Did Loma beat Haney because he wasn’t scared of Haney’s power?

you are aware that bob arum can still run pr narratives without some official press conference right? :lol1: and yes, american media is corrupt, sports media is included in that. people already complain about nba media being biased. people already complain about espn and other networks being biased for certain teams (cowboys, coastal teams of LA, NYC), how many threads have been made in nsb about HBO commentary team being corrupt/favoring certain fighters??? you act as if floyd almost didnt have a fight with larry merchant. :lol1: that's just boxing. should we go to futbol? mlb and all the complaints about manfred? yes, there's a plethora of reasons they can be corrupt, but there's only one historical reason that everybody is corrupt especially media; MONEY. you're suppose to be an older poster yet you feign ignorance on this issue (media being corrupt :lol1:) as if you are totally ignorant of the situation. yes, the loma haney judges were paid off to secure the victory of the lead promoter's boxer, who is young, in his mid 20s, and undefeated, and just got signed by the lead promoter who pays their salary and screwed over the over the hill fighter on his way out of the game. there's nothing fallacious about that. its called putting two and two together. its called reading between the lines. THE FIGHT WAS ROBBERY. Loma clearly won. WE HAVE VIDEO EVIDENCE. YOU HAD LOMA WINNING 7-5, yet you are engaged in a flame war with an anonymous stranger over whether the most corrupt sport on the planet has corrupt judging and media? :rofl: go pretend to die on another hill. something more worthy of your time than defending the online honor of corrupt boxing media and judges. SHAME ON YOU. You’re entitled to your baseless opinions and assertions. Just be aware you have zero evidence to support them.

Best 17-3-0 (11) fighter ever. Wake up, the guy lost.

Arum was asked who he thought won and said Loma by a lot...

Who said Loma was scared of Teo's power. Teo got beaten up in that fight. Of course they all run from the rematch.

ohh yes, he didnt even know his mic was on lmaaooooo!!!!!!! did obama not know his mic was on when he promised russia flexibility after the elections???? :lol1: and havent we gone through media in america being corrupt????? if regular media, regular legacy mainstream media is utterly corrupt, why would boxing media, the media that covers the most corrupt sport in the world not be corrupt themselves???? LOL at close decision. :lol1: there was nothing close about that fight. Loma won 8-4 if we had honest judges. YOU HAD THE FIGHT FOR LOMA 7-5!!!!! you really must work for bob arum. kinda like all the putin bots posting in the lounge defending every single action of putin and russia. :lol1: Yeah, he didn't. You're aware that that wasn't an interview where he said that, right? He said it in passing to Loma and even went as far to change his stance when the press conference started when he was aware he was on camera :lol1: Yes you have talked about the media in America being corrupt. You seem to think that has any bearing on these judges being paid off, it doesn't. That's a fallacy argument you've attempted to use there, why would the boxing media that covers the most corrupt sport in the world not be corrupt themselves? I don't know. Why would they? There's a plethora of reasons why they might, or might not. It has no bearing on whether these judges were paid off or not. That's why it's a fallacy argument. Yes, I scored the fight 7-5 for Loma. You keep repeating that, for what reason I don't know. How can I make it easier for you to understand that I have no issue with anyone having Loma winning. The issue lies with calling the fight a robbery when it frankly wasn't. Yes I must work for Bob Arum, the guy who actually said it was a robbery :lol1: Yes I must work for that guy. You have no argument outside of your emotions and your baseless opinions. Move on, your guy lost a close decision and your none stop crying isn't going to change that.

yes it is. maybe you should look up what circumstantial evidence means. and yes, tim cheatam is a CORRUPT JUDGE. and yes, the overwhelming majority of people said it was a robbery. i couldnt care less what arum says who is clearly doing pr mode with that statement since its his fight that he promoted that came with a questionable decision. :lol1: can you not figure out that low level machination for your self? IT WAS A ROBBERY. ITS ON VIDEO. you're just gonna have to deal with the fact that people think it is. :lol1: Bob Arum didn't even know his Mic was on and that he was on camera you moron :lol1: How could that possibly be a PR stunt? No mate, it's really you who needs to look up what circumstantial evidence is. I have literally given you an example of what circumstantial evidence would be in this scenario. "Video footage of a fight" and "Haney being young" is as far away from circumstantial evidence for a claim that judges were paid off in a fight as you could possibly get. Except the "overwhelming majority" didn't think it was a robbery, have you not seen the press row media? The Ring Magazine's for example, 30% didn't have Loma winning and numerous that scored it for Loma stated that it wasn't a robbery and that list goes on. So that's another patently false statement there. If not, show me your data for the "overwhelming majority" considering this fight a robbery. It's comical for you to tell someone to get over it :lol1: When you literally cannot get over the fact that your guy lost a close decision.

