It's pretty clear that only certain rules apply to certain fights here.

[PRINCE O' PROSE]

I'm not getting anything.

You've been getting merked from all sides all day.

but he is wrong. It was the same fight. One man landed more shots, one man landed crisper shots, one man threw more punches. The only difference is Lucas is celebrated on this site and everyone is screaming robbery at the top of their lungs and Dirrell was called a coward and doesn't deserve to beat the hometown fighter.

No, you're wrong - that isn't even Clegg's argument, as far as I can tell. I didn't notice him bothering to analyze the Froch-Dirrell/Matthyse-Alexander parallel you drew as such. I'll glance back over, but the comments I saw to that effect were from jrosales13.



Clegg's point was more about you digging up an old result just to justify Alexander getting a cooked decision last night.



It was actually I who elaborated, a page or two back, on why the Froch-Dirrell/Matthyse-Alexander parallel you drew is such a faulty one - the points I made stand, are stronger than yours and aren't rationally assailable.

[Walt Liquor]

So what those moments didn't seal the fight he needed to do more and he didn't, just because he won rounds big doesn't make him any more the victor.

Watch the first 6 rounds some are close but Alexander didn't get blown out of any of them he easily could have won them as he was doing more flashy work, them being close or not doesn't matter. I still don;t see round 10 as any sort of decisive victory for Matthysse.

In boxing 6 small victories out does 3 big victories and a small one~ unless you are giving him an extra 10-8 round

So you gave alexander every close round and one round that mathysse badly outlanded alexander with cleaner harder more effective shots (rd 10).

You just said some of the first 6 rds are close and devin didnt get blown out in any of them. Which ones other than 4 werent close? Cuz that was a blowout rd with the kd for sure.

With all due respect, i know how fights are scored.

[jrosales13]

I just found Froch-Dirrell very hard fight to score. It was just an ugly fight, very difficult to score.

I found Matthysse-Alexander easier to score.

I honestly don't think both fights are comparable IMO.

[The Gambler1981]

So you gave alexander every close round and one round that mathysse badly outlanded alexander with cleaner harder more effective shots (rd 10).

You just said some of the first 6 rds are close and devin didnt get blown out in any of them. Which ones other than 4 werent close? Cuz that was a blowout rd with the kd for sure.

With all due respect, i know how fights are scored.

He doesn't need to win round 10 if he won five of the first 6 and 9, you can win all the close rounds that is not impossible. this isn't flipping a coin to decide who wins close rounds if a guy can edges close rounds they win it counts the same as a better round. Especially if they land the flashier blows which was the first 6 rounds, Alexander put in the scoring work while Matthysse punished him, he should have started earlier or finished the job~

[Clegg]

Kev, I think you're a good guy and I take the time to read your posts, but I think you make some silly arguments sometimes when trying to justify an opinion/scorecard/whatever. Nothing personal/serious intended.

I'm not getting anything. Clegg's whole argument is that the fight is old and because Dirrell ran backwards, it isn't the same fight, but he is wrong. It was the same fight. One man landed more shots, one man landed crisper shots, one man threw more punches. The only difference is Lucas is celebrated on this site and everyone is screaming robbery at the top of their lungs and Dirrell was called a coward and doesn't deserve to beat the hometown fighter.

Now you're telling me what my argument is (and getting it wrong)

This your basic approach: you look at a situation and then try to twist it to fit your worldview. You then argue in favour of your view based upon your intentional misconception, without addressing the specific arguments of those you disagree with or providing facts.

Case in point: the premise of this thread is "the same posters who complained about one roberry didn't complain about another".

Now, if I was to make a thread like that, I'd name the posters responsible, then I'd provide links to their posts. Otherwise, anyone could make that claim about anything. Now, I'm not expecting you to spend hours doing research, but if you're saying that it's the same posters then you must already have their names in your mind and so naming them would take no effort at all.

And here you're doing the same thing again. Rather than address my comments you're telling me that I don't think the two fights are the same because Dirrell went backwards. Where did I say that? I didn't! But it fits your outlook to ignore all the argument I made pointing out your blatant bias and obvious ******ity and to instead pretend that I said something I didn't and then answer the claims that I didn't even make. Brilliant stuff.

[Walt Liquor]

I just found Froch-Dirrell very hard fight to score. It was just an ugly fight, very difficult to score.

I found Matthysse-Alexander easier to score.

I honestly don't think both fights are comparable IMO.

