Comments Thread For: Golovkin's Trainer Dismissive of Immediate Third Fight With Canelo

[Chollo Vista]

you asked for the smoke and now you can't handle it.

I'm asking for the smoke, but you keep ducking it. You've been ducking the same damn post since yesterday.

You posting jibberish won't cover up the point that you haven't touched it.

Will J-Rock duck that Rosario rematch? If he's anything like your b1tch ass, he sure will

[Jab jab boom]

Just because you type a block of text while refusing to address any of my points like by line like I did yours doesn't mean my points still aren't there.

So until your coward ass grows some balls and addresses my points, I'm going to continue to expose you for the coward you are, Breadman

you have no points and haven't addressed any of mine. Does trout have double the amount of fights as Canelo where he was an underdog.. Yes or no? Do he and Canelo bith have the same number of wins as underdogs? Yes or no. Do Danny gacria and Shawn porter both have the same number of fights as underdogs as Canelo? Yes or no? Does Danny gacria have more wins than Canelo as an underdog while porter has the same number of wins? Yes or no? I could even add Kell brook in there with his fights vs porter, ggg and Spence as underdogs and he came out with 1 win. Your stats are faulty and prove absolutely nothing. YOU HAVE NO POINT!!!

[Chollo Vista]

you have no points

So address them line by line, so I can finish the job like Charlo did JRock:

you simple fool... That was my point... The biggest names On his resume are primarily 35 and over. So I mentioned the biggest names he's faced and you can see clear as day, how many were 35 and over and who wasn't.

Let's look at some of the names from the P4P top 10 and their age shall we:



Lomachenko - 32
Crawford - 32
Usyk - 33
Golovkin - 38
Artur Beterbiev - 35
Manny Pacquiao - 41

We have 6 out of 10 fighters in the P4P Top 10 that are over 30. 3 of which are 35 or older. So if anyone beats Golovkin, Beterbiev or Pacquiao at this point would be considered a joke?

Based off your logic, no one can beat Beterbiev right now or the win will be null and void because Artur is 35. And in 2-3 years, no one can beat Loma, Crawford or Usyk or else it won't count.

The fcuk is wrong with you man?

What, did you want me to mention the great amir khan over mosley? Or the legendary beefy Smith... Rocky fielding... Angulo... Kirkland... Baldomir... Cintron??? Foh.

No you dumbass idiot, I laid out who you need to be concerned with you illiterate troll:

- Trout #3
- Lara #2
- Cotto - #1
- Golovkin - #1
- Smith - #9
- Jacobs - #2
- Kovalev - #1

For the 5th time... Did I defend GGG's resume at any point? I've already told you his resume was ass. But... Canelo still ducked him and deserved to lose to the past prime ggg when they eventually fought.

Once again, Golovkin asked for a catchweight against Rosado and Ward, but refused one against Canelo? Why?

And if Canelo deserved to lose than G deserved to lose to Jacobs and Derv.

One can make the argument that SRL deserved to lose to Hearns in the 2nd fight. Or Mayweather deserved to lose to Castillo in the first fight. Or Ali should've lost to Norton. On and on.

As far as resumes in boxing... Yeah, he has a top resume

Actually he doesn't, Manny Pacquiao does, but Canelo isn't far behind in 2nd.

... In comparison to trash because this generation is garbage compared to past generations when it comes to making the best fights available vs other prime opponents. Before, guys wanted to face each other at their best... From the eras of Leonard, Hagler, hearns, duran, to the era of Oscar, Trinidad, mosley, vargas. But this group whether it's golden boy, or pbc or top rank, politics plays a bigger factor than it ever has. There's no reason why Crawford vs spence shouldn't have happened, or Charlo, andrade and Canelo fighting each other and so on. But these guys are ****** to their promotors and don't demand these fights. So as far as canelos resume..

