True, bad decisions do happen everywhere. But when bad decisions follow a certain piquant pattern, a brain that hasn't been totally or partially lobotomized can't fail but to take notice. BTW As long as injustices occur they will continue to draw attention to themselves. Expecting that they be ignored is to irrationally demand that they be provided with a legitimacy they don't deserve and in that way to encourage their frequency.
Your "pattern" leaves out the fact that John Ruiz decisioned Holyfield for the title, and Ruiz retained his title via decision against Holyfield (when most thought Ruiz lost), and Ruiz retained his title againt Golota (via decision, after Ruiz was floored twice and most thought he lost) and Ruiz won a decision and regained the title against Hasim Rahman. But, yes, Ruiz did deserve the decision in the first fight. Leaving out the other times in title fights when Ruiz got the nod in the States kind of blows up your whole theory on him, though. Five title fights that went to a decision, and only one bad decision going against you (and a couple bad decisions going in your favor) ... shows you aren't being picked on so much as you're getting a lot of breaks in your favor.
I didn't realize the vacant WBO NABO belt as a championship. But, oh well. Comparing a Deontay Wilder-Luis Ortiz WBC title fight with the vacant WBO NABO fight with fat counterpuncher Toney and a hesitant counterpuncher Oquendo ... is QUITE the stretch. I'm going to go out on a limb and say Wilder-Ortiz won't be anything like that Toney-Oquendo fight.
I don't think that my assessment if what Ortiz might be up against is unreasonable in view of USA judges and referee reputations. First, what most people think or thought is called bandwagon or a fallacy in reasoning. People agree on many things and very often for very unjustifiable reasons such as a strong dislike for nationality, race, religion or personality. You know, the kind of folks popularly referred to on this website as haters. The truth of the matter is that the first Ruiz Holyfield fight was almost universally described and perceived as a robbery. This opinion was immediately expressed by the commentators who had Ruiz far ahead on points and was later repeatedly mentioned on the press. Second, that second fight was considered a Ruiz win because Holyfield was floored and had to hold on desperately for dear life illegally. He should have been disqualified. Prior to that knockdown he was being out pointed again. The third fight, during which the commentators savagely denigrated Ruiz, was a legitimate draw. Third, all the wins that Ruiz accomplished were 100% legitimate. He didn't elbow, head but, rabbit punch, low blow, bite, his way into victories. His running into clinches was after landing a combo in order to prevent a counter and the clinching was mutual and not out of desperation to survive. Jackson is considered an ATG and he did far more clinching that Ruiz. Finally, the way that Holy was allowed to blatantly elbow smash and head-butt broke Ruiz's nose twice and Holy was never warned about it. The way that the ref allowed Hays to illegally bludgeon Ruiz behind the head is deplorable as is the manner in which Nady constantly made sure that Ruiz was unable to close the distance so that Jones could pick him apart. BTW Another example of bias is how on this forum, the fighters that Ruiz beat, such as Rahman, Johnson, Holyfield, Oquendo, Gallota are considered as a plus to any boxer's resume EXCEPT when they are in relation to Ruiz,. Then they are suddenly veritable non-entities whose presence on his record means squat. You say that such an attitude should be ignored because **** happens right? That's a flagrant pattern of course is expected to be accepted as OK? Sorry but I don't buy that garabage just as AAs don't buy that Jim Crow laws and attitudes should have been simply ignored because **** happens.
You insinuate stupidity in others and in the same post obligate yourself to ***** and moan about the possibility of a questionable decision in every fight going forward or be exposed as a hypocrite. Well done.
I could just as easily categorize your opinion as ***** moaning, groaning or crying and finish by saying: "Well done". BTW I don't call every fight result questionable. So you are using strawman. Let's just agree to disagree and be done with it. You have your view I have mine.
I can already see this playing out. Behind closed doors, Wilder has a private 1 on 1 meeting with Al Haymon prior to signing a fight deal with Ortiz. Wilder: hey Al, you sure this is gonna work? Haymon: yes Deontay. I'll have my best lab workers on it. You have nothing to worry about. we can get Ortiz to pop dirty with a little tampering. Wilder: You better be sure. Cuz my heavyweight reign & my career depends on it!! I have a fanbase to look out for, you know. I need that fight with AJ. Haymon: Like I said, champ. you got nothing to worry about. Wilder: Good. now.. excuse me Al but I got go now, I gotta an appointment at a steakhouse later tonight.
Fair enough, I suppose, but it's interesting to me that fans whine about fighter "x" is afraid to fight fighter "y" and then when it happens or gets close to happening, rather than celebrate getting their wish, legions spring up to whine about "well even if it does happen, it's gonna' be a screwjob" or even more pitiful, fighter "y" is suddenly judged to be aging and a week after he's aging, he's over the hill and then by fight night,he's shot. It's pretty ****ing ***gy. And btw,"piquant" pattern? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Ohhhh boy! Look at all the excuses coming out of the woodwork for an Ortiz loss now that Wilder called him out and locked him in his sights
hes a freaking joke man how can you be in such a physically demanding sport and be so out of shape? ha