Comments Thread For: Mosley Breaks Down Why Mayweather-Pacquiao Fell Apart

[jetgeomcx]

true floyd agreed to pacs weight penalty request ,the midget should agree to floyds request.It's a fact that floyd sells more when it comes to ppv too.

true....floyd agreed to manny's demands.
but floyd does not intend to fyt manny.....what for are those demands.

[Gratide]

Floyd is scared of facing someone who can punch with both hands from diiferent angles and is left handed . He is also sooooooo scared of losing that "0". I wish he would retire and quit ****ing up boxing with his BS . He will be remembered in time as a good boxer but one that refused to prove his possible greatness by ducking LOTS of fighters . Pac is probaly the smallest one of the bunch , that is what makes people so unhappy . Floyd COULD prove something by steping in the ring with the likes of paul williams or someone close to his natural size and height . Floyd doesn't have the heart to do this , his leagacy is tarnished alraedy .....................retire , count you MONEY . We have plently of great boxers and fighters not wasting our time .

[PAKYO]

The problem with dictating a fallacy of argument via argumentum ad populum is that in this situation there is a lack of degree to which the validity of facts can be presented or offered. So seriously stop using the Rachel Maddows show to improve your lexicon of vocabulary because its an irritation to my eye seeing the use of "big words" improperly.

Whenever I do bash on Mayweather in my eyes I do place it with relative terms of the situation. For example:

1) drug testing via Olympic Style was called unnecessary and only warranted by Golden Boy Productions when it was requested years ago by Zab Judah during negotiations with Mosley. Therefore for GBP to warrant such a request for Mayweather therefore lacks legitimacy since you've predetermined it unnecessary. Since you like big words we'll call this a predicate fallacy.

2) the penalty on being over weight was warranted given he did so for his last fight against Marquez. The issue of drugs and PEDs has not been proven and has no bearing what so ever except for the opinion of Mayweather and his associates. Since there is actually no evidence, this is what we call communal reinforcement; where evidence is lacking reinforcement and its validation of truth only comes about through repetition of said opinions as facts despite lack of evidence.

3) despite whatever the purse split is, there is no denial that no matter who Mayweather fights, he cannot get more money fighting anyone else even with the A~side of a purse split than he can doing a 50/50 split with Pac. That is a fact. Given his moniker of "fighting for money" and the "money fights", then his refusal to accept the fight is a propositional fallacy of decidability implying that he will only accept fights granted the opponent in question is in fact allows him to maintain his status quo as is.

So you start using the big latin terms, feeling and pretending you're smart, you really aren't. Hearing a big buzz word from a show and using it simply means you learned something from the SAT's. Additionally I can see why you like Mayweather because you're posing to be some smart, gifted person who can see the truth as it really is and you can't and using big words like that doesn't do the job either.

In the end, Mayweather has 3 options: accept fight, reject fight, delay fight. it doesn't matter the terms, whether agreeable or not, those are his 3 decisions. When someone makes a continual excuse for one reason or another, then I say his actions speak louder than words. Roger and Floyd Sr. say PEDs aren't a problem? Well then what's the hold up if that's their real concern. Frankly I do believe innocent before guilty, call me American but this isn't the Salem With Trials and we're hunting for PEDs instead of witches.

You're Mayweather is a poser like you; you "try" to act smart, Mayweather tries to act as if he's unbeatable. Well then take the fight and put the argument to rest. Here's another big term and its called associative reasoning. It means implication of a truth through lack of reasoning. It means you can determine the truth regardless of evidence by eliminating options based on their viability. If he didn't wan't to fight Pac because of purse split, that'd be an option [but he didn't say that]. If he didn't want to fight because of his uncle that'd be an option [but he didn't say that]. If he wished to clear his legal matters before hand that'd be an option [but he didn't say that]. His course of reason presented to the public is "on vacation" which is both not reasonable nor legitimate of an excuse in light of all possible excuses. There the only thing logic dictates is he is afraid of something and unwilling to face it.

PS: Yea, seriously stop the latin words, I did teach logic as a graduate student and you're not even smart enough to use the term properly. It would only be an argumentum ad populum if there was a lack of supporting evidence and I've provided it. So "homie" what's your defense of Mayweather. Oh wait there is none, wasted question I asked.

