Only in Germany..........!!

[Novirasputin]

None of this changes the fact that taking 5 points from one fighter and none from the other when he held for half the fight is suspect and questionable officiating.

But for a 3rd time now, you've alreadly agreed twice that the officiating was suspect.




100% Wrong.

You read the rule wrong and you know it. It's pathetic you're not able to admit it.

The rule for an intentional foul states points will be deduted or the fighter will be DQ'd depending on the severity of the foul.

There is NOTHING saying it's an automatic 2 point deduction for an intentional headbutt anywhere outside of the "Injury (Cuts)" section.

You're misquoting the rules and you know it.

There was no cut or injury from the headbutt, thus it was Neumann's descretion how to deal with it. And we already know how you feel about that:


Give it up. The automatic 2 point deduction is under the rules section pertaining to "Inuries (cuts)" that result from intentional fouls.

You're wrong.




We've been over this.

the photo's you posted were screen caps that show Miranda landing shots near the beltline.

Abraham's trunks cover his navel. This is exactly why referee's show the fighters where on the trunks he'll allow a shot.

You don't know where that was said in this figth, thus your photos and insinuations are meaningless.

There was no clear warning for low blows.

"Keep em up" is the same kind of warning "stop holding" is. Unless prefaced by "I'll take a point away", it's not enough.











In one instance you suggest 7 points could have been taken away from Miranda, and in the next breath you suggest the questionable reffing affected both fighters equally.

Equally is NOT taking 5 points from one fighter, and none from the other.

You've failed to make any point here.

1. Suspect in favor of Abraham in instances and Miranda. It is suspect when a clear Rabbit punch and shot after the bell are not reigned in.

2. The severity of the foul refers to a spectrum of either accidental on one extreme and intentional. The foul was very severe as it was VERY INTENTIONAL. A severe foul with no injuries does not mean the guy gets away with it.

3. NOT near the beltline, UNDER IT hitting the blue. Which even if AA's trunks covers the navel is still UNDER HIS NAVEL and in at least 4 of those (2 clearly on the hip and 2 well under) GROUNDS FOR POINTS DEDUCTIONS.
Moving the trunks is irrelevent if the guy is hitting UNDER THE NAVEL which is what Miranda did.

HERE IS ANOTHER ASPECT OF SUSPECT REFFING because if Neumann was bias and cheating for AA he would have DQED Miranda and had plenty of reasoning for doing so IN HIS VIEW.

He was bias toward Miranda in this respect and in respect to the rabbit punch and the shot after the bell which went unwarned and unchecked.

As far as a sterner warning YEs perhaps Neumann was wrong here because if he would have warned him more sternly then perhaps Miranda would not keep htting BLUE as those STILLS prove on the shots.

4. Get me the rule regarding warnings. BTW, the first point deduction is also another clear warning regarding the type of shots that points will be deducted for.

5. COULD have but wasn't to show that Miranda got away with his fair share of **** (and his hurt the other guy MORE) which means he was shown BIAS in the fight as well.

You don't want to admit this. You want to keep believing only Abraham was shown bias.

[Bozo_no no]

You don't want to admit this. You want to keep believing only Abraham was shown bias.

This sums up everything you drone on about in the first part of your post, and once again, when he didn't lose a single point and Miranda lost five, that speaks for itself.

You've gone on and on and on about it, but you fail to realize you're suggeting they both got away with something, excpet Miranda had FIVE points deducted, and Abraham had none.

3. NOT near the beltline, UNDER IT hitting the blue. Which even if AA's trunks covers the navel is still UNDER HIS NAVEL and in at least 4 of those (2 clearly on the hip and 2 well under) GROUNDS FOR POINTS DEDUCTIONS.
Moving the trunks is irrelevent if the guy is hitting UNDER THE NAVEL which is what Miranda did.

Come off it.

None of your screen caps show a clear low blow. They all are on the belt line and for the 4th time, you don't know where the reff instrcuted a legal punch line was.

This does nothing to back up your notion that Miranda received sufficent warnings.

4. Get me the rule regarding warnings. BTW, the first point deduction is also another clear warning regarding the type of shots that points will be deducted for.

I posted the rule for you 3 times now. This is beyond pathetic on your part.

You've been proven wrong on this point and you're just sticking your thumbs in your ears. You know where the link is. Read the rule I quoted (three times) and LOOK for yourself how it's BEFORE the section about "Injuries (cuts)" that you keep misquoting.

You're wrong, and you know it. Suck it up and admit it.

