Who got owned?

Doesn't work that way. Oscar is just as if not more responsible for giving the people a rematch that nobody wants. And sorry BUT thinking that Oscar won the first fight and blaiming Floyd for taking a rematch to avenge that loss while praising Oscar for the same thing doesn't help your cause. We disagree obviously on who is more responsible. Its probably not worth any more conversation on it. I think you are getting two different topics mixed up. One topic, the one we wasted a lot of time on, is "who is more to blame for the fight happening?" The second is, "Is the fight justified?" What I think about how justified the fight is has little to do with who's fault it is that the fight is occurring. The fans though Floyd won clearly. The fans are pissed at Mayweather/Oscar 2. I'm capable of discussing topics within that context and not imposing my personal bias on common perceptions.

I think you're giving Oscar an unfair "white man's burden" type scenario where he is supposed to sacrifice unmatched personal glory for the sport. Its not like money is his only motivating factor, and its not like he aggressively pursues this fight. Floyd is in a position similar to Oscar, with albiet LESS money to offer, yet still significant. Not only that, he offers the biggest challenge to anyone near his weight. My view is not flawed, because I am discussing the issue on your level. Its like, just because I believe a law is unjust, doesnt mean I wont use to to prove a point in court. Common ground. I guess I'm the biggest Floyd fan in this thread, because I dont view a Winky fight as having even remotely similar legacy consequences. People will discredit Oscar and say "but look at winky's last few fights before he fought Oscar" even if Oscar wins. When you speak of the will of these mythical "fans" who want to see Oscar fight winky so bad, I really dont see why they would want this over a fight with Floyd when it would be AS boring if not more so. You must have a mental block then. The Majority of people including yourself are complaining about the Delahoya-Mayweather rematch, the difference is, you wanna blame Floyd while praising Delahoya for fighting the best. Doesn't work that way. Oscar is just as if not more responsible for giving the people a rematch that nobody wants. And sorry BUT thinking that Oscar won the first fight and blaiming Floyd for taking a rematch to avenge that loss while praising Oscar for the same thing doesn't help your cause. This is the hypocrisy I'm talking about. Just stop yourself.

As said before, the right thing would be for him would be to fight Winky or Forrest, no matter how boring it might be or how much less money he would make. The fans would be more happy witht that fight then have him fight Floyd again. Your view is flawed and I tell you why. If in your view Oscar won the first fight, then you shouldn't have a problem with Floyd trying to avenge his loss BUT you do. I have a problem with Oscar because he clearly (In My view) lost and will lose again. But he chooses to milk his PPV drawing power by picking the next biggest guy and sell it to mainstream fans. None of the hardcore fans want this fight and Oscar could care less. Hardcore fans want Oscar to leave the young guys alone and go fight guys in his age group who are perceived to be on his level.......like Winky Wright...who I think is greater fighter then Oscar. Legacy wise, fighting Winky is just as big for him as beating Floyd. Now I don't think he can beat either one and I think he knows that too. So he is choosing the more profitable opponent. Are you even reading anything above 2 sentences or am I just talking to a wall. I think you're giving Oscar an unfair "white man's burden" type scenario where he is supposed to sacrifice unmatched personal glory for the sport. Its not like money is his only motivating factor, and its not like he aggressively pursues this fight. Floyd is in a position similar to Oscar, with albiet LESS money to offer, yet still significant. Not only that, he offers the biggest challenge to anyone near his weight. My view is not flawed, because I am discussing the issue on your level. Its like, just because I believe a law is unjust, doesnt mean I wont use to to prove a point in court. Common ground. I guess I'm the biggest Floyd fan in this thread, because I dont view a Winky fight as having even remotely similar legacy consequences. People will discredit Oscar and say "but look at winky's last few fights before he fought Oscar" even if Oscar wins. When you speak of the will of these mythical "fans" who want to see Oscar fight winky so bad, I really dont see why they would want this over a fight with Floyd when it would be AS boring if not more so.

