Pea, Roy or Floyd?

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Whitaker vs Ramirez 1 was actually a fairly close fight. The result wasn't an atrocious robbery on the same scale that Whitaker-Chavez was.

Pernell made it tougher than it had to be due to his annoying tendency to completely stop punching for long stretches of time. This was the same thing that cost him the De La Hoya fight in my opinion.

I totally agree with you... I thought pernell did nothing in the latter rounds vs Ramirez... He basically gave the fight away

[joseph5620]

I totally agree with you... I thought pernell did nothing in the latter rounds vs Ramirez... He basically gave the fight away

Ramirez did nothing the entire fight. He was swinging at air. Regardless of what you think Whitaker didn't do, Ramirez did much less and clearly landed less. I can't see any justification for that decision.

[joseph5620]

It was said by some that if one questioned Aristotelian physics and threw something to demostrate the cocept of "drag" they were branded as a heretic by the church during medieval times...your dealing with the same level of ignorance and insecurity when holding an opinion that this fight really determined nothing and could have gone either way. Some people cannot allow this opinion to be held even though more than a few believe this.

It reminds me of the cult of Roy where anyone who questioned Roy's infallability was subject to harrasment. Then Roy got clocked and it was "well he was weight drained...." or..."well he was slowing down."

People who usually have better judgement have a need to make sure that, despite film as evidence, people do not think that this was a close fight.

The "cult of Pacquaio" is far more related to that with pathetic excuses and and an inability to admit that he lost the fight. Which he clearly did.

[billeau2]

The "cult of Pacquaio" is far more related to that with pathetic excuses and and an inability to admit that he lost the fight. Which he clearly did.

Wrong...they are cut from the same cloth and thats the point.

its like the episode of Star Trek where there are two groups fighting each other and the difference is one side is black face on the left, the other black face on the right and they wind up destroying the planet with only the leader of each group left chasing each other around the dead planet with a stick.

For example, both pac and may have, if one has common sense, used enhancers...yet both groups accuse the other guy of being the cheat.

And while you have an opinion about the fight, others don't all share it...youll get over it.

here Joseph...spreading the love

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7MQrL_ABE0

Pac worshippers versus May worshippers thank me later

[joseph5620]

Wrong...they are cut from the same cloth and thats the point.

its like the episode of Star Trek where there are two groups fighting each other and the difference is one side is black face on the left, the other black face on the right and they wind up destroying the planet with only the leader of each group left chasing each other around the dead planet with a stick.

For example, both pac and may have, if one has common sense, users of enhancers...yet both groups accuse the other guy of being the cheat.

And while you have an opnion about the fight others don't share it...youll get over it.

No, the point is Mayweather won so how do excuses for Jones jr relate to Mayweather particularly from the Pacquiao fight? They have far more in common with the Pacquiao apologist and the silly excuses and examples of denial fall on the people refusing to admit Pacquiao lost which was as clear as day.


I don't care how many different ways you look at it or spin it. Pacquiao lost the fight and no rational objective person thinks otherwise.

[billeau2]

No, the point is Mayweather won so how do excuses for Jones jr relate to Mayweather particularly from the Pacquiao fight? They have far more in common with the Pacquiao apologist and the silly excuses and examples of denial fall on the people refusing to admit Pacquiao lost which was as clear as day.


I don't care how many different ways you look at it or spin it. Pacquiao lost the fight and no rational objective person thinks otherwise.

The point is it is the same "mentality" but I think you know that. You are wrong because I could find many rational people who think to the contrary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/box...-decision.html

http://www.inquisitr.com/2082872/new...anny-pacquiao/

http://www.ibtimes.com/manny-pacquia...eather-1942926

I could site more...the point being SOME rational people have a difference opinion. This is kind of painful as I like you as a poster...but you can see there is some dissenting opinion.

I could present more in depth analysis BUT keep in mind I am not of the opinion that Pac won! only that it was a close fight that could have gone either way.

[IMDAZED]

The point is it is the same "mentality" but I think you know that. You are wrong because I could find many rational people who think to the contrary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/box...-decision.html

http://www.inquisitr.com/2082872/new...anny-pacquiao/

http://www.ibtimes.com/manny-pacquia...eather-1942926

I could site more...the point being SOME rational people have a difference opinion. This is kind of painful as I like you as a poster...but you can see there is some dissenting opinion.

I could present more in depth analysis BUT keep in mind I am not of the opinion that Pac won! only that it was a close fight that could have gone either way.

Look at this buffoonery

[wmute]

Look at this buffoonery

It's my fault. Too soon. It will be a while before we can have a normal Boxing History thread with PBF in it.

[billeau2]

Look at this buffoonery

And look at why someone comes into the history section to post...some newbie? some idiot kid?

[IMDAZED]

And look at why someone comes into the history section to post...some newbie? some idiot kid?

Make a ****** post, expect to get called out.