[El Jesus]

Oh, and Bozo, when you tell people that they are "desparate", is that some form of hypnotizing them?

It means the other person is trying to change the course of the argument to say something in their own favor Bozo's argument is actually more factually based. And hes one of the only ones who sided with me on the argument that those trunks were high, and the lowblows were borderline for the most part.

[Novirasputin]

This sums up everything you drone on about in the first part of your post, and once again, when he didn't lose a single point and Miranda lost five, that speaks for itself.

You've gone on and on and on about it, but you fail to realize you're suggeting they both got away with something, excpet Miranda had FIVE points deducted, and Abraham had none.




Come off it.

None of your screen caps show a clear low blow. They all are on the belt line and for the 4th time, you don't know where the reff instrcuted a legal punch line was.

This does nothing to back up your notion that Miranda received sufficent warnings.


I posted the rule for you 3 times now. This is beyond pathetic on your part.

You've been proven wrong on this point and you're just sticking your thumbs in your ears. You know where the link is. Read the rule I quoted (three times) and LOOK for yourself how it's BEFORE the section about "Injuries (cuts)" that you keep misquoting.

You're wrong, and you know it. Suck it up and admit it.

1. Miranda's fouls were more blatant and obvious. Thus that is his fault not the referees. furthermore ALL of Miranda's fouls could have seriously harmed AA while none of AA's basically could have THUS he deserved to be punished more.
Furthermore as i said this is also his fault since he was so obvious about it.
If you look at most of the pics teh ref is in clear view of the shot. As i said IF HE DEEMED IT LOW, then your opinion on where it was (Below the navel) is not relevent.

Of course you can play it off like "the ref did a crappy job so my opinion counts more." TO that i answer as i am sure that the IBF will review the fight and see what needs to be done if anything and if anything what Neuman will or will not be admonished or praised for.

2. As i said watch the fight. If a fighter is warned (even without a "clear one" or a "Proper" one in your opinion. Although here i am not sure so maybe we should both check the rule on warnings i am sure it is there.) on a CERTAIN type of shot EVEN if YOU deem it not illegal then if he keeps throwing that kind of shot what do you think will happen?

He threw about 7 of those so THAT is why he lost 3 points. If you don't agree with this fine the IBF will look at the fight.

3. Right suck it up and admit it when all you do is keep repeating it. i am trying to get in touch with Randy Neumann for our site to do an interview. I will ask him about all this.

Furthermore if i would be proven wrong you would long ago stop arguing your points, which don't make sense. You ignore the pictures that clearly SHOW black on blue, and the rabbit punch and the shot after the bell. I can keep repeating my points and so can you.

[Novirasputin]

It means the other person is trying to change the course of the argument to say something in their own favor Bozo's argument is actually more factually based. And hes one of the only ones who sided with me on the argument that those trunks were high, and the lowblows were borderline for the most part.

i have pictures and he is trying to tell me they are all not relevent when they clearly show the black parts of teh glove touching the blue part of the shorts
EVEN if the trunks are high (and as i said AA's are not. See OSDH trunks for high the white band is touching the lower rib basically with OSDH) the WHITE BAND covers the belly button. The blue part of teh trunks is low any way you cut it
if you touch the blue part with a punch that is a low blow.

I can also post a pic of the rabbit punch.

[Bozo_no no]

1. Miranda's fouls were more blatant and obvious. Thus that is his fault not the referees. furthermore ALL of Miranda's fouls could have seriously harmed AA while none of AA's basically could have THUS he deserved to be punished more.
Furthermore as i said this is also his fault since he was so obvious about it.
If you look at most of the pics teh ref is in clear view of the shot. As i said IF HE DEEMED IT LOW, then your opinion on where it was (Below the navel) is not relevent.

Of course you can play it off like "the ref did a crappy job so my opinion counts more." TO that i answer as i am sure that the IBF will review the fight and see what needs to be done if anything and if anything what Neuman will or will not be admonished or praised for.

2. As i said watch the fight. If a fighter is warned (even without a "clear one" or a "Proper" one in your opinion. Although here i am not sure so maybe we should both check the rule on warnings i am sure it is there.) on a CERTAIN type of shot EVEN if YOU deem it not illegal then if he keeps throwing that kind of shot what do you think will happen?

He threw about 7 of those so THAT is why he lost 3 points. If you don't agree with this fine the IBF will look at the fight.

3. Right suck it up and admit it when all you do is keep repeating it. i am trying to get in touch with Randy Neumann for our site to do an interview. I will ask him about all this.