Fair enough

Yeah, he's the best of the worst. But he's more accountable than the others because he's the star. If he wanted to face any of these prime guys, he could demand it and golden boy would bend at his will. But instead, since the Lara fight 7 yrs ago he's chosen to focus on minimizing risk by always facing guys that are either 35 and older (Cotto, ggg, Kovalev) , the obvious weakest champ in a division (Smith, fielding) , or guys coming off poor performances.. With hardly any exceptions.

Wrong again.

Minimizing risk?

- Bouts in which he was the underdog – 3 (Mayweather, Golovkin 1 and 2)
- Bouts in which he was a 5 to 1 favorite or less – 9
- Bouts in which he was the 20 to 1 favorite or more - 3

That's a 3-9-3 ratio. The only one with a greater ratio is Manny Pacquiao at 6-19-0... What the hell are you talking about man? No one in boxing, right now, has taken on more risk than legendary Manny Pacquiao or Canelo Alverez

Now stop ducking this post and address my points line by line you slimey, slimey, piece of schit

[Jab jab boom]

So address them line by line, so I can finish the job like Charlo did JRock:



Let's look at some of the names from the P4P top 10 and their age shall we:



Lomachenko - 32
Crawford - 32
Usyk - 33
Golovkin - 38
Artur Beterbiev - 35
Manny Pacquiao - 41

We have 6 out of 10 fighters in the P4P Top 10 that are over 30. 3 of which are 35 or older. So if anyone beats Golovkin, Beterbiev or Pacquiao at this point would be considered a joke?

Based off your logic, no one can beat Beterbiev right now or the win will be null and void because Artur is 35. And in 2-3 years, no one can beat Loma, Crawford or Usyk or else it won't count.

The fcuk is wrong with you man?



No you dumbass idiot, I laid out who you need to be concerned with you illiterate troll:

- Trout #3
- Lara #2
- Cotto - #1
- Golovkin - #1
- Smith - #9
- Jacobs - #2
- Kovalev - #1



Once again, Golovkin asked for a catchweight against Rosado and Ward, but refused one against Canelo? Why?

And if Canelo deserved to lose than G deserved to lose to Jacobs and Derv.

One can make the argument that SRL deserved to lose to Hearns in the 2nd fight. Or Mayweather deserved to lose to Castillo in the first fight. Or Ali should've lost to Norton. On and on.



Actually he doesn't, Manny Pacquiao does, but Canelo isn't far behind in 2nd.



Fair enough



Wrong again.

Minimizing risk?

- Bouts in which he was the underdog – 3 (Mayweather, Golovkin 1 and 2)
- Bouts in which he was a 5 to 1 favorite or less – 9
- Bouts in which he was the 20 to 1 favorite or more - 3

That's a 3-9-3 ratio. The only one with a greater ratio is Manny Pacquiao at 6-19-0... What the hell are you talking about man? No one in boxing, right now, has taken on more risk than legendary Manny Pacquiao or Canelo Alverez

Now stop ducking this post and address my points line by line you slimey, slimey, piece of schit

fine, you want to be ethered yet again

1. P4p lists and their ages. It's known that you decline in sports, especially boxing, by 35. So aside from the names on the list, does anyone really think that ggg and pac are the same fighters they were 10 yrs ago? Ggg damn near lost to dervenchenko and pac went life and death with horn. I won't even get into ped testing with him because that's a whole other debate. So yes, pac and ggg have cleared declined and Canelo minimized risk by facing all of the 35 and older opponents he did. Never said there was 0 risk but it was minimized as each guy was not the best versions of themselves due to advanced age.... Which was my point. Beterbiev has only had 15 pro fights and been a pro for 6 yrs... So his wear and tear isn't what it'd be for a guy who's been pro for much longer with 40 plus fights. Duhhhh

2.
I laid out who you need to be concerned with you illiterate troll:

- Trout #3
- Lara #2
- Cotto - #1
- Golovkin - #1
- Smith - #9
- Jacobs - #2
- Kovalev - #1

