Lucic vs Neil
View Single Post
04-30-2013, 10:14 AM
Join Date: Dec 2011
Originally Posted by
I'm not going to argue with you about this, I'll just say that your previous statement was flat out wrong. He was physically engaged before the fight, fought, and then was physically engaged after.
So your second point is that if he was engaged after the fight, he was slightly less engaged than he was before, so kudos to Neil for achieving that. I think we can all just collectively laugh at that.
so you agree with me then ? Lucic was less physical after the fight then before. good job on neil.
And drop the tough guy act who thinks that assertive proclamations are a surrogate for opinion or fact. I never said he was not physical after the fight, I said he more closely resembled the lucic who was invisible ( not that he was invisible). And you dont speak for any collective that I recognize.
If stating ones opinion with conviction ( "you are flat out wrong") is now somehow a replacement for sound arguments or debate, I proclaim you a pink unicorn. a completely pink unicorn.
If you dont think that lucic was running around why would neil be so strongly in favor of dropping them ? Its not like he didnt have his choice of fight partners and there was little strategic advantage of fighting at that time based on the score. and the fact that the sportsnet announcers saw it the same way as I did, must invalidate my opinion because those guys are " tools" or whatever pejorative du jour you chose.
Neil wanted to fight lucic when there was no strategic reason to do so, afterwards neil didnt seem to be all that interested in lucic as he pretty much held his own in the tilt ( i have it as a draw). Neil did what he was supposed to, lucic answered the bell when some say he had no obligation to do so and the two guys had a pretty even tilt.
what's the problem again ?
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by sandysan