If Pac beats Crawford....do you place him above May in the TBE race?

[PAC-BOY]

Speaking of a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.....simple question for you.

Do you give Pacquiao credit for defeating Bradley in their 2nd fight? Was that not a controversial fight, according to your statements? That's all I want to know.

Here are the facts:
Timothy Bradley is aiming for a winter return to the ring once he has come through his rehabilitation after suffering a severe calf injury in his last bout.

The former WBO welterweight champion tore his calf in two places during the rematch with Manny Pacquiao, which saw him lose his world title in April.
http://www.givemesport.com/484039-ti...ry-in-december


Was it a controversial win, or do you give Pacquiao full credit?

Bradley is a beast of an athlete. He is no walk in the park for any fighter 140 or 147. He hurt his ankle in the first fight. He hurt his calf in the second fight.
And to answer your question Yes...It did hinder his performance and may have had a damper on his decision loss in his 2nd and his gift decision/ robbery in the first. But ummm the did fight a third time. With no excuses. With a new trainer and no injuries. And Manny yet again put to sleep any controversy. So yes i do the wins were tainted with controversy and also resolved with rematches each time.

[travestyny]

Bradley is a beast of an athlete. He is no walk in the park for any fighter 140 or 147. He hurt his ankle in the first fight. He hurt his calf in the second fight.
And to answer your question Yes...It did hinder his performance and may have had a damper on his decision loss in his 2nd and his gift decision/ robbery in the first. But ummm the did fight a third time. With no excuses. With a new trainer and no injuries. And Manny yet again put to sleep any controversy. So yes i do the wins were tainted with controversy and also resolved with rematches each time.

If the 2nd Pacquiao win was tainted with controversy, then why did you give Pac so much credit for it? Boxing scene has a very powerful and amazing search function.

Here you are laughing at his injury, not claiming it was a controversial win for Pac:

Bradley humiliated himself with that 2nd half performance.

but he hurt his leg....again!

Here you are saying the 2nd fight helped make him the fighter of the year, in your eyes, for 2014. Mind you, the other 2 boxers he fought were Rios and Algieri:

2013 really ****** for Boxing IMO. A lot of top guys fought shlt fights with lesser opposition. Manny beating Bradley like he did was a good win. Just getting up from that KO loss and beating Rios, Bradley and Algieri like they were just light years from his league was pretty good. Im gonna go with Manny and its not because im a fan of his.

You said he beat him like he was light years from his league, not like he had a severe calf injury that made the win controversial.

And here you are saying the 3rd fight means very little because Pacquiao already beat him twice. Doesn't seem like you thought that second win was very controversial at all:

I pulling for Bradley to win. Manny is retiring. Bradley is moving on in Boxing. Id love to see him take a step up than backwards.

The future of boxing means more to me than a sunset ride to retirement. Fighting a guy who you beat twice means little to me. So i hope Timmy brings the A game and wins.

Care to explain these discrepancies?

[PAC-BOY]

again, my view that an ideal situation is not always the reality have fully addressed the points you raised on your long reply...

like, and i quote;

"injuries happen" No shlt they happen.
But what you fail terribly to comprehend is because that injury happen It gave the opposing side an advantage to win. Almost a sure win."

i am fully aware an injury to a fighter could tip the balance to the other fighter's favor....i don't need to be in the ring 77 times to know that....but surely as you do accept injury or **** happens in boxing you have a very difficult time accepting the end result....which is reality....

yes, injury is a b*tch; that cast doubts or questions on the fight outcome....

on the above, i say the win is diminished...and even say, the result could be subject to debates or disputations.....

but stepping back a little, the win is still a win....valid and legal....that's another reality....

yes, you can have debates or disputations on what might have been IF no injury happened.....or even demand a rematch.....

a rematch is ok when warranted; by demands of the fans satisfied with a very close fight and clamoring for more, unfinished business because of an "inconclusive" fight (like a win diminished by an injury to the other fighter).....

but hey, you have not answered my questions:

"and who could guarantee that no injury will happen in the rematch? or at the trilogy? who can guarantee they are gonna wake up in the morning? Only guarantee in life is death my brother. WTF does that have to do with a controversial win or loss in the sport of boxing??

could you guarantee that?........

Why ask a ****** ***ing question? WTF does that have to do with a controversial win or not? You keep going around the reality and avoiding the main topic with Injuries happen and blah blah blah bullshlt. It's so simple a ***ing 3rd grader can understand it but you out of sheer pride or idiocy cant grasp the true definition and or admit that if a injury happens and they do happen (no shlt) That WAS NOT brought on by the opposing fighter due to a punch (because this is boxing)(that is a rule) Then that changes the purity of the match. (In wich will also bring forth CONTROVERSY)
Even fighters believe the same. Yet you dont. Although if you had been in the ring 77 or even 7 times your tune would surely be different. I could guarantee that. Below will be a video of a fighter (Salido) who believes the fight was prematurely stopped despite the reasons or whatever the case maybe...You dont quit in boxing. A boxer quit and still got the win (due to a HOLY SHlT a injury) yet many feel it shouldn't be stopped or they shouldn't have quit. OMFG....there is controversy here. Due to an injury nobody knew WAS GONNA HAPPEN OR WASN'T GUARANTEED LOL BY ANYONE! . Make no mistake...This is only a prime example not to be taking from the actual Manny Floyd topic of controversy.

