Originally posted by LoadedWraps
View Post
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.
Leave a comment: