Let's settle this with votes: Was Castillo robbed vs Mayweather?

[koolkc107]

So what is different then when someone believes Castillo won the first fight against Floyd?

I did not call Castillo losing to FM a robbery BTW. That term requires a pretty high threshold for me to use. Even really bad decisions I do not call a robbery most of the time.

Come on you are one of the lil'g boys on this site. I know it and you do to. Avoiding Jacobs? I would say the probable reason he did not fight Jacobs again was because he had a massive payday with Canelo (which was his next fight). Does your disdain for Golovkin outweigh using some common sense? So he should have put millions of dollars on hold to fight Jacobs again instead of facing Canelo? Yeah that makes sense in no world.

I stopped calling him Lil g when he fought Jacobs and Canelo.

Almost went back to it after the Vanes fight but I figured the IBF punished him enough.

You have the right to your opinion.

But, when I discuss such fights- if I am trying to be objective- I try to include all pertinent facts in a re-examination.

For example, if I was making the case that Jacobs beat GGG, I would never omit the fact that Golovkin scored a knockdown.

But, I find those that want to make the argument about Castillo winning leave out a whole bunch of things that do not jibe with their premise.

Just sayin'...

[koolkc107]

The more you type the more you get exposed. I never said it was a robbery, in fact I just posted a second ago saying it wasn't. But clearly you got an agenda that doesn't allow you to read and respond. Your mind is already set on what I think because I am challenging your silly notion that anyone who thinks Floyd should have lost is engaging in revisionist history.

Floyd's official win may be controversial but one thing that is not is that you lost this argument.

You didn't type it but you are certainly backing the OP's premise.

I have no problem lumping you in and the fact that you are trying to now distance yourself speaks volumes.

Good try tho...

[Diego Rodriguez]

I stopped calling him Lil g when he fought Jacobs and Canelo.

Almost went back to it after the Vanes fight but I figured the IBF punished him enough.

You have the right to your opinion.

But, when I discuss such fights- if I am trying to be objective- I try to include all pertinent facts in a re-examination.

For example, if I was making the case that Jacobs beat GGG, I would never omit the fact that Golovkin scored a knockdown.

But, I find those that want to make the argument about Castillo winning leave out a whole bunch of things that do not jibe with their premise.

Just sayin'...

I have no problem with any of this.

I will say though the Jacobs knock down was a recorded knock down. You do have to distinguish between what should have been ruled a knock down and what was actually recorded as one.

But I have no problem discussing everything about the fight and why you believe the decision was right.

[Diego Rodriguez]

You didn't type it but you are certainly backing the OP's premise.

I have no problem lumping you in and the fact that you are trying to now distance yourself speaks volumes.

Good try tho...

Just when I give you a pass you start up.

Sorry I wrote specifically that it wasn't a robbery. I thought Castillo won a close fight.

Read my comments from the first to last. There is no distancing anything.

You are in fact the one distancing yourself from your initial ****** comment that people saying Castillo won are engaging in revisionist history. You do not even understand the term.

Also you claimed I said it was a robbery, those words never came out of my mouth.

You got owned dude, just stop.

[Illmatic94]

This fight was controversial as soon as the judges announced the winner followed by a rain of boos. what the fck does "revisionist history" got to do with this? theres people that still debate SRL/Hagler and say Hagler was robbed. is that revisionist history? what if i say Whitaker was robbed vs Chavez. is that revisionist? lol

this is the fight that also proves people pick and choose when to believe compubox stats. those who say Floyd won call the stats bullsht and biased. but when they want to prove Floyd beat ODLH they pull out punch stats smh. this is why i never cared about those numbers because people only find them useful when it supports their agenda.

another thing is when people say Castillo "didn't do enough". wtf does that mean? these are the same types that say Lara beat Canelo. what is "enough"?

[koolkc107]

Just when I give you a pass you start up.

Sorry I wrote specifically that it wasn't a robbery. I thought Castillo won a close fight.

Read my comments from the first to last. There is no distancing anything.

You are in fact the one distancing yourself from your initial ****** comment that people saying Castillo won are engaging in revisionist history. You do not even understand the term.

Also you claimed I said it was a robbery, those words have never came out of my mouth.

You got owned dude, just stop.

I have been consistent since I started here.

Folks engaging in speculation on a close 20 year old fight and supporting an OP and poll that uses the word "robbery" are indeed engaging in revisionist history.

That's what you are doing here.

Not only do I know what it means, I gave definition.

I think you have comprehension problems.

First you don't know what revisionism is, then you are clueless about what it means to be owned.

And BTW, I am still waiting on what you just agreed was fair and balanced a few posts ago.

Where in this thread are your arguments for Floyd?

Where is your impartiality BEFORE your conclusion?

[Madison Boxing]

i dont know but in fairness to floyd he got straight back in there with castillo

[koolkc107]

This fight was controversial as soon as the judges announced the winner followed by a rain of boos. what the fck does "revisionist history" got to do with this? theres people that still debate SRL/Hagler and say Hagler was robbed. is that revisionist history? what if i say Whitaker was robbed vs Chavez. is that revisionist? lol

this is the fight that also proves people pick and choose when to believe compubox stats. those who say Floyd won call the stats bullsht and biased. but when they want to prove Floyd beat ODLH they pull out punch stats smh. this is why i never cared about those numbers because people only find them useful when it supports their agenda.

another thing is when people say Castillo "didn't do enough". wtf does that mean? these are the same types that say Lara beat Canelo. what is "enough"?

You wanna say controversial then say that.

You use robbery, that's revisionism.

When folks discuss SRL/Hagler, most know it was close.

When folks discuss Whitaker/Chavez, most know it was an awful card.

But, most folks avoid the word robbery in those old fights and rightly so.

And objective folks mention everything, not just the things that further the point they want to make.

[Diego Rodriguez]

I have been consistent since I started here.

Folks engaging in speculation on a close 20 year old fight and supporting an OP and poll that uses the word "robbery" are indeed engaging in revisionist history.

That's what you are doing here.

Not only do I know what it means, I gave definition.

I think you have comprehension problems.

First you don't know what revisionism is, then you are clueless about what it means to be owned.

And BTW, I am still waiting on what you just agreed was fair and balanced a few posts ago.

Where in this thread are your arguments for Floyd?

Where is your impartiality BEFORE your conclusion?

So anyone saying Haglar won is engaging in revisionist history. How about Whitaker vs. Chavez? Because you comment on a post does not mean you agree with the initial poster or their entire premise. I have stated CLEARLY I do not think it was a robbery. If you cannot deal with individual posters then that is your problem.

No you clearly do not understand what the term means if you are using it in this context. The revisionist history is you implying there is nothing to discuss. The fight was open to discussion from day one. Revisionist history would be bringing up some random Floyd fight where it was never a question if he won and then making a big stink about it. There is no revisionist history about the FM vs. Castillo I fight. It was controversial from the moment the cards were read to today. Implying it was not or should not be discussed is revisionist history (what you are in fact trying to do).

Knowing the definition and knowing when it applies are not the same thing. You clearly do not understand how to apply the term.

[QueensburyRules]

--- No debate at all. TUE got BTFO, prob busted ribs from his body language.

Looked like a stinker in the 2nd laying on the ropes with little output.

Getting BTFO BY little Jesus Chavez also. No demonstrable ring genius whatsoever, this his prime!

His uncle bob looked out for him back then.