Trout - a proven gate keeper
Lara - deserved the win vs Canelo and either way made him look terrible. Only landed 9 jabs the whole fight.
Cotto - 36 yrs old, looked to be 20 pounds smaller than Canelo and his recent wins were vs delvin Rodriguez, a 40 yr old gimp in Sergio and Daniel geale.
GGG - top mw, showed signs of slowing at 35, most believe he beat canelo in both fights... Of 100 press row cards in both fights.. No more than 4 had canelo winning either.
Smith - C level fighter and not in the class of the other 154 pound belt holders at the time, both Charlos and lara
Jacobs - good fight. Had already lost to ggg and had a toss up fight with dervenchenko.
Kovalev - 36 yrs old, ko'd in back to back yrs and had a tough fight just 10 weeks before facing Canelo.

All of the above I already schooled you on but you're trying to pretend it didn't happen. See, a simple moron such as yourself only looks at rankings but ignores the real substance behind each opponent. Which i just broke down for you with facts.

3. Now for your underdog betting odds, I've thoroughly dismantled that so refer to my prior posts regarding trout, Garcia, brook, Rosado and porter as it pertain to facing underdogs and their wins in those match ups. Dumbest point you've made of all your arguments.

The end. Hold another L.

[Chollo Vista]

fine, you want to be ethered yet again

Boy you couldn't ether me if you were Nasir Jones and I was Shawn Carter. Sit down, Breadman.

1. P4p lists and their ages. It's known that you decline in sports, especially boxing, by 35. So aside from the names on the list, does anyone really think that ggg and pac are the same fighters they were 10 yrs ago?ggg damn near lost to dervenchenko

Prove to me who GGG was years ago? Let's start there. His first real fight was against Daniel Jacobs. Golovkin didn't even show up in America until he was 30 and had his first real fight against Jacobs at 35. So who was he, really? Explain it to me.

And yes, I'm glad you mentioned "he damn near lost" to Derv because most believe he did. As well as Jacobs.

and pac went life and death with horn

The fcuk is your point here, you casual boxing fan? Pac also lost to Torrecampo and Sangsurat when he was in his early 20's. Pac lost to Horn, which was HIGHLY debated, but then went on to beat Mathysse, Broner and Thurman. Your logic doesn't even make sense man. He's currently #3 in his weight class behind Crawford and Spence, but because he lost a questionable decision to Horn 3 years ago, none of that matters? Weren't you the same guy who said "rankings don't matter, but performance does"? Ok, so Pac just beat a young hungry Keith Thurman, who beat your boy Danny Garcia. I'm sure you'll find a way to tell us that doesn't count, right?

Regarding age, yes, age does factor at times. But many people/fighters age differently. Foreman, Pac, Hopkins, Mayweather have been able to fight past their late 30's and into their early 40's. Again, everyone ages differently. Which is why it baffled the hell out of me when you tried to mention Shane Mosley on Canelo's resume as if your agenda wasn't clear.

At 40, are Mosley and Pac the same caliber of fighter? Hell no, which is a testament to how not all fighters age the same, you dumbass.

At 35, Kovalev was still #1 in his weight class as is Beterbiev now. As was Mayweather and Hopkins when they were 35.

So yes, pac and ggg have cleared declined and Canelo minimized risk by facing all of the 35 and older opponents he did.

I already smashed this point. Based off this theory, it's impossible for Loma, Usyk or Crawford to lose in 2-3 years or else it won't count regardless if they're still undefeated by then.

Never said there was 0 risk but it was minimized as each guy was not the best versions of themselves due to advanced age.... Which was my point. Beterbiev has only had 15 pro fights and been a pro for 6 yrs... So his wear and tear isn't what it'd be for a guy who's been pro for much longer with 40 plus fights. Duhhhh

Beterbiev has been fighting since 2004 at least. He doesn't have the wear and tear like someone with 40 fights, but guy's like Pac who have close to 70 fights are still going strong. Oh yeah, and Pac is 6 years older than Artur as is Mayweather who could still come back right now. It all depends on the fighter and how they look as of late.