A-expect Oscar to sacrifice his desire to fight the best by leaving the welterweight divisions alone and meddling in other divisions(even though Mayweather would probably be fighting no one this year if he didnt fight DLH, so its not like he's taking Cotto's spot)-This is what I perceive your opinion to be. As said before, the right thing would be for him would be to fight Winky or Forrest, no matter how boring it might be or how much less money he would make. The fans would be more happy witht that fight then have him fight Floyd again. B-expect Mayweather have a little less disrespect towards the boxing fans and let other more deserving fighters get their Oscar payday and fight the best in his own division. How could Oscar refuse another shot at the ultimate glory in boxing?(reasoning for this is that Mayweather made the offer and Mayweather has the least credibility in rematching Oscar of just about any fighter out there due to his p4p status and win over Oscsar).-My view Your view is flawed and I tell you why. If in your view Oscar won the first fight, then you shouldn't have a problem with Floyd trying to avenge his loss BUT you do. I have a problem with Oscar because he clearly (In My view) lost and will lose again. But he chooses to milk his PPV drawing power by picking the next biggest guy and sell it to mainstream fans. None of the hardcore fans want this fight and Oscar could care less. Hardcore fans want Oscar to leave the young guys alone and go fight guys in his age group who are perceived to be on his level.......like Winky Wright...who I think is greater fighter then Oscar. Legacy wise, fighting Winky is just as big for him as beating Floyd. Now I don't think he can beat either one and I think he knows that too. So he is choosing the more profitable opponent. Are you even reading anything above 2 sentences or am I just talking to a wall.

It makes perfect sense. The difference between the way I see it and the way you see it is, Mayweather is the hugest win of all and Oscar is literally fighting THE best fighter in the world when getting in the ring with him. I respect him for that. I dont blame him for taking the fight. You may deny this, but a lot of fans see it this way I'm sure. So given the fact that Oscar is fighting the biggest threat, out their at that threat's behest, WHO is the new culprit? I'm not denying anything. What I'm saying is that he doesn't deserve it but keeps getting oppritunities at great fighters time and time again due to his money making ability. He could lose to Floyd again and get a shot at somebody like Pavlik if he wanted to (hypothetically, don't say now that it would never happen) and people would be critisizing Pavlik for not defending his title against real Middleweights. But who really should be blamed is Oscar for even bringing Pavlike's name up. Has he earned a shot at Floyd again? No. Does Tyson deserve a direct shot at the undisputed heavyweight championship if he were to come out of retirement? No, but he would most likely get it due to his money making ability. Should we give Tyson credit for fighting the best if he were to fight Klitschko? Should we give Oscar credit for fighting the best if he were to fight Mayweather? No and No.....because at some point you get tired of these guys using/abusing their power because of their Superstar status.

I was talking about your mentality/thought process. It's not a new low since we have to leave room for the possibility that Cotto/Mayweather might still happen in 2009 if both are victorious in their upcoming fights. What you have to consider is that, when everybody is willing to fight Oscar for money, then it can't be just Floyd. He just happens to be the guy with the power of getting a shot at The Golden Boy It's all on Oscar, Winky wants him, Forrest wants him, guys at 147 wants him. Everybody wants him.......so it's a question of who Oscar wants. And clearly Oscar wants Floyd. He is ignoring what the people want for his own selfish needs (most money). He could retire with Winky in May and Forrest in December. Those would be huge wins and anybody who doesn't think so is delusional. Beating two guys your own size who have beaten the guy Oscar lost to twice would be huge. It didn't happen because Oscar didnt' want it to happen. He is the middleman in this game as long as he doesn't announce his retirement. Now how hard is this to understand? It makes perfect sense. The difference between the way I see it and the way you see it is, Mayweather is the hugest win of all and Oscar is literally fighting THE best fighter in the world when getting in the ring with him. I respect him for that. I dont blame him for taking the fight. You may deny this, but a lot of fans see it this way I'm sure. So given the fact that Oscar is fighting the biggest threat out their at that threat's behest, WHO is the new culprit? The way I see it, you can either: A-expect Oscar to sacrifice his desire to fight the best by leaving the welterweight divisions alone and meddling in other divisions(even though Mayweather would probably be fighting no one this year if he didnt fight DLH, so its not like he's taking Cotto's spot)-This is what I perceive your opinion to be. B-expect Mayweather have a little less disrespect towards the boxing fans and let other more deserving fighters get their Oscar payday and fight the best in his own division. How could Oscar refuse another shot at the ultimate glory in boxing?(reasoning for this is that Mayweather made the offer and Mayweather has the least credibility in rematching Oscar of just about any fighter out there due to his p4p status and win over Oscsar).-My view C-Mayweather shouldnt duck his challengers, Oscar shouldnt be so selfish and cut in line, theyre both pieces of shit-Mozza's view