[PAC-BOY]

If the 2nd Pacquiao win was tainted with controversy, then why did you give Pac so much credit for it? Boxing scene has a very powerful and amazing search function.

Here you are laughing at his injury, not claiming it was a controversial win for Pac:


Here you are saying the 2nd fight helped make him the fighter of the year, in your eyes, for 2014. Mind you, the other 2 boxers he fought were Rios and Algieri:


You said he beat him like he was light years from his league, not like he had a severe calf injury that made the win controversial.

And here you are saying the 3rd fight means very little because Pacquiao already beat him twice. Doesn't seem like you thought that second win was very controversial at all:



Care to explain these discrepancies?

again...since you failed to understand (shocker) It was all stetted in the third rematch. Tim is a really good fighter. A tough game guy. Just not on Manny Pacquiaos level. Manny di already beat him twice. And in my opinion would beat him on any given day. 1 leg two legs three legs i dont care. Manny is to much for Tim. Although Bradley had is injuries to bargain a rematch...they worked and he got them. Thats called controversy.

You dont agree?
If not...why do you think they fought three times? lol id love to hear your answers on this. Youre gona make me laugh i know it!

[travestyny]

again...since you failed to understand (shocker) It was all stetted in the third rematch. Tim is a really good fighter. A tough game guy. Just not on Manny Pacquiaos level. Manny di already beat him twice. And in my opinion would beat him on any given day. 1 leg two legs three legs i dont care. Manny is to much for Tim. Although Bradley had is injuries to bargain a rematch...they worked and he got them. Thats called controversy.

You dont agree?
If not...why do you think they fought three times? lol id love to hear your answers on this. Youre gona make me laugh i know it!

Dude, you are not being consistent.

YOU DID NOT AT ALL SAY THAT THE 2ND PACQUIAO WIN WAS A CONTROVERSY. IN FACT, YOU SAID IT HELPED MAKE HIM FIGHTER OF THE YEAR IN YOUR EYES!

UNBELIEVABLE.

Who wanted a 3rd Bradley fight??? EVEN YOU SAID SEEING A 3RD ONE MEANS LITTLE, so why are you trying to say that it settled something now??? You're scrambling to cover your tracks, dude.

Why did they have it? Go ask ARUM!!! Most DIDN'T WANT IT!

[PAC-BOY]

oh, i have to get your answer on this one, too....

"and on what ifs......yup...the definition of controversy"

what if is a suppositional question; question that asks someone to imagine what might happen or what might have happened. It is used to expand on an item under discussion...to discuss/explore possibilities.....but it does not readily relates to controversies...

The thread topic itself "if pac beats crawford....do you place him above may in the tbe race?" i put manny above floyd without crawford. Thats just my opinion on it. Even if he loses to crawford i would. I have reason for it. I give manny mad props to fight a hot prospect and dangerous guy like crawford at this satge in his career. Im picking manny to win...but i think crawford is gonn beat manny.


is a suppositional question anchored on "if pac beats crawford.." a what if classic example....because pac vs crawford is still on the drawing board...

would you attach controversy on the above?bro...this has nothing to do with injuries and is not on any level a classic example of controversy in that matter... Lol yet again your steering off the track. But to answer...this will always be a controversy in boxing. Who is ranked where and why and blah blah blah. It is all matter of opinion. Ring ratings is so bias now. All the sanctioning bodies can eat a dlck with there ratings. Espn and all other networks have their views....fans like yopurself and i have our beliefs and so on....

. . .

[tangalog2200]

Why ask a ****** ***ing question? WTF does that have to do with a controversial win or not? You keep going around the reality and avoiding the main topic with Injuries happen and blah blah blah bullshlt. It's so simple a ***ing 3rd grader can understand it but you out of sheer pride or idiocy cant grasp the true definition and or admit that if a injury happens and they do happen (no shlt) That WAS NOT brought on by the opposing fighter due to a punch (because this is boxing)(that is a rule) Then that changes the purity of the match. (In wich will also bring forth CONTROVERSY)
Even fighters believe the same. Yet you dont. Although if you had been in the ring 77 or even 7 times your tune would surely be different. I could guarantee that. Below will be a video of a fighter (Salido) who believes the fight was prematurely stopped despite the reasons or whatever the case maybe...You dont quit in boxing. A boxer quit and still got the win (due to a HOLY SHlT a injury) yet many feel it shouldn't be stopped or they shouldn't have quit. OMFG....there is controversy here. Due to an injury nobody knew WAS GONNA HAPPEN OR WASN'T GUARANTEED LOL BY ANYONE! . Make no mistake...This is only a prime example not to be taking from the actual Manny Floyd topic of controversy.

"Then that changes the purity of the match. (In wich will also bring forth CONTROVERSY)"

wow! "changes the purity of the match"....ride on!

can you elaborate on the above?....oh, hold on....please, let me guess....

an injury changes the purity of the match!?.....

what more?

ah, cheating on the scales!? and....

dictating the gloves of your opponent!?

resorting to illegal or dirty tactics!?

very bad score cards!?

very incompetent or biased ref!?

using peds!?

i may have missed more, kindly add to the list...

