Fun fact, Mikey Garcia has beaten the same amount of reigning world champions as GGG and Loma combined

[IronDanHamza]

mcdonalds

'Ok and then how was there any bias for Haney? Are you slow?'

omg u really are a total dummy

haney got the UD in a razor close fight that many thought loma should have won, he got the A side treatment as thats what happens to A siders, THEY WIN THE FIGHT, u cant even understand the basics

That isn't proof of anything. B Side's have won close fights many times.

All that is proof of is the judges scored the fight for Haney. Not that he was the A side or "favoured by the promoter". You are just asserting that.

[Smash]

That isn't proof of anything. B Side's have won close fights many times.

All that is proof of is the judges scored the fight for Haney. Not that he was the A side or "favoured by the promoter". You are just asserting that.

well i see the a sides winning a lot more close fights than b sides, examples

ward kov 1, kov as belt holders yet lost the decision most thought he deserved
canelo ggg say no more on that
haney loma same thing different people
rolly barosa total farce nothing else to say

[Smash]

recently tank davis v roche another one given a suspect draw i think

[IronDanHamza]

well i see the a sides winning a lot more close fights than b sides, examples

ward kov 1, kov as belt holders yet lost the decision most thought he deserved
canelo ggg say no more on that
haney loma same thing different people
rolly barosa total farce nothing else to say

Ok fantastic. I can name plenty of fights where the B side won the close decision in a fight and/or should have lost;

Bradley-Pacquaio 1
Oscar-Mosley 2
Teofimo-Kambosos
Pacquaio-Horn
Charlo-Harrison
Khan-Peterson
Foreman-Briggs
Chocolatito-Rungvisai 1



All of the above are examples of B sides winning decisions in close fights or fights they easily could have lost. So what's your point? There isn't one.

You can't just assert that Haney was "favoured by the promoter" because he won a close decision. That makes no sense.

If anyone is going to be "favoured" in that scenario then it would obviously have been Lomachenko.

[Smash]

Ok fantastic. I can name plenty of fights where the B side won the close decision in a fight and/or should have lost;

Bradley-Pacquaio 1
Oscar-Mosley 2
Teofimo-Kambosos
Pacquaio-Horn
Charlo-Harrison
Khan-Peterson
Foreman-Briggs
Chocolatito-Rungvisai 1



All of the above are examples of B sides winning decisions in close fights or fights they easily could have lost. So what's your point? There isn't one.

You can't just assert that Haney was "favoured by the promoter" because he won a close decision. That makes no sense.

If anyone is going to be "favoured" in that scenario then it would obviously have been Lomachenko.

teo kambo are u serious i dont remember that being close

[Smash]

pac horn i mean pac was finished and that fight was in aus land LMAO

horn was the a side, u are making my case for me, well done

[IronDanHamza]

teo kambo are u serious i dont remember that being close

Are you being intentionally obtuse or are you just overtly deflecting from the point of the post because it makes your position look moronic?

Teofimo was the A side, by your logic, he'd have won that fight, wouldn't he? Because he was "favoured by the promoter". But yet, the B side won.

Even if you remove that fight from the list of examples, what about the others? All B sides who won decisions that were either close or the B side should have lost. How do you explain that?

[IronDanHamza]

pac horn i mean pac was finished and that fight was in aus land LMAO

horn was the a side, u are making my case for me, well done

Manny Pacquaio was the B side vs Jeff Horn?

Really?

You cannot be serious.

[Smash]

Ok fantastic. I can name plenty of fights where the B side won the close decision in a fight and/or should have lost;

Bradley-Pacquaio 1
Oscar-Mosley 2
Teofimo-Kambosos
Pacquaio-Horn
Charlo-Harrison
Khan-Peterson
Foreman-Briggs
Chocolatito-Rungvisai 1



All of the above are examples of B sides winning decisions in close fights or fights they easily could have lost. So what's your point? There isn't one.

You can't just assert that Haney was "favoured by the promoter" because he won a close decision. That makes no sense.

If anyone is going to be "favoured" in that scenario then it would obviously have been Lomachenko.

amir khan v lamont was in washington, guess where lamont peterson was born?

[IronDanHamza]

amir khan v lamont was in washington, guess where lamont peterson was born?

My man, do you understand the concept of what the A side is?

I'm really not sure that you do.