gnasher16
-
Content Count
23,509 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
140
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Articles
Gun Dealer's and Fieldsports Shop's
Reloading Room
Blogs
Calendar
Store
Classifieds
Everything posted by gnasher16
-
Most of these so called " undercover operations " are no more than clever advertising....most of what they do doesnt even warrant a tiny quarter page article in a local paper yet most times anything they do recieves much more coverage than it should,tv in this case !......nothing makes granny put her hand in her pocket quicker than seeing the great work these wankers do...if they didnt rely on donations i guarentee most of their cases wouldnt even make the news.
-
Gnasher you've made some good points,and you obviously know your boxing,but i don't believe Calzaghe ducked anyone.Yes there was talk of fights that never happened,but the fact is,when Jone's was offered a fight against Calzaghe,he refused to fight outside the U.S.As for fighting Wright,Well 10 years ago,Wright was fighting at light middle,and Calzaghe has always been a "big" super middle (obvious to all,that Calzaghe was drained at the weigh in for the Kessler fight),and lets not forget the build up to the lacey fight,Joe was the underdog,and Lacey had been labelled the "new Mike Tyson" by th
-
When it comes to who is better than who its just opinions....so mcguigans opinion is calzaghe is the best to come out of uk...thats his opinion....i would say calzaghe has had more success than any other british fighter in recent history without doubt...but for me a great fighter should be judged on the great fights he had and the great fighters he beat.....calzaghe decided he didnt want to take the route of fighting other top fighters a long time ago so for me he gave up the right to be judged as a great fighter himself....succesful yes,an all time great no.... If greatness is decided by suc
-
was lucky enough to be at this fight last night....thought calzaghe fought a sensible fight,he had some scarey moments but his pure physical fitness,speed and athletic intelligence brought him a pretty comfortable win....i was surprised at kesslers size he was very big at the weight....im told it sounded a real good atmosphere on telly which it wasnt,the place was just too big and the atmosphere was lost. personally i wouldnt like to see calzaghe move up to light heavy but instead go all out for one of the big names preferably hopkins and if he has to travel over there then its time he did
-
Cant go wrong with a bmw mate even an old one....that car should be good for 200 plus so i wouldnt worry about mileage.....had one of them tourers back years ago,travelled europe over a 3 month period and never missed a beat,even performance and fuel economy was good. Dont see many of them about these days,good luck if you get it.
-
WELL SAID
-
This has posed another question: Is there a connection between the number of times a bitch stands for a dog and the size of the litter? Nobody knows for sure....a bitch might have 6 pups regardless if she stands once or 10 times...BUT...unlike humans a dog can be fertilised by more than one male and produce offspring from both dogs,this suggests that pups can be conceived on different matings....whether that has any relation to size of litter im not aware that has been proven. In regards to size of litters.....inbreeding WILL cut down the amount of pups in a litter due to less var
-
Higgins you are kind of right in what you say,however " recessive " doesnt necessarily mean bad.....a dominant gene can be passed on by an individual regardless of the other mix of genes...a recessive gene will need a similar or identical make up of genes to produce itself....in other words it needs to come from both sides.....you are right in that inbreeding will not necessarily SHOW the bad...but likewise it will not necessarily SHOW the good even though the capability of those qualities is still there through the genetic make up....in other words,not all good or bad traits will show themsel
-
Pip for dogs to be set as a family they need to be showing family traits...in other words traits typical of their heritage.....this can take 3 generations or it can take 10...a lot of it depends on the original dogs you are inbreeding off...if they are very loose bred dogs to start it is going to take a lot longer to tighten them up to where they are throwing select family traits...and of course if you are doing it right you will be culling more than you are keeping slowing the process down still further. If you bred a dog back to one of its parents and then bred 2 of the resulting littermate
-
Thats one of the strangest theories ive ever heard !...so for every 2 generations of inbreeding you have to outcross right ?......its simply not as black and white as that.....every case is different there cant be set rules to family breeding.......for instance,maintaining that theory over 10 generations will result in totally scatterbred dogs with no likeness or purity whatsoever...the reason to inbreed is to tighten up genetically and make the genes past down more predictable....if you inbreed for 2 generations then outcross,then inbreed on those outcrossed dogs you are just running round in
-
If the dog you are inbreeding on is a good physical specimen and he is what you consider to be a " good dog " in other ways then go for it.....what you must remember is inbreeding will bring out the good aspects in a higher dosage...but it will also bring out the bad in an equally high dosage so you must be sure you are inbreeding on what is basically " a good dog "....if the dog you are inbreeding on is not a family bred or tightly bred dog then the actual mating you do will not be as closely linked genetically as you may think and not necessarily produce accurate likeness in its offspring...