that actually is evidence of circumstantial evidence lol. you dont get to decide what is circumstantial or not and that goes for your example. i stand by my post. ALL OF IT. that cheatam judge is definitely in the pocket of arum and boxing press are most certainly in the bag of many lead promoters who are the ones who gives access to these very reporters in fights. :lol1: judges are bought and paid for. LITERALLY. that's why you refuse to address the fact that its the lead promoters who are responsible for the salaries of judges, refs, ring card girls, MDs, boxing insurance, etc... that's why you keep harping on "burden of proof" as if we are in a court room. YOU can shout on top of rooftops all you want that this wasnt a robbery, the overwhelming majority of the world DISAGREE WITH YOU. :lol1: how much does bob arum pay you to pimp your posts? :lol1: No it really isn't :lol1: At all. It objectively isn't. You can stand on it all you want it won't magically change it to legitimate evidence to support your claim. All it will be is your opinion, which you're entitled to. But it's not more than that; an opinion. Again, you're making a claim about Tim Cheatam there. You have no idea if he's in anyone's pocket or not outside of your opinion and an assumption. The overwhelming majority don't disagree that it wasn't a robbery. That's just another blanket statement from you that isn't true. That's the reoccurring theme here because you don't understand how this stuff works. Bob Arum had Lomachenko winning clearly so what are you talking about?

yes it was a blatant robbery. they robbed an old fighter on the way out from a clear cut victory so that top rank and that corrupt scumbag arum can retain haney, an undeated young champ in his mid 20s. video evidence of the fight along with historical corruption of boxing judges and the fact that arum has to keep his young undefeated champ as economically viable as possible along with the judge named cheatam who was involved in another recent robbery before the loma haney fight is BLATANT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that these judges are corrupt along with the boxing media. and yes, the burden of proof is only necessary in a court of law or legal situation involving the law. which is not the case here in a boxing message board. you must be affiliated with top rank to be fighting this hard to protect bob arum's corrupt scummy minions reputations online. :lol1: That really is not even close to circumstantial evidence :lol1: It's really not. You've simply got no idea what you're referring to. Circumstantial evidence would be for example if someone saw Devin Haney and Loma walk into a changing room together unmarked then half an hour later a scuffle is heard and they both walk out and one of them has a black eye then you could draw the possible conclusion that it was given to him by the other. Your examples are just baseless opinions, for starters, "video evidence" has absolutely no correlation at all to whether the judges were paid off or not. Secondly, "historical corruption" is not circumstantial evidence in regards to whether or not these judges were paid off or not and lastly your opinion that "Bob Arum has to keep his young champion undefeated" is not circumstantial evidence. You can't use any of the above to make a fair conclusion that these judges were paid off. So again I think you need to look into the terms you're referring to because you don't know what they mean. No, the burden of proof isn't only necessary in a court of law. I have no idea why you have this strange idea i your head. It's necessary for any time a claim has been made such as he one you've claimed here (that he judges were paid off). It's citied in debates time and time again. That's a cute deflection but no all I'm doing is challenging the idea that this fight was a robbery because it wasn't. You've already lied once in saying that the overwhelming majority considered it a robbery when that's patently false. You can keep shouting it to the rooftops all you like, it won't change the fact it wasn't a robber and you'd be better off just getting over it.

If the judges were influenced then it was, in fact, a robbery. We'll probably never know for certain if that was the case but most everyone who saw the fight knows who should have won.

i already told you my reasons. my circumstantial evidence. there is no burden of proof needed here. i would consider taking your medication so you can realize we are not in a courtroom. :lol1: go choose another hill to die on to impress (whoever) how much of a "pure" "unbiased" person you are. :lol1: a fight wildly considered a robbery by the overwhelming majority not to mention YOU scored the fight loma is not it. talk about considering a revision. :lol1: That's not circumstantial evidence mate :lol1: You should stop throwing around terms when you don't know what they mean. All you have provided me with is a list of opinions and claims, none of which have been backed up with any kind of evidence. Even if it was, you've made a claim, you need to provide evidence as to why it's true, it's just that simple. Why you are under the impression the only time the burden of proof is necessary is the courtroom I really don't know. Yes, for the umpteenth time I had Loma winning, yes well done. My issue isn't with Loma winning my issue is with calling the fight a robbery because it wasn't. It's not considered a robbery by the overwhelming majority. That's another lie.