I agree that it DOES come down to mentality. I think that some fighters have a more money grubbing mentality than others, but its true that ALL fighters want to fight Oscar largely for the money. However, what Floyd is doing is a new low. Oscar had a very competitive fight with the p4p#1. Although Cotto could make more relevant fights to the current ww division, it is not a terrible matchup and name to add to his resume. Plus, Cotto's most obvious next step "retired"! For Mayweather, however, it is ALL about the money. I mean, there is no other benefit! I was talking about your mentality/thought process. It's not a new low since we have to leave room for the possibility that Cotto/Mayweather might still happen in 2009 if both are victorious in their upcoming fights. What you have to consider is that, when everybody is willing to fight Oscar for money, then it can't be just Floyd. He just happens to be the guy with the power of getting a shot at The Golden Boy It's all on Oscar, Winky wants him, Forrest wants him, guys at 147 wants him. Everybody wants him.......so it's a question of who Oscar wants. And clearly Oscar wants Floyd. He is ignoring what the people want for his own selfish needs (most money). He could retire with Winky in May and Forrest in December. Those would be huge wins and anybody who doesn't think so is delusional. Beating two guys your own size who have beaten the guy Oscar lost to twice would be huge. It didn't happen because Oscar didnt' want it to happen. He is the middleman in this game as long as he doesn't announce his retirement. Now how hard is this to understand?

Yes it does. It reveals your mentality/thought process. And I'm saying they don't have too much "class" just as Cotto or any other top guy doesn't have "class" when it comes to Delahoya. Money Talks.......there is no factual way to prove it to ya since it's hypothetical. It all comes down to your mentality/thought process. as I mentioned above. This is where we disagree. What legit reasons? Beating a past his prime Oscar after he suffered another loss? Aren't people critisizing Floyd for beating a past his prime Oscar, how is Cotto gonna get anyting out of it. That's like critisizing Floyd for beating Judah after he came off a loss to Baldomir BUT trying to convince somebody that it's a good win for Cotto even though Judah came into that fight with 17 months of inactivity and 2 losses later. I agree that it DOES come down to mentality. I think that some fighters have a more money grubbing mentality than others, but its true that ALL fighters want to fight Oscar largely for the money. However, what Floyd is doing is a new low. Oscar had a very competitive fight with the p4p#1. Although Cotto could make more relevant fights to the current ww division, it is not a terrible matchup and name to add to his resume. Plus, Cotto's most obvious next step "retired"! For Mayweather, however, it is ALL about the money. I mean, there is no other benefit!

my claim that oscar defeated floyd has NOTHING to do with you calling Oscar a bitch for accepting the rematch. Yes it does. It reveals your mentality/thought process. I did not blow off, I addressed and disagreed with the legitimacy of the examples: Klitschko/Peter at this time would not fight Tyson because they have to much class to beat up an old bum, even for a lot of money(not that he could bring a lot to the table these days anyway). You will find this post in the thread. And I'm saying they don't have enough "class" just as Cotto or any other top guy doesn't have "class" when it comes to Delahoya. Money Talks.......there is no factual way to prove it to ya since it's hypothetical. It all comes down to your mentality/thought process. as I mentioned above. What's more realistic, Peter or Klitschko turning down millions to fight Tyson who is an easier opponent for more money OR be above it all and turn the big money fight down. I think the answer is obvious, except to you. I addressed the Cotto issue being irrelevant in that Cotto has legitimate reasons OTHER than mere greed for fighting Oscar. Floyd does not have this. This is where we disagree. What legit reasons? Beating a past his prime Oscar after he suffered another loss? Aren't people critisizing Floyd for beating a past his prime Oscar, how is Cotto gonna get anyting out of it. That's like critisizing Floyd for beating Judah after he came off a loss to Baldomir BUT trying to convince somebody that it's a good win for Cotto even though Judah came into that fight with 17 months of inactivity and 2 losses later.

But you haven't shown it. I exposed your weakness. You claim that Oscar defeated Floyd. That in itself is a weakness that deserves explotation without further explanation. Now I'm starting to rhyme I believe that Oscar is a bitch and I made examples of that comparing him to Mike Tyson and Klitschko and Peter to Floyd and Cotto. You blew that example off by saying that Peter and Wlad would show more class "and NOT fight that bum Mike Tyson" (yeah ok). Now that example makes sense to others who are willing to give up the back and forth bickering but you're clearly not of those people. You're in it to outlast people. my claim that oscar defeated floyd has NOTHING to do with you calling Oscar a bitch for accepting the rematch. I did not blow off, I addressed and disagreed with the legitimacy of the examples: Klitschko/Peter at this time would not fight Tyson because they have to much class to beat up an old bum, even for a lot of money(not that he could bring a lot to the table these days anyway). You will find this post in the thread. I addressed the Cotto issue being irrelevant in that Cotto has legitimate reasons OTHER than mere greed for fighting Oscar. Floyd does not have this.

