Unless mayweather is rusty: Marquez gets a worse beating then gatti..here's why

[Owlzfan84]

whats with all this crap about Mayweather beating someone like he beat gatti. Gatti was shot, past it, and had been through numorous brawls and foty canidates.

Floyd couldnt even "gatti" Hatton who was just lunging in all night and leaving himself open. Marquez is one of the greatest counter punchers of all time, with good handspeed and accuracy and there is a reason he is number 2 p4p. He's much more skilled then both Gatti and Hatton. Not saying Floyd wont beat him, but he isnt going to "gatti" him.

[The Gambler1981]

It isn't ****ty.

You cannot say "There IS a first time for everything"

You are assuming things that havent happened yet yourself.



I am not comparing Marcianos career, which has ended, and we know the outcome already... to Marquez's fight that hasnt happened yet.



What I am saying is... lets for ***sake, say that we are back in marciano's time.

And you said to me... Marciano will lose... "There is a first time for everything"

You would have been wrong.




There is not ALWAYS a first time for everything. I dont know how you can argue otherwise.

Comparing unlike things to me is a fools errand, you are comparing KNOWNS to UNKNOWNS. You do not know in an upcomming fight if there is a first time for somethign unexpected (they do call boxing the theater of the unexpected for a reason).

[THE REED]

This conversation is getting nowhere fast~, look there is a possibility that JMM gets Gatti's is that likely maybe yes, maybe no, who the **** knows. I am not saying it will happean or a saure thing, I am just saying there is a possibility thus a statement like "there is a first time for everything" is not out of line.


When discussing something that has yet to even take place, all you can talk is possabilities.

This is where we are stuck.


You are trying to express to me, there is a possibility that anything can happen.


I agree with you... how can I not? Especially based on something that hasn't happened.



But the statement: "There IS a first time for EVERYTHING"


Simply isn't true.

If we were back in Reggie Miller's time and you said... he will win a championship before he retires... there is a first time for everything.

You would have been wrong.



By Saying there IS a first time for everything... you are not talking about "possibility" you are talking about FOR SURE.

And that is incorrect.

[THE REED]

Comparing unlike things to me is a fools errand, you are comparing KNOWNS to UNKNOWNS. You do not know in an upcomming fight if there is a first time for somethign unexpected (they do call boxing the theater of the unexpected for a reason).

I'm NOT comparing the two.

I realize one has happened, one has not.



Why can you not see the point in my post where I said... LETS IMAGINE, we are back in that time...

It isn't a comparison.. it is an example... where not EVERYTHING has a first.

[THE REED]

He should of said...

anything can happen.


anything is possible


There CAN BE a first time for everything.

not There IS a first time for everything.

[The Gambler1981]

This is where we are stuck.


You are trying to express to me, there is a possibility that anything can happen.


I agree with you... how can I not? Especially based on something that hasn't happened.



But the statement: "There IS a first time for EVERYTHING"


Simply isn't true.

If we were back in Reggie Miller's time and you said... he will win a championship before he retires... there is a first time for everything.

You would have been wrong.



By Saying there IS a first time for everything... you are not talking about "possibility" you are talking about FOR SURE.

And that is incorrect.

You are taking a figure of speach and putting a total litteral meaning on it. To me saying "there is a first time for everything" mean there are possible outcomes you mgiht not have even thought of, you obviously look at that figure of speach different then I do.


My first statement was about absolutes (will,always,never) so why are you trying to say that is what i am saying as truth.

Saying something will or will not happean are sides of the same coin. Both are equal mistakes~

[THE REED]

You are taking a figure of speach and putting a total litteral meaning on it. To me saying "there is a first time for everything" mean there are possible outcomes you mgiht not have even thought of, you obviously look at that figure of speach different then I do.


My first statement was about absolutes (will,always,never) so why are you trying to say that is what i am saying as truth.

Saying something will or will not happean are sides of the same coin.

There is a difference between "There CAN BE a first time for everything" and "There IS a first time for everything"

Correct?

[The Gambler1981]

I'm NOT comparing the two.

I realize one has happened, one has not.



Why can you not see the point in my post where I said... LETS IMAGINE, we are back in that time...

It isn't a comparison.. it is an example... where not EVERYTHING has a first.

Ever hear the term "exceptions that make the rule".

[THE REED]

You are taking a figure of speach and putting a total litteral meaning on it. To me saying "there is a first time for everything" mean there are possible outcomes you mgiht not have even thought of, you obviously look at that figure of speach different then I do.


My first statement was about absolutes (will,always,never) so why are you trying to say that is what i am saying as truth.

Saying something will or will not happean are sides of the same coin. Both are equal mistakes~

Anything can happen would make more sense... because saying There is a first time for everything, is saying exactly that.

Eventually it WILL happen... even though it might not?

[The Gambler1981]

There is a difference between "There CAN BE a first time for everything" and "There IS a first time for everything"

Correct?

It depends on your definition of "is" (lol always wanted to say that).