This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- A trip through history
- Bmo 1 1996 q1
- A Level Computer Science
- Letter of Rec for international UG applicant
- Learning materials for biological sciences!
- Autistic access to the archive survey
- Archives and Records Management - Distance Learning?
- Songs lol
- Pride Month 2023: what are your LGBTQ+ media recommendations?
- KU Freshers: Finding Your Way Around Campus
- does anyone have any good mlm anime?? cant find any that arent weird
- makeup questions
- Looking for any individual driving instructors in Newcastle
- artists like mitski?
- Ideal TV cross-overs?
- accomodation for erasmus students
- whats the best laptop for IT or business courses
- About Postgraduate Funding Options for Humanities & Arts MPhil
- How can i fix my hairline
- OCR GCSE Science (Biology, Chemistry, Physics) Textbooks?
Archive SPTM/0001/REC/HPOO
Scroll to see replies
are you sure he didn't lose to Potter... what was the result if he wasn't beaten by him?
If nazeem ahmed fought with his same speed and agility as a heavyweight he'd be the best fighter of all time. 
I don't think you can compare across weight divisions.
I don't think you can compare across weight divisions.
wat u talkin about.
naseem got whipped by marco barrera, now he's a legend!
naseem got whipped by marco barrera, now he's a legend!
williams beat potter one-handed after dislocating his shoulder. he lost to francis in his first fight against him though.
tarver didnt get a lucky punch. in the first tarver fight a lot of people thought that jones didnt do enough to take the title away and it was quite even in many ways. the second fight jones was just destroyed. it doesnt really matter if his style works for you or not cos im talkin about the world heavyweight championship. i still think hes the most naturally skillful boxer probably but think he should have gone for the immediate rematch again. he also mouths off too much about klitschkos and lewis and tyson and dariuz. it doesnt matter what people say or what awards they get just about what they do in the ring.
u cant really think that lewis ducked ruiz when hes fought much better opposition even like tua. jones has skill to dazzle the big guns but not enough power to manipulate klitshckos therefore he wouldnt beat and never will beat the v.klitshcko. the way he lost and the way he hasnt always fought the best opposition means that you cant say hes a prime ali.
tarver didnt get a lucky punch. in the first tarver fight a lot of people thought that jones didnt do enough to take the title away and it was quite even in many ways. the second fight jones was just destroyed. it doesnt really matter if his style works for you or not cos im talkin about the world heavyweight championship. i still think hes the most naturally skillful boxer probably but think he should have gone for the immediate rematch again. he also mouths off too much about klitschkos and lewis and tyson and dariuz. it doesnt matter what people say or what awards they get just about what they do in the ring.
u cant really think that lewis ducked ruiz when hes fought much better opposition even like tua. jones has skill to dazzle the big guns but not enough power to manipulate klitshckos therefore he wouldnt beat and never will beat the v.klitshcko. the way he lost and the way he hasnt always fought the best opposition means that you cant say hes a prime ali.
too many to compare generations. sugar ray robinson was supposed to be one of the greats. for now.
1) erik morales
2) roy jones jr
3) oscar de la hoya
4) floyd mayweather jr
5) shane mosley
1) erik morales
2) roy jones jr
3) oscar de la hoya
4) floyd mayweather jr
5) shane mosley
in no particular order
tyson, ali, liston, de la hoya, naseem hamed
tyson, ali, liston, de la hoya, naseem hamed
i dont really rate floyd mayweather, i reckon he wud get wipped by ricky hatton or kostya tzsyu.
Personally I will still think of Division 1 as just that. People still call 'Referee's Assistasnts' Linsemen and I feel that the same will apply to the new league structure.
It's to make the lower divisions more appealing to the consumer, I think it was Coca Cola's idea since they took over as the big sponsor of the Football League. Personally I preferred the ability to refer to the League as D1, D2 and D3 whereas now it's the Championship, League One and League Two. But only time will tell if the rebranding is good for the League.
Flintoff as captain? He seems happy enough just being one of the lads, I doubt the responsibility would do him good. Better to let him just have his great talismanic influence than to heap the pressure of the captaincy on him.
Flintoff's average still isn't anything to write home about.
