Truth

@Redpanda1214 ...False!

@@brucescott4261 The young George's DEF was weaker than his old DEF, as you can see. He had no real DEF in his young days. Dwight fought like a better-def version of Dwight, using head movement and angles, so if Joe used that same style, he could have put down George. Followers got multiple points, which were shown to be flawed. George Height is an Advantage Pushing means he dominates. His power was too much. Uppercuts and iabs keep taking a person out fast. Swimmers lose fast. dwight showed If Joe used the same defense, he would have beat George because, as I told you, young George couldn't take damage even close to the old version. and Dwight was a better swammer, then Joe didn't use his block well. You have to use angles to make George's wide punches miss, and he made him miss often, and Dwight blocked often. Joe didn't show these same def skills. They never bring up Dwight and act like the match never happened. He showed that dumb, flawed quote that all swimmers lose is crap, and folks still say it. I don't know why. Dwight only lost because he was tired; he did better than Joe in both matches. Dwight only lost because he was tired. He was winning rounds. George said for Dwight He said he had trouble hitting him. Even though George was taller than him and used jabs, another advantage they say works for George Dwight showed height, and coming in like Joe did didn't matter. Tom showed wide punches like Tyson, and hitting quick punches would have an effect on George. Mike fought Smith, who was slow and strong like George. You know, weird people will say, but he wasn't as strong as George. Why does that matter? If he had been as strong, he would have landed, but he was still slow. Why is it that every time we make the point of who Mike fought that was comparable to George, like Smith and Trever, who did pushes, y'all say it's wrong when it's on video showing Trever did pushes and Smith was slow and strong like George? But when y'all say the blind quote of Mike was like Joe even though they fought nothing alike, that's right, it's hypocritical. Why would Mike, who had the best defense of all time in history, lose to George? Mike fought Smith, who was strong but faster than Frank, and Frank was almost as slow as George and almost as strong, and neither one could hit Mike much, so why would George Another proof is Berbick, which I exposed. George wouldn't be able to keep doing that to keep space. Berbick abused it and it kept getting countered. George was slower than Berbick. Dwight's style is like Joe's but with better defense. Ali and Jim are fast punchers and defensemen. Frankly, he is as slow as George. Smith is slow and strong. Mike had trouble with rangy fighters who fought from range, had lateral movement, had good hand speed, and had good defense. They even say in the Trever match, which I described, that's not the way to fight him; he came nonstop forward. Wasn't that the exact same way George fought? He didn't fight off the jab or use any lateral movement while fighting from distance. George would lose off of the breakdown, as even the commentaries said, like I said. Mike wasn't Joe; his weaknesses weren't an uppercut that he just kept running through, especially not a slow, easy-to-read one from a person as slow as George; it was, like I said, a person who fought from range and who used good lateral movement. Nobody has anybody George has fought that can compare to Mike, so how is it they said he would beat Mike? Where does it come from? It's based on nothing, which is odd.

@@ascendediam bot style

@@active.7universal The young George's DEF was weaker than his old DEF, as you can see. He had no real DEF in his young days. Dwight fought like a better-def version of Dwight, using head movement and angles, so if Joe used that same style, he could have put down George. Followers got multiple points, which were shown to be flawed. George Height is an Advantage Pushing means he dominates. His power was too much. Uppercuts and iabs keep taking a person out fast. Swimmers lose fast. dwight showed If Joe used the same defense, he would have beat George because, as I told you, young George couldn't take damage even close to the old version. and Dwight was a better swammer, then Joe didn't use his block well. You have to use angles to make George's wide punches miss, and he made him miss often, and Dwight blocked often. Joe didn't show these same def skills. They never bring up Dwight and act like the match never happened. He showed that dumb, flawed quote that all swimmers lose is crap, and folks still say it. I don't know why. Dwight only lost because he was tired; he did better than Joe in both matches. Dwight only lost because he was tired. He was winning rounds. George said for Dwight He said he had trouble hitting him. Even though George was taller than him and used jabs, another advantage they say works for George Dwight showed height, and coming in like Joe did didn't matter. Tom showed wide punches like Tyson, and hitting quick punches would have an effect on George. Mike fought Smith, who was slow and strong like George. You know, weird people will say, but he wasn't as strong as George. Why does that matter? If he had been as strong, he would have landed, but he was still slow. Why is it that every time we make the point of who Mike fought that was comparable to George, like Smith and Trever, who did pushes, y'all say it's wrong when it's on video showing Trever did pushes and Smith was slow and strong like George? But when y'all say the blind quote of Mike was like Joe even though they fought nothing alike, that's right, it's hypocritical. Why would Mike, who had the best defense of all time in history, lose to George? Mike fought Smith, who was strong but faster than Frank, and Frank was almost as slow as George and almost as strong, and neither one could hit Mike much, so why would George Another proof is Berbick, which I exposed. George wouldn't be able to keep doing that to keep space. Berbick abused it and it kept getting countered. George was slower than Berbick. Dwight's style is like Joe's but with better defense. Ali and Jim are fast punchers and defensemen. Frankly, he is as slow as George. Smith is slow and strong. Mike had trouble with rangy fighters who fought from range, had lateral movement, had good hand speed, and had good defense. They even say in the Trever match, which I described, that's not the way to fight him; he came nonstop forward. Wasn't that the exact same way George fought? He didn't fight off the jab or use any lateral movement while fighting from distance. George would lose off of the breakdown, as even the commentaries said, like I said. Mike wasn't Joe; his weaknesses weren't an uppercut that he just kept running through, especially not a slow, easy-to-read one from a person as slow as George; it was, like I said, a person who fought from range and who used good lateral movement. Nobody has anybody George has fought that can compare to Mike, so how is it they said he would beat Mike? Where does it come from? It's based on nothing, which is odd.

it really doesn't matter because at end of the day both are winners get what iam saying.🙏

@@alifuller1658 Ik but there’s always that what if factor that People are Curious

It's called entertainment.

@osmancanales4644 ...Ali.

@@brucescott4261 tyson