LOL

I can already sense most of the *****s here having a splitting headache reading your post but allow me to translate to a level they can understand but still refuses to see even if it's going to bite them in the ass.

FLOYD IS A ****IN FRAUD CHICKEN!

That's right *****s, basically what that quote dissected is simply exposing even your smart-ass *****s is still ******! LMAO!!!!!!!!!!

[Drunken Cat]

The problem with dictating a fallacy of argument via argumentum ad populum is that in this situation there is a lack of degree to which the validity of facts can be presented or offered. So seriously stop using the Rachel Maddows show to improve your lexicon of vocabulary because its an irritation to my eye seeing the use of "big words" improperly.

Whenever I do bash on Mayweather in my eyes I do place it with relative terms of the situation. For example:

1) drug testing via Olympic Style was called unnecessary and only warranted by Golden Boy Productions when it was requested years ago by Zab Judah during negotiations with Mosley. Therefore for GBP to warrant such a request for Mayweather therefore lacks legitimacy since you've predetermined it unnecessary. Since you like big words we'll call this a predicate fallacy.

2) the penalty on being over weight was warranted given he did so for his last fight against Marquez. The issue of drugs and PEDs has not been proven and has no bearing what so ever except for the opinion of Mayweather and his associates. Since there is actually no evidence, this is what we call communal reinforcement; where evidence is lacking reinforcement and its validation of truth only comes about through repetition of said opinions as facts despite lack of evidence.

3) despite whatever the purse split is, there is no denial that no matter who Mayweather fights, he cannot get more money fighting anyone else even with the A~side of a purse split than he can doing a 50/50 split with Pac. That is a fact. Given his moniker of "fighting for money" and the "money fights", then his refusal to accept the fight is a propositional fallacy of decidability implying that he will only accept fights granted the opponent in question is in fact allows him to maintain his status quo as is.

So you start using the big latin terms, feeling and pretending you're smart, you really aren't. Hearing a big buzz word from a show and using it simply means you learned something from the SAT's. Additionally I can see why you like Mayweather because you're posing to be some smart, gifted person who can see the truth as it really is and you can't and using big words like that doesn't do the job either.

In the end, Mayweather has 3 options: accept fight, reject fight, delay fight. it doesn't matter the terms, whether agreeable or not, those are his 3 decisions. When someone makes a continual excuse for one reason or another, then I say his actions speak louder than words. Roger and Floyd Sr. say PEDs aren't a problem? Well then what's the hold up if that's their real concern. Frankly I do believe innocent before guilty, call me American but this isn't the Salem With Trials and we're hunting for PEDs instead of witches.

You're Mayweather is a poser like you; you "try" to act smart, Mayweather tries to act as if he's unbeatable. Well then take the fight and put the argument to rest. Here's another big term and its called associative reasoning. It means implication of a truth through lack of reasoning. It means you can determine the truth regardless of evidence by eliminating options based on their viability. If he didn't wan't to fight Pac because of purse split, that'd be an option [but he didn't say that]. If he didn't want to fight because of his uncle that'd be an option [but he didn't say that]. If he wished to clear his legal matters before hand that'd be an option [but he didn't say that]. His course of reason presented to the public is "on vacation" which is both not reasonable nor legitimate of an excuse in light of all possible excuses. There the only thing logic dictates is he is afraid of something and unwilling to face it.

PS: Yea, seriously stop the latin words, I did teach logic as a graduate student and you're not even smart enough to use the term properly. It would only be an argumentum ad populum if there was a lack of supporting evidence and I've provided it. So "homie" what's your defense of Mayweather. Oh wait there is none, wasted question I asked.

This is some AAA rated ownage right here.

My favorite though was "propositional fallacy of decidability." LMFAO at this post

[Brockton Lip]

Thank you Mosley, this is what I've been saying. I thought it would be simple to understand but theres way more idiots on here than I thought. It was never about cleaning up the sport, it was about control and mind games.

[| THE KING |]

The problem with dictating a fallacy of argument via argumentum ad populum is that in this situation there is a lack of degree to which the validity of facts can be presented or offered. So seriously stop using the Rachel Maddows show to improve your lexicon of vocabulary because its an irritation to my eye seeing the use of "big words" improperly.