there is no burden of proof for me to do anything lmaaoooo. we are in a boxing message board. ive provided enough circumstantial evidence along with what actually happened int he fight augmented with the historical corruption of boxing and infamous corrupt scumbags like bob arum and his judge aptly named chetham who was involved in a recent blatant robbery along with the fact that the lead promoters are the ones that are on the hook for the salaries of boxing officials, judges, referees, ring card girls, fight insurance tells you there is a high propensity for foul play which happens ALL THE TIME IN BOXING. the loma haney fight epitomizes the sheer utter corruption of not just boxing but scumbag fans LIKE YOU. congrats old man. When you're making a claim that requires evidence then there absolutely is a burden of proof on the person making the claim. None of what you've just cited is anywhere even close to evidence to support that these judges were paid off for this fight. Not even remotely close. I would consider more revision.

Loma always feared Teos power and counters and had he gotten aggressive the way he did with Haney Loma would have most likely been knocked out. Haney is no Teo even Loma admitted Teo was a lot better fighter.

It's entirely possible that the judges simply have a bias against Eastern European fighters. Cheatam nearly robbed Bivol, I believe. Moretti and Sutherland, no idea what they were thinking. Moretti especially. Seems clear he was always going to give Haney the fight.

:lol1: im not making up any scenario. the scenario is real. LOMA BEAT HANEY. WE HAVE VIDEO OF THE FIGHT. YOU SCORED THE FIGHT FOR LOMA!!!! as did the overwhelming majority of fans, ex fighters, current fighters, MEDIA members, other social media sites etc... only one talking about needing burden of proof IS YOU lmaaooo!!! where are you right now? in a court room? or in your tj maxx outfit posting in your retirement home eating chicken pot pie? :lol1: the fact that you scored the fight for loma 7-5 and not a draw along with the majority of people who saw the fight makes it very relevant into exposing how much of a poser you are when you are deciding to die on this hill. it could have easily been 8-4 loma. but somehow it was comfortable win for haney. a recently signed young, undefeated american boxer by top rank. THAT IS ALL THE EVIDENCE I NEED. do you know lead promoters like arum LITERALLY pay the salaries of judges, referees, ring card girls, fight insurance etc.? VIDEO EVIDENCE OF THE FIGHT IS ALL I NEED. :lol1: Ok so it's apparent that you aren't aware what constitutes as evidence. The fact Devin Haney had recently signed for TR and is an American fighter is literally as far away from evidence as you could possibly get. It wouldn't matter if 100% of people scored it for Loma, that still wouldn't be evidence that the judges were paid off. Video evidence of the fight is evidence of what happened in the fight. It's not evidence of whether or not the judges were paid off. You keep talking about "needing" the burden of proof. The burden of proof isn't something that's needed or not needed, it just simply means when you make a claim then the burden is on the claimant to provide the evidence for why it's true. I can't make that any simpler for you mate. On top of that, the burden of proof isn't exclusive to the courtroom. It's necessary for any time somebody makes a claim such as this. You have provided precisely zero evidence of any of the judges being paid off. Zero, Nil. Again the fact I scored it for Loma is totally irrelevant, even if I believed the fight was a robbery that STILL wouldn't be evidence that the judges were paid off. You can make that assumption if you like but that's all it would be; an assumption. And an assumption doesn't mean that it's true.

its literally not. and yes, im making a claim that judges especially that judge named cheatam is a corrupt and paid off judge for lead promoters. that cheatam judge was already involved in another blatant robbery. ive made the claim and there's nothing you can do about it. im concluding my corruption allegation due to the results of the fight and due to the historical perpetual corruption of boxing. it was a clear win for loma yet the scorecards showed the complete opposite. THAT IS MY EVIDENCE. i dont need any burden of proof. we are not in a courtroom. you're just gonna have to deal with it in your odd little hill that you are deciding to die on despite the fact that you scored the fight for loma. :lol1: And there lies your problem, in this scenario you can't make a conclusion from events that happened in the past and then make a connection to this fight based on nothing. You have to provide evidence to support the claim that you're making, not because something similar to what your claiming has happened before, that's not how it works. Yes I'm well aware you are making the claim and you are entitled to make that claim but that's all it is, a claim. Until you have evidence to support that claim that's all it will be. An opinion, essentially. You keep talking about "needing" burden of proof. Burden of proof isn't something that's acquired. It's simply the standard when making a claim. In other words, it means that the onus is on you to support your claim with evidence. You've made a claim therefore it's your responsibility to back it up with something substantional. Which you haven't come close to doing thus far. The fact I scored the fight for Loma is irrelevant. Scoring a fight differently to how the judges scored it isn't evidence that the judges were paid off.

