Comments Thread For: Sulaiman: Floyd-Canelo Winner Should Face Pacquiao

[The Big Dunn]

true. I agree with that. just don't agree that it was a robbery. buth great fights that could've went either way. I had Pac 115-12 in II and 114-114 in III. some saw 115-112 for JMM in II and 116-112 for JMM in III.
But to compare it to Pac-Bradley, I believe is not the same. Many had Pac up 118-110 and almost all had Pac around 117-111. not even saying it was you, but someone on here compared the 2 as they were both similar robberies

agree that the greater majority had manny beating bradley.

How can you be so stubborn when presented with plain facts? You're not Fetta dense. Again, the press scores:

JMM winning: 57
JMM not winning 87

I said a majority did not have JMM winning. Where's the disconnect?

The disconnect is you have done an incomplete one sided analysis using only the information that supports your thesis. Thats typical of pac fans. The complete stats show clearly your statement is incorrect.

JMM winning: 57
Manny winning: 51
Draw:36

SO when discussing winning and not winning its:

Manny not winning: 93
JMM not winning: 87

which means the majority of writers/media had Manny NOT winning. Hence, your statement is false.

You are making a lineal comparison using 3 variables. Not valid.

[The Big Dunn]

57 out of 144=40% JMM winning
87 out of 144=60% JMM not winning.

51 out of 144=35% MP winning
93 out of 144=65% MP not winning

So basically JMM has 6 more votes than Manny winning

Yeah, all I said is a majority did not have JMM winning, and got called out on it wrongly.

Now Dunn doesn't claim it's a robbery, which is fine. But a lot of posters do. You can't have a robbery with a majority of press row scores not even having the guy winning. Robberies have consensus, like hardly anybody had the wrong guy winning (or drawing) in Pac Bradley, Abril Rios, Lara PWill, Campillo vs Shumenov/Cloud

dont lie HeroBando. I never said robbery. Your statement was wrong and I proved it using simple math. Now you are trying to change the debate. Sad.

OC you are correct. A slim majority thought JMM won, but its still a majority any way you cut it.

[HeroBando]

agree that the greater majority had manny beating bradley.



The disconnect is you have done an incomplete one sided analysis using only the information that supports your thesis. Thats typical of pac fans. The complete stats show clearly your statement is incorrect.

JMM winning: 57
Manny winning: 51
Draw:36

SO when discussing winning and not winning its:

Manny not winning: 93
JMM not winning: 87

which means the majority of writers/media had Manny NOT winning. Hence, your statement is false.

You are making a lineal comparison using 3 variables. Not valid.

This is wrong, because I said nothing about Pac. All i said a majority did not have JMM winning. I'm gonna start thinking you're just as ******ed as most of your cohorts if you can't figure this out on 3rd try, it's already a lot of leeway:

JMM winning: 57
JMM not winning: 87

87 > 57

[HeroBando]

dont lie HeroBando. I never said robbery. Your statement was wrong and I proved it using simple math. Now you are trying to change the debate. Sad.

OC you are correct. A slim majority thought JMM won, but its still a majority any way you cut it.

You must be angry cause not only are you unable to do basic logic today, but are totally misreading what I said:

"Now Dunn doesn't claim it's a robbery, which is fine. But a lot of posters do. "

How do you get to "Dunn said robbery" from here? Take a break

[Fetta]

dont lie HeroBando. I never said robbery. Your statement was wrong and I proved it using simple math. Now you are trying to change the debate. Sad.

OC you are correct. A slim majority thought JMM won, but its still a majority any way you cut it.

Hero will still spin this "You see its a slim majority but not a solid majority or just majority so you are wrong"

And this is just his one source. Lets get the boxer/trainer tally and fans reaction to this. We already know about robbery of the year voting

[rasdun]

Are we still talking about now or are we drifting into past accolades

how can you analyze how good a fighter is now without considering past accolades?

[Fetta]

how can you analyze how good a fighter is now without considering past accolades?

Cause if I think Chavez Sr was great but if you throw him in the ring right now im not gonna say hes still great because of past victories.

Roy jones is still fighting do you think hes still great

[rasdun]

dont lie HeroBando. I never said robbery. Your statement was wrong and I proved it using simple math. Now you are trying to change the debate. Sad.

OC you are correct. A slim majority thought JMM won, but its still a majority any way you cut it.

bendos point is that a slim majority didn't have JMM winning. b/c less than 50% of those polled though JMM won. More though JMM than though Pac won, but still, less than a majority thought he won bc more than 50% though Pac won or a draw - that's his point

[rasdun]

Cause if I think Chavez Sr was great but if you throw him in the ring right now im not gonna say hes still great because of past victories.

Roy jones is still fighting do you think hes still great

r u serious? do u just want to argue every point? do I really have to explain that fights that occurred in '09-'11 may still be relevant when considering a present fighter's greatness, whereas fights that occurred in '94-'99 aren't that relevant

[Fetta]

r u serious? do u just want to argue every point? do I really have to explain that fights that occurred in '09-'11 may still be relevant when considering a present fighter's greatness, whereas fights that occurred in '94-'99 aren't that relevant

What? So Pac past fights are relevant but others past fights arent? This makes no sense at all.

It seems you wanna say "yes Pac got KO'd by JMM but Pac is still great cause of the Hatton KO a few years back."

If im wrong with this assesment then please explain how this works