for Whitaker. You can't have it both ways. What part of Whitaker not being on the world stage for long at LW do you not understand? You don't rush into all the big fights before you get some experience. Chavez didn't come close to rushing. He took his time fighting many bums to get experience. So it's pure irony you calling Whitaker's opponents as "No hopers". It looks like clear projection to me. You keep on trying to downplay Whitaker's opponents by calling them "Re-treads" but don't do the same for Chavez. That's a clear bias. Who are these opponents of Chavez that weren't re-treads for you?
1
@constantine7382 For someone who hates the word "Bum", you sure didn't mind using terms like "No hopers" to describe Whitakers opponents. But it is common knowledge that Chavez took on a lot of low level fighters for most of his fights. But the point i want to focus on is you downplaying Whitakers opponents as "No hopers" and "Re-treads". Tell me who these great opponents of Chavez are who were not beaten by anyone else and therefore, can't be seen as "Re-treads" like you do for Whitaker. That would just be plain hypocrisy otherwise.
1
@constantine7382 I'm sorry, what? The point is not whether Whitaker can hang with Duran and Arguello or not. That's a fallacy you've provided. The point is, you called Whitakers opponents re-treads and no hopers without doing the same with Chavez. So i'm asking, for the third time, who are all these great fighters Chavez beat that are not no hopers and re-treads? You said Chavez beat many top fighters. Well, who are they please? List them all. But do so without any hypocrisy or contradiction to the way you described Whitakers opponents.
1
@constantine7382 Whitaker didn't lose to Ramirez. He beat him twice but was ripped off in the first fight. Give me the time and date when Whitaker supposedly ducked Rosario? However, you give me two names who are in fact re-treads. These are the supposed great wins for Chavez? Rosario had lost to Ramirez and Camacho. Ramirez had lost to Enriquez, Olivares, Arguello, Mancini, Rosario, Camacho before Chavez had even fought them. Whitaker had beaten Ramirez in the fight beforehand only he got ripped off. But it's a great win for Chavez, but not for Whitaker? They're re-treads for Whitaker but not for Chavez? You're clearly a hypocrite who has done nothing but contradict yourself and show clear bias. Whitaker beat De La Hoya and Chavez when they were both undefeated and weren't "Re-treads" of anyone else. They are better wins than the Rosario and Ramirez wins for Chavez by a long way.
1
@constantine7382 Your lack of reply makes clear of me proving you wrong. And that is without disproving any of your many other points that were also wrong.
1
@intermodus2180 Ah, the film? I get what you mean now.
1