[PAC-BOY]

Dude, you are not being consistent.

YOU DID NOT AT ALL SAY THAT THE 2ND PACQUIAO WIN WAS A CONTROVERSY. IN FACT, YOU SAID IT HELPED MAKE HIM FIGHTER OF THE YEAR IN YOUR EYES!

UNBELIEVABLE.

Who wanted a 3rd Bradley fight??? EVEN YOU SAID SEEING A 3RD ONE MEANS LITTLE, so why are you trying to say that it settled something now??? You're scrambling to cover your tracks, dude.

Why did they have it? Go ask ARUM!!! Most DIDN'T WANT IT!

lol Stop trying so hard. You cant stump me. Im to smart for you bro. Its not gonna work. After the first fight i didnt want to see 2nd fight. After the 2nd fight i didnt want to see a third for sure. But all these claims of Bradley (like Mannys claims with Floyd) of Bradley having a hurt foot one time...( that i dint buy) calf muscle in 2nd...which i did think he did hurt. I still dont think he would beat Manny with a baseball bat in his hand. *** no i didnt wanna see another one. But since they were going to despite what i thought...oh well Lets watch Manny beat him again...and pray there is not hemorrhoids or broken nails or fractured ribs or wtf ever. You too are trying to steer off the main topic. This is how you know you got your point across. When the other party (you) tries to divert the attention to another topic by trying to find fault in another topic that doesnt pertain the the topic at hand. What will happen next is you will start saying i said this or that and all that bullshlt. Or start by being a grammar police with typos or misspelled words to change the outcome of the original topic....lol Youre reaching though. Im just not gonna let you change the topic. Simply because i already stumped you lol. ALl you can do now is agree to disagree. Have some dignity man.

[travestyny]

lol Stop trying so hard. You cant stump me. Im to smart for you bro. Its not gonna work. After the first fight i didnt want to see 2nd fight. After the 2nd fight i didnt want to see a third for sure. But all these claims of Bradley (like Mannys claims with Floyd) of Bradley having a hurt foot one time...( that i dint buy) calf muscle in 2nd...which i did think he did hurt. I still dont think he would beat Manny with a baseball bat in his hand. *** no i didnt wanna see another one. But since they were going to despite what i thought...oh well Lets watch Manny beat him again...and pray there is not hemorrhoids or broken nails or fractured ribs or wtf ever. You too are trying to steer off the main topic. This is how you know you got your point across. When the other party (you) tries to divert the attention to another topic by trying to find fault in another topic that doesnt pertain the the topic at hand. What will happen next is you will start saying i said this or that and all that bullshlt. Or start by being a grammar police with typos or misspelled words to change the outcome of the original topic....lol Youre reaching though. Im just not gonna let you change the topic. Simply because i already stumped you lol. ALl you can do now is agree to disagree. Have some dignity man.

ahahahahahahahahaha. WOWWWWWWWWW.


Well played...except no one believes your bull****. Now explain.


If the 2nd Pac/Bradley fight was controversial, how in the world could you say that it helped make Manny the fighter of the year in a year in which the other two fighters he defeated were Rios and Algieri???

Everyone can see through what you're doing. It's not working. Care to answer the question?

THE WIN WAS CONTROVERSIAL...YET IT MAKES HIM THE FIGHTER OF THE YEAR AND THERE IS NO REMATCH NEEDED. HAHAHAHA. COME ONNNNNN. WHEN YOU GET CAUGHT IN YOUR BULL****, JUST ADMIT IT. DON'T PLAY THE "I'M NOT CAUGHT OUT THERE. I'M SMARTER THAN YOU" CARD. YOU ARE CAUGHT OUT THERE!!! HAVE SOME DAMN DIGNITY.

[PAC-BOY]

"Then that changes the purity of the match. (In wich will also bring forth CONTROVERSY)"

wow! "changes the purity of the match"....ride on!

can you elaborate on the above?....oh, hold on....please, let me guess....

an injury changes the purity of the match!?.....

what more?

ah, cheating on the scales!? and....

dictating the gloves of your opponent!?

resorting to illegal or dirty tactics!?

very bad score cards!?

very incompetent or biased ref!?

using peds!?

i may have missed more, kindly add to the list...

Nope....nothing to add to the list. Why would i want to add to the list? I will choose to stay on the topic. A injury that happens in a fight not brought on by a punch by either fighter that hinders the outcome or purity of the bout will bring forth controversy despite who wins or loses. Because unless its a draw...someone has to win and someone has to lose.

Gee maybe thats why another rule of if a injury happens before the 4th it can be declared a NC. or ND. So there is no winner. No controversy! But after that 4th round...Its official. Someone is gonna win or lose and the door to controversy is officially open if a injury happens outside of the fighters hands unless cause by a punch! Stay on topic. You cannot compare. A fact is a fact. I for one understand the definition of controversy and how it plays and has played so many rolls in the sport of Boxing. In the armatures as well as the pros.