More disappointing this year: Laraque or Parros?

[The Crow]

Originally Posted by T800m101

I also said Laraque only landed one really good punch, other than that, he rag-dolled Brashear and landed a bunch of grazing shots, rag-dolling doesn't count as beating someone in my book. Brashear landed the two best punches of the fight that ended up dropping Laraque.

Whatever dude, your eyes see something most others don't



Yes.[/quote]

You're right, it was pretty nuts.

But again, A KO is called a KO for a reason. Laraque wasn't close to being unconcious. Niether was Brash. He was dazed enough for it to be a TKO, which is what you called Brash/Laraque's fight.

How does that work?

[T800m101]

Originally Posted by The Crow

Whatever dude, your eyes see something most others don't



Yes.

You're right, it was pretty nuts.

But again, A KO is called a KO for a reason. Laraque wasn't close to being unconcious. Niether was Brash. He was dazed enough for it to be a TKO, which is what you called Brash/Laraque's fight.

How does that work?

I guess I'm used to the DYG.com version of TKO/KO. I believe anytime someone is loopy, dazed, whatever you wanna call it, I think it's a KO as well.

[The Crow]

Originally Posted by T800m101

I guess I'm used to the DYG.com version of TKO/KO. I believe anytime someone is loopy, dazed, whatever you wanna call it, I think it's a KO as well.

DYG sucks.

[T800m101]

Originally Posted by The Crow

DYG sucks.

No, it doesn't. I think it's more reliable than this site.

[The Crow]

Originally Posted by T800m101

No, it doesn't. I think it's more reliable than this site.

A while ago, you said you base what you say on fact.

Now you're saying you base it on DYG.

Jeez, I didn't know any site could be THAT good.

[T800m101]

Originally Posted by The Crow

A while ago, you said you base what you say on fact.

Now you're saying you base it on DYG.

Jeez, I didn't know any site could be THAT good.

What do you have against it?

[The Crow]

Originally Posted by T800m101

What do you have against it?

That'll be all from you, Donald.

[T800m101]

Originally Posted by The Crow

That'll be all from you, Donald.

Whatever.

[Knucklechucker]

T800m101
Hockey fighting is still fighting, and its competitive.
So why not use the KO,T.K.O and Knock Downs system that both Boxing and MMA use.
It doesn't make sense why a hockey fight (which is a still a fight) should be scored another way then what both competitive fight leagues in the U.S.
MMA and Boxing.

[gauros]

I still dont understand why Laraque or Parros? One is hardly top 10, the other top 3. I did not expect much from Parros and didnt get much so i think Laraque had the worst season

[T800m101]

Originally Posted by Knucklechucker

T800m101
Hockey fighting is still fighting, and its competitive.
So why not use the KO,T.K.O and Knock Downs system that both Boxing and MMA use.
It doesn't make sense why a hockey fight (which is a still a fight) should be scored another way then what both competitive fight leagues in the U.S.
MMA and Boxing.

Maybe you have a point, I disagree with it, but whatever.

To put the Brashear-Laraque fight in perspective. Say someone is conventionally bombing another country, and they are winning. Then, the country that is getting bomb, strikes back and nukes the other country, and ultimately wins, ending the war. That's the way I see it. I think that makes sense.

[Knucklechucker]

Originally Posted by T800m101

Maybe you have a point, I disagree with it, but whatever.

To put the Brashear-Laraque fight in perspective. Say someone is conventionally bombing another country, and they are winning. Then, the country that is getting bomb, strikes back and nukes the other country, and ultimately wins, ending the war. That's the way I see it. I think that makes sense.

Bombs and Nukes are a bit different then fists man.

[The Crow]

Originally Posted by T800m101

Maybe you have a point, I disagree with it, but whatever.

To put the Brashear-Laraque fight in perspective. Say someone is conventionally bombing another country, and they are winning. Then, the country that is getting bomb, strikes back and nukes the other country, and ultimately wins, ending the war. That's the way I see it. I think that makes sense.

It didn't end the war. The nuke struck a sparsely populated rural area. While it was a high powered nuke, it didn't do as much damage as expected.

[T800m101]

Originally Posted by Knucklechucker

Bombs and Nukes are a bit different then fists man.

I was making a point.

[T800m101]

Originally Posted by The Crow

It didn't end the war. The nuke struck a sparsely populated rural area. While it was a high powered nuke, it didn't do as much damage as expected.

You're right, it could've done more. But it did enough to drop him.

His punches were more like Nagasaki than Hiroshima. While Nagasaki was a bigger bomb than Hiroshima, the bomb got caught in cross-wind and detonated somewhat off target, and closer to a mountainous reigon, but it still did the deed.