Furthermore if i would be proven wrong you would long ago stop arguing your points, which don't make sense. You ignore the pictures that clearly SHOW black on blue, and the rabbit punch and the shot after the bell. I can keep repeating my points and so can you.

You can keep arguing all you want. It doesn't change the fact you were outright wrong about the Automatic point deductions, and where you copied and pasted the info from.

You asked me to show you the correct rule and I did three times. Each time you ignored it and kept ranting about the part you pasted out of context.

Aside from that, we disagree about the reffing and the bias, which you've conceeded to several times in several ways.

You photos don't prove anything, and I illustrated why over and over.

But none of that changes how petty you are for not being able to see you were wrong about the IBF rules and have been dancing around it ever since.

[Bozo_no no]

i have pictures and he is trying to tell me they are all not relevent when they clearly show the black parts of teh glove touching the blue part of the shorts
EVEN if the trunks are high (and as i said AA's are not. See OSDH trunks for high the white band is touching the lower rib basically with OSDH) the WHITE BAND covers the belly button. The blue part of teh trunks is low any way you cut it
if you touch the blue part with a punch that is a low blow.

I can also post a pic of the rabbit punch.

5th time:

A low blow is decided upon by the referee before the fight when he points out to both fighters where the line is on the trunks that a shot is acceptable.

You don't know where this was, and are guessing. You're pointed photos prove nothing, and you're upset that's been pointed out.

[Novirasputin]

You can keep arguing all you want. It doesn't change the fact you were outright wrong about the Automatic point deductions, and where you copied and pasted the info from.

You asked me to show you the correct rule and I did three times. Each time you ignored it and kept ranting about the part you pasted out of context.

Aside from that, we disagree about the reffing and the bias, which you've conceeded to several times in several ways.

You photos don't prove anything, and I illustrated why over and over.

But none of that changes how petty you are for not being able to see you were wrong about the IBF rules and have been dancing around it ever since.

Unless you are a referee or an IBF supervisor then i don't see how your interpretation of the rules is better then mine.

There is an implicit "injury" on ANY foul of the nature done by miranda
the degree regards either the dq or the 2 points. Obviously the only injury was slight because it was to the back of AA's head.
that is the only difference. That is why Neumann deducted 2 points
not because as you insinuated he wanted to screw Miranda (who he could have screwed even more and been justified on with the rabbit punch and the after the bell shot).

Other then that yes we disagree.
So we shall agree on that.

[Novirasputin]

5th time:

A low blow is decided upon by the referee before the fight when he points out to both fighters where the line is on the trunks that a shot is acceptable.

You don't know where this was, and are guessing. You're pointed photos prove nothing, and you're upset that's been pointed out.

RIGHT and if he decides this
THEN ANYTIME he points out a foul or warns or takes a point means the GUY threw and landed a low blow.


So on each of those 3 points Neumann was acting on what he believed to be a violation of that insruction before the first round.

So therefore i am not guessing. YOU are guessing by calling them borderline shots since you don't know where exactly that border is.
My proof is the fact taht the ref
THE ONE WHO DETERMINED This before the bout, CALLED Miranda on what he deemed to be a violation of this.

The pics illustrate that he was not just doing this on any shot that touched the band, since all of those shots were touching the blue part
which is below the navel (the universal low blow spot) its possible that the ref could have said that miranda can hit even lower
but again IF he RULED the deductions then what can you possibly argue about in regards to the instructions before the first?

[Bozo_no no]

Unless you are a referee or an IBF supervisor then i don't see how your interpretation of the rules is better then mine.

There is an implicit "injury" on ANY foul of the nature done by miranda
the degree regards either the dq or the 2 points. Obviously the only injury was slight because it was to the back of AA's head.
that is the only difference. That is why Neumann deducted 2 points
not because as you insinuated he wanted to screw Miranda (who he could have screwed even more and been justified on with the rabbit punch and the after the bell shot).

Other then that yes we disagree.
So we shall agree on that.

It's black and white.

You quoted the rules from the "Injury (cuts)" section which talks about what is to happen IF the foul causes an injury, which it DID NOT.

Above that section, it clearly says points will be deducted, or a DQ will occur depending on the severity of the foul.

You are wrong, and have been wrong all along. You quoted the wrong section, and are like a child unable to admit he's wrong.

It did NOT call for an automatic 2 point deduction. The call was to be based on the severity of the butt, which everyone agrees was minor.

Give it up already.