When you claim to have won the argument, whats wrong with attacking that claim by showing your argument's weakness? But you haven't shown it. I exposed your weakness. You claim that Oscar defeated Floyd. That in itself is a weakness that deserves explotation without further explanation. Now I'm starting to rhyme I believe that Oscar is a bitch and I made examples of that comparing him to Mike Tyson while comparing Klitschko and Peter to Floyd and Cotto. You blew that example off by saying that Peter and Wlad would show more class "and NOT fight that bum Mike Tyson" (yeah ok). Now that example makes sense to others who are willing to give up the back and forth bickering but you're clearly not of those people. You're in it to outlast people.

Generalizing about somebody's previous comments and calling them out to prove you wrong about something just when the particpants of the thread are about to wrap it up with the convo, for the sake of keeping it going shows desperation. Psych 101 stuff. When you claim to have won the argument, whats wrong with attacking that claim by showing your argument's weakness?

attacking my credibility by attacking my opinion on an unrelated matter IS a personal attack. I When I said "prove I was wrong", I said it to my recounting of past events: no judging, scoring, or bias involved. I probably shouldnt have used the word "babble" but the rest of my summary I felt was accurate. Generalizing about somebody's previous comments and calling them out to prove you wrong about something that's been discussed the previous 40 mintutes, just when the particpants of the thread are about to wrap it up with the convo, shows desperation. Psych 101 stuff.

attacking my credibility by attacking my opinion on an unrelated matter IS a personal attack. I When I said "prove I was wrong", I said it to my recounting of past events: no judging, scoring, or bias involved. I probably shouldnt have used the word "babble" but the rest of my summary I felt was accurate.

how is my opinion on who won that fight relevant to the topic at hand? Because it takes whatever little credibility you had of being fair and balanced when it comes to topics related to Floyd. What was that you said, "prove what I said was wrong". I suppose you could say that regarding the Delahoya-Mayweather fight and if somebody did give you specific details about their round by round scoring and had Floyd winning at least 7 rounds, you would blow their opinion off as just some babble and challange them to prove you wrong again to continue the arguement......which would naturally break out into personal attacks, once people realize what you're really up to. As I've said, you're the type who feels (or pretends to feels) superiority by outlasting another poster. Clearly you're not outwitting anybody.

As someone alrady said, it's a pissing contest and posters don't care and are to busy with other threads. Those who kept up with the thread saw what they saw and I even got some Green K's for my efforts. Not that it matters. I'm not looking for approval. You killed your arguement once you said that Oscar beat Floyd. From there on out it was all downhill....straight to personal attack which of course I went along with until I got bored. Now you're really boring me. how is my opinion on who won that fight relevant to the topic at hand? I was just saying how I didnt even care that much that the match was made, just that the hatred was being misdirected. Something like that cant damage my argument. And yes, apparently people dont care too much since no one has replied yet. I guess 15 pages is too much to read. My mistake. speaking of green K...LOL

I'd call it the desire to find the will of the people...a POLL, if you will(minus the poll because I forgot to put it in). Why not a few intelligent posters to sway things your way? WHO's to say? As someone alrady said, it's a pissing contest and posters don't care and are to busy with other threads. Those who kept up with the thread saw what they saw and I even got some Green K's for my efforts. Not that it matters. I'm not looking for approval. You killed your arguement once you said that Oscar beat Floyd. From there on out it was all downhill....straight to personal attack which of course I went along with until I got bored. Now you're really boring me.

Not get approval........felt the need to get approval. Certainly, there are a few dimwitts like yourself who could swing it your way to make you feel better tonight while trying to get a shut eye. . I'd call it the desire to find the will of the people...a POLL, if you will(minus the poll because I forgot to put it in). Why not a few intelligent posters to sway things your way? WHO's to say?

What makes you think I will get approval? Not get approval........felt the need to get approval. Certainly, there are a few dimwitts like yourself who could swing it your way to make you feel better tonight while trying to get a shut eye. .

another pissing contest? :dunno: "peeleft: :argue: :peeright: