This is just absurd. If I had a penny for each time I have praised Mayweather's abilities I'd be sunning myself somewhere on the French Riviera. Criticising Floyd Mayweather and being biased against Floyd Mayweather are not the same - unless you're particularly insecure. Indeed, if there is bias here it is patently obvious where it lies.
Why do you continue to bring Chris Eubank into a discussion about Floyd Mayweather? Let me put it another way - if you cannot justify Floyd's actions WITHOUT referring to a fighter ten years past retirement then you really need another argument.
Cool. So let's go over this again. I criticise Mayweather for suckerpunching Ortiz. You say he didn't break any rules. I point out that I never said he did - but in boxing, just as in all sports, there is an unwritten code of ethics which he certainly breached. You ,in-between calling me biased, a crybaby, a slavish supporter of every word and deed of Chris Eubank (how further from relevance to the subject matter can we get?) say that boxing is unlike any other sport and thus Floyd didn't break any unwritten rules. I argue that fighters don't usually suckerpunch each other and that some form of ethical code is clearly observable. You now ADMIT that "a lot of fighters wouldn't do that" (contradicting your earlier assertion that boxing is unlike any other sport and no code of ethics exists).
Tweet
Comment