But then on the flip, if Canelo beats Beterbiev, if you don't talk about his age, you'll then just talk about his "inexperience" since he only had 15 fights... It's a no win situation.

If he beats the #1 Light Heavyweight, you'll say he's too old. And then as soon as I debunk that claim, you'll say he was too inexperienced. But then if he had over 40 fights, you'll say he had too many fights. So on and so forth making it "IMPOSSIBLE" to have a good resume.

And this is what you call "destorying" someone's post??


2.
I laid out who you need to be concerned with you illiterate troll:

- Trout #3
- Lara #2
- Cotto - #1
- Golovkin - #1
- Smith - #9
- Jacobs - #2
- Kovalev - #1

Trout - a proven gate keeper

Trout was undefeated and the #3 JMW at the time you Monday morning quarterback troll

This is what I'm talking about with you. You say Canelo only picks on old men over 35, but Trout was a 27 year old undefeated JMW CHAMPION when Canelo beat him and you still hate on him? This takes special trolling from a sad piece of schit.

Lara - deserved the win vs Canelo and either way made him look terrible. Only landed 9 jabs the whole fight.

Ok and Jacobs/Derv deserved the win against G, still didn't happen. But to your point, Lara was a 31 year old champion who was on the P4P list and was the #2 JMW, the same thing that Andrade is RIGHT NOW. Canelo faced and beat him, which further debunks your ass backwards theory of him only fighting 35 year olds.

Hell, Lara is still ducked TO THIS DAY and was ducked by guy's like GGG who you ironically defend while accusing Canelo of doing the stuff that was clearly done by others. More hypocrisy from Breadman.

Cotto - 36 yrs old, looked to be 20 pounds smaller than Canelo and his recent wins were vs delvin Rodriguez, a 40 yr old gimp in Sergio and Daniel geale.

Ok, great, now we're back to talking about age again. As far as wins, are you missing the fact that Cotto moved up in weight and KO'd GGG's only beaten champion at the time? Cotto was the #1 MW who had just beat the long reigning champion in Martinez.

Secondly, Cotto was the fight that Golovkin himself was fighting to get. Would you have said the same thing if GGG beat him? Of course not, you would've included it on G's resume. And if Cotto was much smaller than Canelo, how the hell do you think he'd fair next to Golovkin? You don't even make any sense man.

GGG - top mw, showed signs of slowing at 35, most believe he beat canelo in both fights... Of 100 press row cards in both fights.. No more than 4 had canelo winning either.

And most believe GGG lost to Jacobs and Derv. What the fcuk is your point? You want me to start digging up press row scores now? If so, let's do it for all the close victories throughout history. Should we do it for Mayweather vs Castillo, SRL vs Hearns II, Ali vs Norton III? Schit happens man.

Smith - C level fighter and not in the class of the other 154 pound belt holders at the time, both Charlos and lara

Smith was a 26 year old, #9 ranked, JMW at the time. The same rank Andrade and Charlo were when Canelo was fighting Trout and Lara at #2 and #3, but that still didn't stop you from schitting on those victories, did it Breadman?

Again, Smith was #9, just like Charlo/Andrade were when Canelo fought Trout and Lara. But if Canelo fought Charlo/Andrade back when they were in their early to mid 20's, you'd be on here crying telling us how Canelo fought the #9 guy, instead of fighting proven champions like Trout and Lara lol

So you see, it's a no win situation with re ta rds like you.

Jacobs - good fight. Had already lost to ggg and had a toss up fight with dervenchenko.

The only reason you consider it a good fight is because GGG "beat" Jacobs. If not, you'd be talking about Sergio Mora's knockdown and Pirog, you clown.

Kovalev - 36 yrs old, ko'd in back to back yrs and had a tough fight just 10 weeks before facing Canelo.

You talk schit about this victory, but I'm still waiting on you to name one win GGG has on his resume that's better. I've been waiting since YESTERDAY

Kovalev was #1 in his weight class. Just like Beterbiev is #1.