It was much easier to score. Every reputable score card i've seen (which means gambler's card is excluded because he showed In this thread he only gave mathysse consideration in rounds he completely dominated) has the following rounds scored the same- rd 2-alexander, rd 4-lucas +1. rd 6-lucas, rd 7- lucas, rd 8-lucas, rd 9-alex, rd 10-lucas. Thats 70% of the roujds that were clear.

I know you wont find that kind of concensous on the froch-dirrel fight.

[PRINCE O' PROSE]

Clegg: I am not Check's **** in arms, we were actually just debating in the lounge in disagreement right now. I am a flattered that you remember posts I make, but honestly I don't remember any posts you make, so I don't really have a comeback for you, my dear e-friend

Clegg's a fine poster. You're both good cats.



Honestly, I think Check's argument is nuanced from yours. I think you saw something in his post that struck a chord with your point of view in words, but didn't detect/don't share his underlying agenda.



That guy's whole schtick is just a "YOOOOO ESSSSS AYYYYY, YOOOOO ESSSSS AYYYYY, YOOOOO ESSSSS AYYYYY" nationalistic trip unconvincingly veiled in some passive-aggressive, disingenous victim act.

[Check]

You've been getting merked from all sides all day.





No, you're wrong - that isn't even Clegg's argument, as far as I can tell. I didn't notice him bothering to analyze the Froch-Dirrell/Matthyse-Alexander parallel you drew as such. I'll glance back over, but the comments I saw to that effect were from jrosales13.



Clegg's point was more about you digging up an old result just to justify Alexander getting a cooked decision last night.



It was actually I who elaborated, a page or two back, on why the Froch-Dirrell/Matthyse-Alexander parallel you drew is such a faulty one - the points I made stand, are stronger than yours and aren't rationally assailable.

That post right there explains it all to me. You guys are so fixated on one thing that it blinds you. In NO way, shape or form am I justifying Alexander getting the victory. What I am doing is pointing out the double standard against many Americans(not Alexander in this case, but Dirrell). I could give two ****s about Devon Alexander. Truth be told, I don't even LIKE that many boxers. I certainly don't like all American fighters.

[Check]

Kev, I think you're a good guy and I take the time to read your posts, but I think you make some silly arguments sometimes when trying to justify an opinion/scorecard/whatever. Nothing personal/serious intended.

Now you're telling me what my argument is (and getting it wrong)

This your basic approach: you look at a situation and then try to twist it to fit your worldview. You then argue in favour of your view based upon your intentional misconception, without addressing the specific arguments of those you disagree with or providing facts.

Case in point: the premise of this thread is "the same posters who complained about one roberry didn't complain about another".

Now, if I was to make a thread like that, I'd name the posters responsible, then I'd provide links to their posts. Otherwise, anyone could make that claim about anything. Now, I'm not expecting you to spend hours doing research, but if you're saying that it's the same posters then you must already have their names in your mind and so naming them would take no effort at all.

And here you're doing the same thing again. Rather than address my comments you're telling me that I don't think the two fights are the same because Dirrell went backwards. Where did I say that? I didn't! But it fits your outlook to ignore all the argument I made pointing out your blatant bias and obvious ******ity and to instead pretend that I said something I didn't and then answer the claims that I didn't even make. Brilliant stuff.

Like you stated it's far too much work to dig up threads from years ago. If you were here a few years ago, which you were, you know it happened. I can't recall posters per se but it was an open invite for posters that did feel that way to come defend themselves. Also, you said I am trying to shoehorn my ideas and that the fights were not the same. The only thing that was possibly different about them is Dirrell moved back and Lucas went forward. If it is something different, I'm all ears.

[Walt Liquor]

He doesn't need to win round 10 if he won five of the first 6 and 9, you can win all the close rounds that is not impossible. this isn't flipping a coin to decide who wins close rounds if a guy can edges close rounds they win it counts the same as a better round. Especially if they land the flashier blows which was the first 6 rounds, Alexander put in the scoring work while Matthysse punished him, he should have started earlier or finished the job~

This would be valid if alexander landed the flashier more frequent blows in even 5 of the first 6 rounds, which he didnt. Alexander did the scorijg work while lucas punished him? So he wasnt scoring while punishing alexander? Only "flashy" work scores now?

You can keep the lecture stuff like "this isnt flipping a coin". And all the winning a close rd is the same as winning a wide rd, i know that shi t. Ive been watching boxing for decades.

I brought it up becsuse you said mathysse only did work in 4, 7, 8. Which is total bullshi t.