Jump to content

neems

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    4,005

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by neems

  1. neems
    Me,unfortunately lol. gone from being in good shape at 85 kg 18 months ago,to fat at about 98 now. just about able to push myself now so hopefully gonna be able to work it off by next summer.
  2. neems
    That would have to involve giving dog wardens more powers to be workable,which is definitely not a road I want to go down. Let's just try the most obvious and un-intrusive option first,we can always force old ladies to muzzle and insure their yorkies under threat of it being destroyed if more reasonable measures don't work
  3. neems
    Didn't those dykes whose presa killed an old man get 1 year in prison,they'll probably do less than 6 months. that's not taking responsibility,I also mean for people with snarling nasty dogs walking down the road,make them responsible too. Very few of the people who cause attacks will insure etc,they'll just lock up their poor pitbulls/mastiff x's etc in the house and the amount of attacks will probably go up,especially fatal ones involving kids.
  4. neems
    The last thing anyone wants is more red tape,we should at least try just making dog owners responsible for their dogs actions. if that doesn't solve the problem,then move on to insurance etc though how many dog attacks actually happen on the street? All forcing insurance will do is make these people not walk their dogs,which in turn will lead to more 'accidents'.
  5. neems
    .
  6. neems
    So that's the end of going out for a little mooch with the lurcher or terrier then? and I'd also be amazed if it prevented a single attack,more likely insight a few with all the unsocialised dogs we'd then have,I.e not walked because the owner hasn't chipped and insured it or can't be arsed puttin a muzzle on it. mandatory prison sentence and a ban on keeping animals if you're dog attacks or tries to attack any person without due cause,any further damage done the owner is charged with. Then all the good owners can carry on as usual,the shit heads will end up in prison or banned fro
  7. neems
    Intentionally harming a child let alone killing one is one of those things there's no coming back from. he's shown his true character,he'll come out worse than he went in,so why keep him alive?
  8. neems
    Not so much anymore,I like his writing though.
  9. neems
    Even if it isn't an elite level,if it's snowing or the roads are icy roadworks got to be out,surely?
  10. neems
    You do make some good points satan,but if the 'old school' ways were more effective,why aren't they still used? punchers are born,but if a fighter was stronger he would hit harder,my opinion is it's a trade off,todays fighter's being fitter and being able maintain a higher work rate means they don't need to learn skills that will help conserve energy for example.
  11. neems
    Because farage wants to reduce the powers of a Corrupt anti-British organisation and put himself out of a job in the process.
  12. neems
    Thats your opinion I'm referring solely to boxing btw, my opinion is that todays fighters are inferior skill wise to the previous generations I mentioned. I've asked several times for examples of improvement in skills,so far no one has answered my question. If your premise is correct then todays champions and contenders would beat yesteryear's would they not? It's therefore strange that no historian or accredited boxing writer holds that viewpoint. Wonder why that would be? I never claimed modern boxers were technically better. just that they're much stronger,faster,fitter
  13. neems
    But when was boxing any different ?.......when the mafia were dictating who became champions and what rounds they went down in did we think one day people would be calling them the good old days !!......Today you have Frank Warren and Eddie Hearn in uk......in my day you had Terry Lawless/Mickey Duff/Mike Barrat/Jarvis Astaire/Harry Levene and thats just in London...............Are Golden Boy any different to Arum or Don King ? Folk talk like boxing never used to be about money the amount of belts are fairly recent aren't they? If there was just one belt per weight division of any value
  14. neems
    As great a sport as boxing is,it is too corrupt and the fans miss out because of 'businessmen' like Mayweather. That's where a big organisation like the UFC having a complete monopoly on the sport becomes such a benefit,no ducking or dodging. Even if we just had 1 belt per weight in boxing that would be enough to make sure most of the big fights happen.
  15. neems
    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4mzHP-jbZSw the best version of 'there'll always be an England' imo
  16. neems
    Just go,s to show what a load of old bollocks amateur boxing is really doesnt it ......yet in some ways in this day and age the amateurs is a bigger money earning potential than the pros !!! they've changed the system now haven't they? I hope it stays like it is at the commonwealth games,real boxing not the stupid olympic scoring system,makes it more like fencing.
  17. neems
    I watched an old dvd my nan bought me about ten years ago the other day,henry cooper's best fighter or something like that,he presents it anyway. at the end it gave me a laugh,it was talking about lennox lewis being nearly ready to retire and how the best prospect we have who looks to have all the talent of Lewis is a young man called Audley Harrison.
  18. neems
    What if you're a rich idiot who can easily afford to have 10 giant nasty dogs insured? I don't insure my dogs,does that make me an unworthy owner? If I couldn't afford to do so would that prove I'm any less qualified? I'd go as far as saying the people least able to afford insurance generally much more qualified to own aggressive dogs than those who can easily afford it.
  19. neems
    I use Hatton as an example because he was well conditioned using modern methods,but you missed my point entirely. Very briefly; Hatton peaked for a fight maybe three times a year,this explains why he has such a superior work rate etc to the old timers you mention (most of whom I've watched at some point). if Hatton grew up in the 40's he would have trained different (I.e not peaked) and fought more regularly. he probably would have been a very different fighter,more durable,longer career,probably more skilful due not being able to rely so heavily on physical attributes. but t
  20. neems
    Look at them fight,it's plain to see they were a lot slower and the work rate generally wasn't nearly as high,they also plod along with very little explosive movement. we can safely say they were also weaker. if Hatton fought 10 times a month he wouldn't have been able to get in such great shape for each fight,he'd also have an entirely different style,he'd probably have learned the more subtle energy saving techniques you like so much. but he didn't,so the only way to compare is how they'd do against each other on their best days from what we've seen.
  21. neems
    Speed and conditioning in the other weights,size and strength is enough in heavyweight. Hatton had a higher work rate and was more explosive,yes. Everything you say is blind speculation,we can safely say the modern greats are much faster,stronger and with a higher workrate. that's what we know,everything else is a guess.
  22. neems
    Only at heavyweight in my opinion. I'd say definitely at heavy,but also to varying degrees at every weight. Outside of heavy modern fighters on top of that have much better speed and conditioning. You use Calzaghe as an example but even a fighter like Hatton would have had an unheard of work rate.
  23. neems
    They get fined then banned then imprisoned.......same as a car......look at the lengths the government will go to regarding legalising the roads......ok theres not the return money wise in dogs but the proof is there to show if laws are enforced they can be made to work. I reckon 99% of car owners (that aren't disgruntled teenagers) agree we should have to insure cars. I don't personally know one dog owner who would agree with this,also you've got to bare in mind legislation requires consent which we're tricked into giving,plenty of people don't give it knowingly (lawyers,freemen) or unknow
  24. neems
    Forcing dogs to be insured simply won't work,at least half (probably a lot more) won't do it,then what? Take millions of people to court? put their dogs down? The issue isn't that big of a deal to the government,and any legislation that effects your normal pet owner isn't going down well.
  25. neems
    Even so,would you not agree they more than over compensate in strength,mass and reach?
×
×
  • Create New...