Ashley Giles has just got Chanderpaul out lbw, breaking a threatening partnership and almost certainly securing the test win. Our strike bowler Harmison hasn't been having fun this series, so it's great that Giles has stepped up and taken a lot of wickets. Any one of our bowlers can deliver a breakthrough (though we need to decide between Anderson, Jones or even another), and any of the top 7 can get a century.
Or are we getting ahead of ourselves? We have after all only played the Windies and New Zealand...
Or are we getting ahead of ourselves? We have after all only played the Windies and New Zealand...
New Zealand - great victory
Windies - aesthetically pleasing victory (hopefully), but.........they're rubbish.
We'll know soon enough I suppose though, when we paly some world class opposition. See how good the likes of Harmison really are.
Windies - aesthetically pleasing victory (hopefully), but.........they're rubbish.
We'll know soon enough I suppose though, when we paly some world class opposition. See how good the likes of Harmison really are.
Lara was stolen out, England are nothing special, this is a poor Test series.
I disagree with the thread title.
I disagree with the thread title.
goldenbarnes
New Zealand - great victory
Windies - aesthetically pleasing victory (hopefully), but.........they're rubbish.
We'll know soon enough I suppose though, when we paly some world class opposition. See how good the likes of Harmison really are.
Windies - aesthetically pleasing victory (hopefully), but.........they're rubbish.
We'll know soon enough I suppose though, when we paly some world class opposition. See how good the likes of Harmison really are.
That's my feeling too. South Africa would be a much sterner test, we'd really be able to see England's ability there. It's great that England have a momentum of form going and I'd like to see more series against the likes of India, Pakistan and South Africa. Still far too early for this young side to contest Australia.
Giles again, bowls Bravo out for a duck.
Gayle's gone too?! I'm missing all the action!
i disagree
even though west indies arent exactly the best opposition , but england do have a really good team rite now , flintoff , giles , struass , tresco , butcher , harmison ..... i think they would do great against any opposition .
btw on another note i dont feel that south africa are as formidable as they were some years ago .
even though west indies arent exactly the best opposition , but england do have a really good team rite now , flintoff , giles , struass , tresco , butcher , harmison ..... i think they would do great against any opposition .
btw on another note i dont feel that south africa are as formidable as they were some years ago .
kildare
Flintoff's average still isn't anything to write home about.
u shuldnt believe in averages , cricketers mite have lousy outings sumtimes but come good when it matters , and they dont have great averages . WAsim akram scored a 200 + once ... but his test average at the end of his career wasnt sumthing even a tailender would be proud of
infekt
i disagree
even though west indies arent exactly the best opposition , but england do have a really good team rite now , flintoff , giles , struass , tresco , butcher , harmison ..... i think they would do great against any opposition .
.
even though west indies arent exactly the best opposition , but england do have a really good team rite now , flintoff , giles , struass , tresco , butcher , harmison ..... i think they would do great against any opposition .
.
I just don't see how you can say we have a good team and then list Harmison, Giles, and especially Strauss, when they have yet to play against top quality opposition.
goldenbarnes
I just don't see how you can say we have a good team and then list Harmison, Giles, and especially Strauss, when they have yet to play against top quality opposition.
Those 3 are potentially good, with Harmison showing the most promise. I think England also need a 2nd good spinner but their batting is very strong now though.
infekt
u shuldnt believe in averages , cricketers mite have lousy outings sumtimes but come good when it matters , and they dont have great averages . WAsim akram scored a 200 + once ... but his test average at the end of his career wasnt sumthing even a tailender would be proud of
Yeah, if you look at Flintoff's batting average for the last 3 years it's very good..same with Butcher as recently England have been on very good form
Related discussions
- A trip through history
- Bmo 1 1996 q1
- A Level Computer Science
- Letter of Rec for international UG applicant
- Learning materials for biological sciences!
- Autistic access to the archive survey
- Archives and Records Management - Distance Learning?
- Songs lol
- Pride Month 2023: what are your LGBTQ+ media recommendations?
- KU Freshers: Finding Your Way Around Campus
- does anyone have any good mlm anime?? cant find any that arent weird
- makeup questions
- Looking for any individual driving instructors in Newcastle
- artists like mitski?
- Ideal TV cross-overs?
- accomodation for erasmus students
- whats the best laptop for IT or business courses
- About Postgraduate Funding Options for Humanities & Arts MPhil
- How can i fix my hairline
- OCR GCSE Science (Biology, Chemistry, Physics) Textbooks?
