Ring Magazine articles about Pavlik, Cotto, and Peter contradict!

[The Hammer]

Could it be that two different writers have two different opinions? I know it is shocking... but it happens.

Oh, believe me, Rosenthal and Raskin have the same opinions! They are fanboys of the same fighters.

If Raskin wrote an article about Peter and if Rosenthal wrote the article about Pavlik/Cotto, the articles wouldn't be any different.

My point is, is it fair to make excuses for Peter while saying there is no excuse for Pavlik/Cotto?

[JakeNDaBox]

It's been a while since I've read a full edition of The Ring... has Michael Rosenthal ever had articles published by them anywhere other than their website?

From what I can see, there's a distinct difference between the two writers, not even in these columns. Though all of The Ring staff are forced to carry the same sheep mentality when it comes to the ratings, guys like Eric Raskin, Bill Detloff and Ivan Goldman are generally free-thinkers for the most part on all other issues. I don't always agree with Raskin's POV, but generally go out of my way to read his weekly column.

I didn't read the Rosenthal article, but agreed with most of what Raskin had to say, re: Pavlik and Cotto. Although I will say the excuses part seemed far more calculated in Pavlik's camp, whereas the handwrap ordeal sort of fell into Cotto's lap. But that said, Cotto at least kept his mouth shut on the issue, unlike Kermit Cintron, who made a big stink about following the investigation and all but asking for his two losses to be annulled.

I can't imagine what excuses can be made for Peter. He looked every bit as limited in that fight as most predicted would be the case. The only wild card was whether or not Vitali would be healthy enough to step through the ropes that night. Once that part held up, the rest was academic.