Whenever I do bash on Mayweather in my eyes I do place it with relative terms of the situation. For example:

1) drug testing via Olympic Style was called unnecessary and only warranted by Golden Boy Productions when it was requested years ago by Zab Judah during negotiations with Mosley. Therefore for GBP to warrant such a request for Mayweather therefore lacks legitimacy since you've predetermined it unnecessary. Since you like big words we'll call this a predicate fallacy.

2) the penalty on being over weight was warranted given he did so for his last fight against Marquez. The issue of drugs and PEDs has not been proven and has no bearing what so ever except for the opinion of Mayweather and his associates. Since there is actually no evidence, this is what we call communal reinforcement; where evidence is lacking reinforcement and its validation of truth only comes about through repetition of said opinions as facts despite lack of evidence.

3) despite whatever the purse split is, there is no denial that no matter who Mayweather fights, he cannot get more money fighting anyone else even with the A~side of a purse split than he can doing a 50/50 split with Pac. That is a fact. Given his moniker of "fighting for money" and the "money fights", then his refusal to accept the fight is a propositional fallacy of decidability implying that he will only accept fights granted the opponent in question is in fact allows him to maintain his status quo as is.

So you start using the big latin terms, feeling and pretending you're smart, you really aren't. Hearing a big buzz word from a show and using it simply means you learned something from the SAT's. Additionally I can see why you like Mayweather because you're posing to be some smart, gifted person who can see the truth as it really is and you can't and using big words like that doesn't do the job either.

In the end, Mayweather has 3 options: accept fight, reject fight, delay fight. it doesn't matter the terms, whether agreeable or not, those are his 3 decisions. When someone makes a continual excuse for one reason or another, then I say his actions speak louder than words. Roger and Floyd Sr. say PEDs aren't a problem? Well then what's the hold up if that's their real concern. Frankly I do believe innocent before guilty, call me American but this isn't the Salem With Trials and we're hunting for PEDs instead of witches.

You're Mayweather is a poser like you; you "try" to act smart, Mayweather tries to act as if he's unbeatable. Well then take the fight and put the argument to rest. Here's another big term and its called associative reasoning. It means implication of a truth through lack of reasoning. It means you can determine the truth regardless of evidence by eliminating options based on their viability. If he didn't wan't to fight Pac because of purse split, that'd be an option [but he didn't say that]. If he didn't want to fight because of his uncle that'd be an option [but he didn't say that]. If he wished to clear his legal matters before hand that'd be an option [but he didn't say that]. His course of reason presented to the public is "on vacation" which is both not reasonable nor legitimate of an excuse in light of all possible excuses. There the only thing logic dictates is he is afraid of something and unwilling to face it.

PS: Yea, seriously stop the latin words, I did teach logic as a graduate student and you're not even smart enough to use the term properly. It would only be an argumentum ad populum if there was a lack of supporting evidence and I've provided it. So "homie" what's your defense of Mayweather. Oh wait there is none, wasted question I asked.

Agree on all points. Good post!

[oA2o]

Mosely said it well, and of course he is spot on.

Too bad Mayweather's idiot fans are too bias to accept this simple premise.

As 1 of the idiot fans of Floyd (and Manny as well) I agree with Sugar but to say that this is the "only " reason is idiotic in itself. The dude.changed his nickname to Money and fights in Vegas will gross 4-9% more in May than November plain and simple. All of the Anti-Floyd fans (not idiots or haters) said he was afraid of Hatton and Mosley and look at what he did to the them. Floyd is drawing it out to get more people to want him to get KTFO. He is like Ali in this respect. I believe the fight will happen in May and i guarantee that he will destroy Pac Man. I feel that greed and hoping that Margarito will damage him are the real reasons.

[Drunken Cat]

As 1 of the idiot fans of Floyd (and Manny as well) I agree with Sugar but to say that this is the "only " reason is idiotic in itself. The dude.changed his nickname to Money and fights in Vegas will gross 4-9% more in May than November plain and simple. All of the Anti-Floyd fans (not idiots or haters) said he was afraid of Hatton and Mosley and look at what he did to the them. Floyd is drawing it out to get more people to want him to get KTFO. He is like Ali in this respect. I believe the fight will happen in May and i guarantee that he will destroy Pac Man. I feel that greed and hoping that Margarito will damage him are the real reasons.

I have no clue why you quoted me here, as your post has absolutely nothing to do with mine.