-
only 30...even so..." once too many times to the well " as was proved last night.
-
Gomez is not world class no....european maybe...not sure alex arthur would be confident of taking him to pieces....gomez best days are probably behind him but arthur said only a few months back the only fighter he would not feel confident of beating at domestic level is gomez...came from his own mouth and said himself he underestimated him....personally i dont think arthurs any more than european level either As for earl-khan i think khan will get him out within 3 rounds......look for kevin mitchell to beat carl johannsen on the same night...and with a bit of luck hatton to stop the yank
-
gnasher is this the lad thats had a film made about him? Thats the one yes.
-
For any of you boxing fans...Michael Gomez challenges for the british title tonight...Friday fight night sky sports1 9pm Gomez is a tough lad whos had a tough life...hopefully he will get what he deserves tonight and go onto bigger things
-
Cant see what all the fuss is about myself....if someone makes a good or interesting post it makes sense to look at a few of their others,whats the big deal. Id just like to say i think theres far too much flirting going on on this board its starting to get a little cringeworthy.....it kind of puts me in mind of that old geezer in last of the summer wine sitting rubbing his plums in front of the pc while the fat bird types dirty to him !
-
Im not jumping on you mate....but what does this " full guarentee " cover exactly ?....the nature of genetics dictates that NOBODY breeds 100 % perfect dogs all the time.....so by giving a full guarentee ( which is a definate sales pitch)your maybe suggesting you do ? no offence to you,just curious.
-
I use a forum which caters for a particular make of car........members cannot even use the " for sale " section unless they have made 50 posts on the forum....ie..been a contributing member of the board....not a bad idea in my opinion.
-
The fight went exactly as i thought to be honest mate....a little more dramatic than i anticipated but the result was what i thought...pavlik has been a good prospect known as a hard puncher,but proved in this fight he can take it and come back...his punch resistance and conditioning was superb.....i was always a little suspect of taylor and felt he was overated and would most probably quit on a fighter like pavlik.....the difference in this fight was heart...pavlik got up,taylor wouldnt have even if the ref had allowed it to go on.
-
The only thing that surprises me.....is that your all surprised ! My neighbor had a knock on the door off old bill last week suggesting he take all the england stickers off his van as they could be seen as racial provacation ......he just didnt peel them off after the last world cup thats all. Day by day this country rots from the inside out.
-
Fair comment.......but at least hatton is willing to go in with the best.....calzaghe has had 18 defences yet still managed to avoid the best fighters in the world at and around his weight class...he has admitted many times he has never taken a fight he thought he might lose,and also said in his own book how he " would not " have fought wars like the benn/eubank fights....to be judged as a great pound for pound fighter you need to fight and beat other great fighters...calzaghe has never done that through his own choice......great talent no doubt about it.....just a shame his unbeaten record wa
-
I make you right bill...not sure id go as high as top 5 though simply due to the fact that natural evolution in size meant yes he would probably have beaten 90 % of fighters throughout history....george foreman fought at around 228....ali at 220....frazier fought at around 216....marciano at around 195....lewis came in around 250 plus for most fights.... so yes lewis would probably have beaten marciano but i still dont think he can compare to him as a great historically..... As for bugner or richard dunn where did they come into it
-
Jardine got KO'ed buy Griffin...but just beat Chuck. Kye,.. Think you,ll find Jardine tko,d griffin .........kye i think it just go,s to show that anything can happen in a fight and at that level of competition anybody can beat anybody. Not sure i agree with your comments on liddell,i dont know his reasons for talking of retirement but lets not forget he,s 37/38 years old....he beat everybody at top level and avenged his losses apart from jackson....if age or desire has caught up with him then so be it...but personally i wouldnt question his heart....at his age with his
-
Couldnt agree more....most of us are on the edge of our seat when we know a fighter can bang....even our own nigel benn for this very same reason....it just makes me laugh when this hero worship kind of thing takes over when it comes to Tyson...he was an exciting,explosive guy who could deliver punches correctly and powerfully....but he had more flaws to his game than almost any other top heavyweight through history the main one being his lack of guts which some people saw early on in his career.....you are dead right,the division could do with someone like that now purely from the excitement
-
Lads your missing the point....i repeat...im not saying tyson was not a good fighter....but dont for one minute insult some of the true great fighters by trying to place him in any all time list ! I dont rate lennox lewis as an all time great either but with 3 stone his way he would of beat a peak tyson just as holyfield would at the same weight....if you was all dragged along on the tyson warpath then so be it...but it takes more than 2 or 3 years of knocking over fat boys to be called an all time great....what was his excuse for both holyfield fights ? ...why did he quit on most of his loss