All of the above I already schooled you on but you're trying to pretend it didn't happen. See, a simple moron such as yourself only looks at rankings but ignores the real substance behind each opponent. Which i just broke down for you with facts.

You didn't school anybody on schit, other than the art of "trying" to destroy a resume. Anybody can do that, just see some of these trolls on NSB with 10 posts.

3. Now for your underdog betting odds, I've thoroughly dismantled that so refer to my prior posts regarding trout, Garcia, brook, Rosado and porter as it pertain to facing underdogs and their wins in those match ups. Dumbest point you've made of all your arguments.

So let me understand this. You're seriously trying to compare guy's like Canelo, Pacquiao, Mayweather, etc to guy's like Trout, Rosado and Porter?

The odds theory doesn't apply to guy's like Emmanual Burton. The point of the odds theory was to give a look into how "risky" a fight is "at the time" that it happens which all plays a role in evaluating a fighters legacy and greatness. The fighter's you mentioned aren't great.

Secondly, don't just make claims, let's post some facts with sources. Post the fighters that you mentioned (e.g. Trout, Garcia, Brook, Rosado and Porter) last 20 fights and include the following categories I named and see how they match up.

Fighting as the underdog as Daniel Boone is different than fighting as the underdog as Mayweather, Pac, Golovkin or Canelo you re ta ded idiot.

But yeah, let's start with Garcia. Since you made the claim, it's on you to post Garcia's odds from the last 20 fights so we can see how he adds up against the great's of this era.

Hopefully you find your balls and it doesn't take you 24 hours to respond to this post line by line.

[Jab jab boom]

Boy you couldn't ether me if you were Nasir Jones and I was Shawn Carter. Sit down, Breadman.



Prove to me who GGG was years ago? Let's start there. His first real fight was against Daniel Jacobs. Golovkin didn't even show up in America until he was 30 and had his first real fight against Jacobs at 35. So who was he, really? Explain it to me.

And yes, I'm glad you mentioned "he damn near lost" to Derv because most believe he did. As well as Jacobs.



The fcuk is your point here, you casual boxing fan? Pac also lost to Torrecampo and Sangsurat when he was in his early 20's. Pac lost to Horn, which was HIGHLY debated, but then went on to beat Mathysse, Broner and Thurman. Your logic doesn't even make sense man. He's currently #3 in his weight class behind Crawford and Spence, but because he lost a questionable decision to Horn 3 years ago, none of that matters? Weren't you the same guy who said "rankings don't matter, but performance does"? Ok, so Pac just beat a young hungry Keith Thurman, who beat your boy Danny Garcia. I'm sure you'll find a way to tell us that doesn't count, right?

Regarding age, yes, age does factor at times. But many people/fighters age differently. Foreman, Pac, Hopkins, Mayweather have been able to fight past their late 30's and into their early 40's. Again, everyone ages differently. Which is why it baffled the hell out of me when you tried to mention Shane Mosley on Canelo's resume as if your agenda wasn't clear.

At 40, are Mosley and Pac the same caliber of fighter? Hell no, which is a testament to how not all fighters age the same, you dumbass.

At 35, Kovalev was still #1 in his weight class as is Beterbiev now. As was Mayweather and Hopkins when they were 35.



I already smashed this point. Based off this theory, it's impossible for Loma, Usyk or Crawford to lose in 2-3 years or else it won't count regardless if they're still undefeated by then.



Beterbiev has been fighting since 2004 at least. He doesn't have the wear and tear like someone with 40 fights, but guy's like Pac who have close to 70 fights are still going strong. Oh yeah, and Pac is 6 years older than Artur as is Mayweather who could still come back right now. It all depends on the fighter and how they look as of late.

But then on the flip, if Canelo beats Beterbiev, if you don't talk about his age, you'll then just talk about his "inexperience" since he only had 15 fights... It's a no win situation.

