Kane vs Cooke

jgdeadrabbit said:

Looking at that again, you can clearly see that the punch missed, a masterful display of theatrics.

Click to expand...

what are you talking about? an Oscar nominee could not have faked it. it was a 100% KO. In fact, I think, Kane got Cooke the second time on the way down to seal the deal. That's why it took Cooke extra time to come to his senses. he, basically, was KO'ed twice, if you will.

my bad then as I did not read through the whole post... I just hate Cooke so much like he personally did something to me.

esuhock22 said:

So who is the next guy to go after Kane after a dominating fight like this?

Click to expand...

is there a reason to go after Kane who punished a guy nearly everyone in the league hates? to establish some sort of a domination in the league or something? I don't think Kane wanted to do anything: Cooke got what was coming to him from the least suspected opponent. I mean, anyone can go after anyone in any given game. do you, guys, think that players actually plan in off-season who they are going after next season? even in the days of goons policing the ice it was never the case unless retribution was on order for prior misbehavior.

Where's Bure? said:

Lol my man you're misinterpretting every sentence on this thread!

Click to expand...

maybe partially... even still, I somewhat relayed the opinion that, in this league, anyone can go after anyone at any given point in a game. there's always another tough guy out there on some other team.

was it a rhetorical question, in essence then? in that case, it is pointless.

esuhock22 said:

Maybe you should start doing that. It would lead to a lot less confusion on both sides. I was simply asking who people thought would be the next guy to fight Kane after his impressive KO and yet you bring up all these points that have nothing to do with my question.

Click to expand...

you should not tell people what to do. obviously, lack of response to your question should be your answer...

esuhock22 said:

:laugh: No need to get all defensive. And I'm fine with two good answers to my question as it was just a question about some predictions.

Click to expand...

if responding to someone's arrogance is a display of being defensive, sure, call it that.

esuhock22 said:

You've said my question is pointless and now you are calling me arrogant all for what? I simply suggested that you read the whole post to cause less confusion and you take it the completely wrong way. I am pretty sure that everyone hear would agree with me that you should read the whole post and if you don't want to still, that's fine.

Click to expand...

it is not what you said, it is how you said it. my admitting to what I should or should not do does not require your approval. no need to try to recruit others on this thread to defend you either...

Where's Bure? said:

You sure know how to brighten up a room, huh?

Click to expand...

it's shining bright where I am...

jgdeadrabbit said:

Actually pointless to even bother posting here.

And yes, for those lacking cerebral function, my earlier post WAS sarcastic. All these forums, even the hockey fight forums, seem to be populated by white, middle class goobers from the suburbs who have never been in a real fight and would only react with cries of 911 !!!!! if they ever managed to be forced into one.

Click to expand...

the only one lacking any cerebral function is you to generalize unless you are representing such populace you are referring to.

as for me (so that you stop jabbing needlessly here) I have a 15-year amateur boxing career and I do play hockey, so now you can quote and direct your BS at someone else...