Saturday night Fitbaw and Boxin
- Thread starter Mick
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I've said it before, my kids are getting **** all - lest they turn out like Eddie Hearn.
I'm leaving everything to charity, Friends of Sinn Fein
I'm leaving everything to charity, Friends of Sinn Fein
I've said it before, my kids are getting **** all - lest they turn out like Eddie Hearn.
I'm leaving everything to charity, Friends of Sinn Fein
You'll die before Mrs Michael and leave everything to her. She'll leave everything to Michael Juniors. By that time they'll have found their own way in life and the legacy left to them will be a nice little bonus but they'll wonder why they didn't get it when they needed it.
There is a good chance you will be right, but they will hopefully never need it (in any true sense of the word need). I keep shouting at them for Googling cheats for their Xbox games - stop making the game easier, if you make it too easy you get bored of it very quickly, play the game the way it was supposed to be played and you'll feel a much better sense of achievement when you overcome the challenges by yourself.
True. Although the knowledge that there is a safety net in existence can deincentivise the kids too.
I suppose it is one of the things that the Yanks say is great about their country. If you have the will and the nous you will succeed. The fact that those without the nous can be destitute is very much their own problem. In the UK they are rightly proud of the welfare state. This protects the weakest in society but may be detrimental to innovation for the exact reasons that you identify for your own family.
It is hard to know who is right.
There is quite a bit of research showing that difference in mentality may be innate nature rather than nurture - people quite literally have different shaped brains which make them more likely to be nurturing, or adventurous, or comfort seeking, or rebellious against authority, or loyal to authority - or psychopaths. Any parent who has more than one child of the same sex knows that their child's personality was not derived purely from their surroundings. A theory could then be put forward that the Founding Fathers of the United States were the brood of those more inclined to be self reliant and adventurous, while their more conservative cousins stayed close to home comforts in Europe.
The irony may well then be that I am only sitting here arguing for free will and individualism because of an accident of nature, in which I had absolutely no free will.
There is probably a lot in that. Accepting that Darwinian theory will have genetic changes for a particular reason. If you believe that humans have the capacity to adapt faster than other animals then the adventurous gene or rebellious gene (for want of a better word) was developed as a result of social standing over a number of generations which was probably fairly static. Escaping that by enabling social mobility through emigration makes the host community a hot spot of inginuity. America is a prime example of that.... So i'd say generations of nurture creates nature.... If that follows.
Either way I think the capacity to get comfortable and revert can happen in a single generation.
Either way I think the capacity to get comfortable and revert can happen in a single generation.
You're kidding, right?
Bellew's fight was one of the worst i've ever seen... It's a stroke of luck that the yanks didn't see that pile of ****e.
He didn't have a clue how to maintain the good start he made - it turned into the dullest bout seen in years.
You're kidding, right?
Bellew's fight was one of the worst i've ever seen... It's a stroke of luck that the yanks didn't see that pile of ****e.
He didn't have a clue how to maintain the good start he made - it turned into the dullest bout seen in years.
I said that before the fight. Bellew did the same in his rematch with McKenzie. He just made sure of the win and didn't really care for what it looked like. Maybe he would have approached the fight differently if it was on HBO who knows. Under the circumstances he did the right thing. He'll always have his Liverpool fan base.
Thought Froch boxed well. Used his jab to great effect. I like Kessler too but he looked a bit nervous and he tired a bit towards the end. I like the overhand right - left uppercut combo he uses, classy stuff, unlike Frochy 
Lewis was a boring ****. I would love to see Calzaghe and Froch fight. Calzaghe used to slate Froch a lot back when Froch used to call him out.
Lewis was technically brilliant after Manny Steward took him on. It was boring because it was so good. Literally a mile ahead of everyone else. As far ahead as the Klitchko's are now, he was ahead of them.
When Froch called Calzaghe out there was nothing in it for Joe. Froch would have lost then, no question and it wouldn't have drawn flies compared to who Joe did fight.
Big Vitali was giving Lewis a lesson until his eye got cut to ****. Was a shame because Vitali was brilliant that night. I know calzaghe would have easily beat froch back in the day but it's a shame we couldn't see them both fight at their best. George Groves looked quite decent on Saturday. I was pretty drunk but I thought I saw an EDL badge on his shorts! 
Shirley no!?
Shirley no!?No, he has a St George's cross as his own motif. He has his own range of gear.
Vitali was ahead in the fight, but that cut was opened by a punch and Lewis was coming on strong. The only way that fight was going to go was that Klitchko was getting hurt. Lewis isn't one to blow his own trumpet but he admits to being not in great shape for that fight and he still won.
The only thing that I and that coward who bottled it from me agreed on was that Lewis was the best heavy of all time. The era didn't help him but he was seriously that good. He had the lot. Tyson was a phenom for being so different to all the other heavies and having such a brutal style but IMHO Lewis would school him every day of every week.
I can guess why he doesn't get that much love.
Vitali was ahead in the fight, but that cut was opened by a punch and Lewis was coming on strong. The only way that fight was going to go was that Klitchko was getting hurt. Lewis isn't one to blow his own trumpet but he admits to being not in great shape for that fight and he still won.
The only thing that I and that coward who bottled it from me agreed on was that Lewis was the best heavy of all time. The era didn't help him but he was seriously that good. He had the lot. Tyson was a phenom for being so different to all the other heavies and having such a brutal style but IMHO Lewis would school him every day of every week.
I can guess why he doesn't get that much love.