If he beats the #1 Light Heavyweight, you'll say he's too old. And then as soon as I debunk that claim, you'll say he was too inexperienced. But then if he had over 40 fights, you'll say he had too many fights. So on and so forth making it "IMPOSSIBLE" to have a good resume.

And this is what you call "destorying" someone's post??


2.
I laid out who you need to be concerned with you illiterate troll:

- Trout #3
- Lara #2
- Cotto - #1
- Golovkin - #1
- Smith - #9
- Jacobs - #2
- Kovalev - #1



Trout was undefeated and the #3 JMW at the time you Monday morning quarterback troll

This is what I'm talking about with you. You say Canelo only picks on old men over 35, but Trout was a 27 undefeated JMW CHAMPION when Canelo beat him and you still hate on him? This takes special trolling from a sad piece of schit.



Ok and Jacobs/Derv deserved the win against G, still didn't happen. But to your point, Lara was a 31 year old champion who was on the P4P list and was the #2 JMW, the same thing that Andrade is RIGHT NOW. Canelo faced and beat him, which further debunks your ass backwards theory of him only fighting 35 year olds.

Hell, Lara is still ducked TO THIS DAY and was ducked by guy's like GGG who you ironically defend while accusing Canelo of doing the stuff that was clearly done by others. More hypocrisy from Breadman.



Ok, great, now we're back to talking about weight again. As far as wins, are you missing the fact that Cotto moved up in weight and KO'd GGG's only beaten champion at the time? Cotto was the #1 MW who had just beat the long reigning champion in Martinez.

Secondly, Cotto was the fight that Golovkin himself was fighting to get. Would you have said the same thing if GGG beat him? Of course not, you would've included it on G's resume. And if Cotto was much smaller than Canelo, how the hell do you think he'd fair next to Golovkin? You don't even make any sense man.



And most believe GGG lost to Jacobs and Derv. What the fcuk is your point? You want me to start digging up press row scores now? If so, let's do it for all the close victories throughout history. Should we do it for Mayweather vs Castillo, SRL vs Hearns II, Ali vs Norton III? Schit happens man.



Smith was #9 at the time. The same rank Andrade and Charlo were when Canelo was fighting Trout and Lara at #2 and #3, but that still didn't stop you from schitting on those victories, did Breadman?



The only reason you consider it a good fight is because GGG "beat" Jacobs. If not, you'd be talking about Sergio Mora's knockdown and Pirgo, you clown.



You talk schit about this victory, but I'm still waiting on you to name one GGG has on his resume. I've been waiting since YESTERDAY

Kovalev was #1 in his weight class. Just like Beterbiev is #1.



You didn't school anybody on schit, other than the art of "trying" to destroy a resume. Anybody can do that, just see some of these trolls on NSB with 10 posts.



So let me understand this. You're seriously trying to compare guy's like Canelo, Pacquiao, Mayweather, etc to guy's like Trout, Rosado and Porter?

The odds theory doesn't apply to guy's like Emmanual Burton. The point of the odds theory was to give a look into how "risky" a fight is "at the time" that it happens which all plays a role in evaluating a fighters legacy and greatness. The fighter's you mentioned aren't great.

Secondly, don't just make claims, let's post some facts with sources. Post the fighters that you mentioned (e.g. Trout, Garcia, Brook, Rosado and Porter) last 20 fights and include the following categories I named and see how they match up.

Fighting as the underdog as Daniel Boone is different than fighting as the underdog as Mayweather, Pac, Golovkin or Canelo you re ta ded idiot.

But yeah, let's start with Garcia. Since you made the claim, it's on you to post Garcia's odds from the last 20 fights so we can see how he adds up against the great's of this era.

Hopefully you find your balls and it doesn't take you 24 hours to respond to this post line by line.

you're responding with run around nonsensical excuses and opinions. I'm hitting you with facts. Every time I expose your bulls*** you move the goal post. You want extra information... Google it yourself b***h.

You said Canelo was the fighter who took the most risks besides pac. I proved that to be false using your own logic.

