Comments Thread For: Miguel Cotto Return Date Remains in Limbo, Time Running Out

[elfag]

cotto is a ****ing crybaby. everytime he loses, he runs out the ring to go sulk in his locker room and avoid the post fight interview. then in the days that follow we have the series of butt hurt interviews to follow with him *****ing about how he was supposedly robbed

[bigjer88]

It's actually not, and while you may form opinions based on observations and ability to reason, it's severely flawed logic to assume because something happened once (allegedly) it has happened many times. The burden of proof is on you, and just because this isn't a court of law doesn't mean you don't require proof when asked for it - you may not get thrown in jail, but your point and post go right out the window.

Just a few points/questions:

1. I appreciate your point regarding the "flawed logic." By itself, merely getting caught cheating in one fight is not "proof" that you cheated in a previous fight. This is why I don't rely exclusively on that point in forming my opinion. My previous post mentioned other factors as well. There are still even more that I did not include. In isolation, no single factor is dispositive. Taken together, they are compelling.

2. Your inclusion of the word "allegedly" reflects an underlying bias ... which tends to weaken your argument. Happy to elaborate on this point if you'd like.

3. Assuming I do have the burden of proof, what standard of proof do you think is appropriate in a conversation between boxing fans?

[The Problem Child]

Golovkin in June or just retire you coward.

[LoadedWraps]

Just a few points/questions:

1. I appreciate your point regarding the "flawed logic." By itself, merely getting caught cheating in one fight is not "proof" that you cheated in a previous fight. This is why I don't rely exclusively on that point in forming my opinion. My previous post mentioned other factors as well. There are still even more that I did not include. In isolation, no single factor is dispositive. Taken together, they are compelling.

2. Your inclusion of the word "allegedly" reflects an underlying bias ... which tends to weaken your argument. Happy to elaborate on this point if you'd like.

3. Assuming I do have the burden of proof, what standard of proof do you think is appropriate in a conversation between boxing fans?

Well, if you are going to say a fighter cheated, with confidence, and without any sort of evidence, how do you expect such a bold statement to be received?

And by all means elaborate on point 2. I am biased because I used the world allegedly? I will admit bias, as a fan of the man, but I also accept the facts, and the facts don't tell us he cheated in any fight with certainty, so why would I not argue against someone who claims the fighter cheated in his biggest fights?

[bigjer88]

Well, if you are going to say a fighter cheated, with confidence, and without any sort of evidence, how do you expect such a bold statement to be received?

And by all means elaborate on point 2. I am biased because I used the world allegedly? I will admit bias, as a fan of the man, but I also accept the facts, and the facts don't tell us he cheated in any fight with certainty, so why would I not argue against someone who claims the fighter cheated in his biggest fights?

LoadedWraps:

I'll try to keep this short, but that may be difficult.

The difference between you and me as it relates to this argument is that you look at every potential ambiguity and resolve it in your fighter's favor. That would be appropriate for a defense attorney in a criminal trial, but in a discussion between normal people arguing opinions, it reflects bias (which you have already conceded), which does not help your argument.

I, however, do not resolve every ambiguity in Cotto's favor. Examples: 1) Some Cotto fans have argued that Margarito's 3-3 record since the Cotto fight shows that he needed loaded wraps to succeed and, therefore, must have used them against Cotto. I don't find that argument persuasive. Fighters get old...they lose a step...and that lost step could make all the difference...especially with a pressure/volume fighting style. 2) As everyone knows, Cotto himself has pointed to the post-fight photos which allegedly show anomalies in Margarito's wraps. I do not know enough about the way wraps should look after a fight to to be persuaded by Cotto's forensic work.

More on the bias point: the first Cotto-Margarito fight actually made me a Margarito fan (until the aftermath of the Mosley fight). I was amazed by Margarito's chin. It remains one of the best I have ever seen. His predatorial persistence in Cotto 1 was something to behold. I had also been impressed by his recent demolition of Cintron. I like many others, thought he was going to kill a faded Mosley.

But Margarito was a shell of himself against the old man. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that Margarito did not attempt to cheat against Mosley. Why did he seem so shaken before the fight even started? Because the controversy in the dressing room rattled him? Margarito was no stranger to adversity. Hell, one fight ago he walked through hell to destroy Cotto. He showed the poise and iron will to respond to adversity with machine-like perseverance. If he was confident of his innocence, he would have been able to put it out of his mind and do his job. But he looked like a scared child before, during and after the Mosley fight.

Which leads us back to your bias. To use the word "allegedly" when discussing the hand-wrap issue in the Mosley fight is an example of you exploiting the smallest of openings to fit your desired narrative. The Department of Justice analyzed the inserts after that fight and found calcium and sulfur which, when combined with oxygen, make plaster of Paris. I expect that you will somehow try to poke holes in this finding (e.g., someone could have tampered with the inserts, the chain of custody was compromised, the CSAC concluded that Margarito didn't know about the inserts, etc.) ... but you really have to be willing to do some serious intellectual voodoo to completely discount the significance of DOJ report.

In addition, you state that I, "sa[id] a fighter cheated, with confidence, and without any sort of evidence[.]" Here, I think you need to tell me what you mean by "evidence," as you seem to think that the only evidence is "direct evidence," which is simply not true. There are additional forms of evidence -- like circumstantial evidence, scientific evidence, expert analysis -- all of which I've mentioned in support of my position.

What I did was take all those different forms and pieces of evidence (crediting some, discounting some) apply reason, and build my argument over time. I did not leap to any conclusions simply because I wanted a certain outcome to be true.

What you did was to view every piece and form of evidence with profound skepticism because you like Margarito. Again, that would be the perfect strategy in a criminal defense trial where, as you seem to know, the prosecution must meet the highest standard of proof in the U.S. legal system: guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is no such burden when arguing opinions, and I don't expect you to be persuaded. You made up your mind a long time ago.