no its not baseless. its very on base just based on how the judges scored the fight vs what actually happened. we are not in a court of law. we are just two guys talking about a boxing fight that was scored incorrectly. which YOU SCORED FOR LOMA. its pretty on base to claim judges were paid off along with journalists to see it for top rank's newly signed young undefeated fighter. i dont need the burden of proof. we are not in court of law or an episode of perry mason(original. not the crappy remake). :lol1: like i said, if journalists from "higher" institutions can be coerced to be corrupt and write falsehoods in regards to more important things than boxing, then something as trivial as boxing and as corrupt as boxing, then its pretty on base to say that judges and writers can be paid off to say the lead promoter's fighter won when he actually didnt. try to keep up old man. It is literally basless. You can't just make a claim that judges are paid off based on the fact that there is corruption in a sport, or that the guy who won was recently signed to the promoter, or any other assertion you'd like to make. They are assumptions, and assumptions at best. You can't just make an accusation and then conclude it with "Well there's corruption in Boxing, therefore these fighters were paid off because I said so" that's now how it works. You don't need the burden the proof, but the burden of proof is on you to prove something that you've made a claim about. I'm not quite sure you actually know what the burden of proof is, from your comments. Anyway, unless you can provide actual evidence that these judges were paid off then all that will be is an opinion, and an assumption. Nothing more.

are you saying that someone saying that the most corrupt sport in the history of humanity can be corrupted is baseless???? :lol1: no its not baseless at all. its very on base to question the integrity of journalists who cover the most corrupt sport in the world. its VERY ON BASE to question the integrity of judges who judge the most corrupt sport in the world. we saw the fight. its on video. the overwhelming majority of fans, media, former fighters, active fighters all said that loma won. but according to you, claiming corruption on the most corrupt sport in the history of planet earth, on a fight that many said the wrong person was awarded victory, is somehow baseless???? and this is coming from a guy who scored the fight for loma!!!! :rofl: and burden of proof? is this a murder trial we are discussing??? :lol1: No I am saying your claim that the particular judges for this particular fight were paid off is baseless. Unless of course you have any actual evidence for that claim being true. Yes, that pesky "burden of proof". Strangely very important when making a claim, if you weren't aware.

IronDan’s rebuttals: Do you understand what this is? Do you understand what that is? You’re a r/tard. Don’t you understand what i’m saying? Look, r/tard, these 5 journalists didn’t think it was robbery. R/tard, don’t you understand? Do you understand what I understand? Understood. Understand this: I understand. R/tard. Understand. Understood. Understand. Over 60% of your own poll doesn't think it was a robbery :lol1:

IronDan’s rebuttals: Do you understand what this is? Do you understand what that is? You’re a r/tard. Don’t you understand what i’m saying? Look, r/tard, these 5 journalists didn’t think it was robbery. R/tard, don’t you understand? Do you understand what I understand? Understood. Understand this: I understand. R/tard. Understand. Understood. Understand.

if journalists for "higher" institutions (higher than the boxing industry, aka the most corrupt sport in the world) who cover far more important subject matter than men punching themselves in the face and body, can be corrupted, how much more boxing journalists and en******? the fight was widely derided as a robbery. YOU YOURSELF SCORED THE FIGHT FOR LOMA. haney is a young champion, undefeated, just got resigned by arum and top rank while loma is an older fighter and no longer in the future plans of top rank, WE HAVE VIDEO EVIDENCE OF THE FIGHT, it shows loma beating haney. but somehow in your uppity deluded mind, the most corrupt sport in the world, notorious for its corrupt scoring, where we just saw an old champion beat a young champion with the backing of the lead promoter (who literally pays the judges, referees, ring card girls salaries along with fight insurance) ON VIDEO, somehow saying judges and writers were paid off is...... BASELESS? :lol1: btw, opinions can be true. :lol1: Ok but again none of that you have said there is demonstrable evidence that these judges or journalists were paid off. The claim you are making it literally baseless if you don't have anything to back it up. It's by definition baseless. You need to learn how the burden of proof works. By the way from the poll on this site at least, over 60% of people don't consider this fight a robbery.