You then tried to add that wins in these fights should be considered, so I showed you how he only has 1 win in a fight where he was an underdog and it was controversial.
Which is not better than any of the other fighters I mentioned who were underdogs.

Now you want to say that the odds should only apply to who you want them to apply to. What kind of bulls*** is that? You can't have it both ways and use the stat for your convenience but dismiss it when it doesn't fit your narrative.

You tried to defend specific opponents and I specifically named exactly how each of them were compromised when Canelo faced them and or were screwed on the scorecards.

Now you're trying to act as if age doesn't exist or doesn't play a significant role in a fighters performance. Where was Roy Jones ranked when Glen Johnson knocked him out? Should we praise him as if he ko'd a prime Roy? Where was hopkins ranked when Kovalev beat him? Should we act like Kovalev beat a great version of Hopkins? No, we know they were compromised by that point. And that's what Canelo preys on.

Here are the facts..

No fighter has ever faced more big names that are 35 and older than Canelo..... Opportunist

No fighter has received more ridiculous scorecards in their favor than Canelo.....corrupt favoritism

No fighter has revived the type of favorable treatment he's received from the wbc from any title organization (undeserving title shot at 20, the creation of a franchise title, creating a new ped rule as it relates to clen based on Canelo's use of it) ..... More corrupt entitlement

No fighter has dropped 3 titles in the same weight class instead of facing a mandatory. (dropped his belt instead of facing ggg. Dropped his belt instead of facing dervenchenko, dropped his belt instead of facing Charlo)

So fk your copy and paste bulls***
Fk the fact that you idolize him like a god
Fk your runaround arguments that have already been destroyed
And lastly fk you. You can send all the tough guy private messages you want... But in real life you're a Puss who tries to talk shet on here because you've never boxed a day in your life. You're a b***h made f@g who lives in his mother's basement and jerks off to Canelo posters.

[Chollo Vista]

you're responding with run around nonsensical excuses and opinions. I'm hitting you with facts.

Go back and quote me line by line like I did you so I can finish your ass off like Rosario did J-Rock.

Stop being a coward boy. Or are you too dumb to know how to quote exactly the point you're replying too?

I've shuffled through your drivel too many times and quoted it specifically line by line; only for you to not even address the points I made and change the damn topic again. Show us you're not a coward and quote what you're replying too line by line or would you like a tutorial on how to do that?

[Jab jab boom]

Go back and quote me line by line like I did you so I can finish your ass off like Rosario did J-Rock.

Stop being a coward boy. Or are you too dumb to know how to quote exactly the point you're replying too?

I've shuffled through your drivel too many times. Show us you're not a coward and quote what you're replying too line by line or would you like a tutorial on how to do that?

who are you that I should feel a need to prove anything to you? You're the b***h who keeps changing his username everytime he gets sonned out of embarrassment. I've already shi**ed on your entire argument by using your own logic. The fact that you think talking tough on here is proof of who's a coward and who isn't further proves to me what kind of Puss boy you are in real life. You want to prove you're not a coward, back up that tough talk and meet me in a ring in ny. How about that?

[Chollo Vista]

You're the b***h who keeps changing his username everytime he gets sonned out of embarrassment.

This skinny neck piece of schit is losing his mind

When have a I changed my name from Chollo Vista?

Again, if you don't know how to quote line by line and are too ******. Just admit it, so I can "train" you like you should've been doing with JRock

[Jab jab boom]

This skinny neck piece of schit is losing his mind

When have a I changed my name from Chollo Vista?

Again, if you don't know how to quote line by line and are too ******. Just admit it, so I can "train" you like you should've been doing with JRock

I don't need to quote line by line, because when I do.. All you do is change your argument. It's like debating with a 2 yr old. I've exposed your entire argument as false and inaccurate but you haven't been able to do that 1 single time to me. All you do is add more questions and nonsense to your replies. Typing More words doesn't
Mean s*** when you're not saying anything credible.