You're lucky you didn't get booted for calling Pattt an idiot or naive for saying that Vegas is neutral ground.
Am I? Firstly I don't know why this 'new' account was banned. Secondly it's very funny that he called me a snowflake and then you'd post what you did like Canelo fans are a long sufferering people being oppressed on these boards.
Well he called you a snowflake in response to you calling him an idiot or "naive" for believing that Vegas is neutral ground. I mean Canelo fans are clearly outnumbered on here and for a new poster like Pattt to get booted for essentially not believing that Vegas is somehow biased in favor of Canelo is obviously going to tilt the playing field even more against Canelo than it would naturally be. Pattt wasn't disrespectful to you, he didn't throw the first punch, you did. Pointing out that you and others constantly whine and make excuses for GGG is 100% accurate.
The classic Canelo fan narrative on here. Everyone is against you and you're so righteous and brave for standing up for the best paid and most famous name in the sport who never gets the benefit of the doubt.
Not everyone. I like it here, plenty of posters respect me and we have great debates. We can agree or disagree on who won Canelo or GGG but it should always stay respectful and I don't believe people should be booted for stating an opinion respectfully.
We haven't even established what he was booted for and yet you've started whinging at me like I have placed a hit on his account
I wasn't sure if he was booted based on what happened in here either. I want to establish that too, which is why I said "I don't think it's right that Pattt got booted if it was based on what happened here." But unless / until we find out that there was another reason in another topic why he was booted we can only guess that it may well have been based on what happened in here which I don't think would be fair. But more important I just wanted to basically back what he said about Vegas being a neutral ground and just say I wish he wasn't booted because I would have liked to see that talk continue as I think it was a very important point Pattt was making about Vegas being neutral soil and since they are both foreigners. You're trying to claim that I am whining but yet it's you that continues to whine about GGG and for someone new like Pattt to get booted for calling you out on your constant whining about Vegas being unfair to GGG (if that was indeed why he was booted) I don't think that's right. Pattt was quite respectfully calling you and other GGG fanatics out for whining and making excuses for GGG. I mean again anyone is entitled to believe what they want to believe but you shouldn't live in fear of being booted for making respectful arguments that in my view are much more reasoned and normal than are being given credit for. What I mean by that is that I agree that Vegas is neutral soil. I don't believe that Canelo is given any kind of preferential treatment whatsoever by Vegas. And you claim that belief is somehow idiotic or "naive". That's insulting to me, and frankly I think that it's idiotic or naive to believe that Vegas isn't neutral ground when it comes to foreign fighters like Canelo or GGG. So we both think that each other are idiotic for believing something, that's OK as long as both opinions are allowed to exist equally. But I have no problem with you believing Vegas isn't neutral soil when it comes to Canelo. But Pattt or anyone shouldn't live in fear of being booted by respectfully pointing out that you are whining and crying over something and are making excuses for why it happened instead of giving credit to the rightful winner.
I find you to do a lot of a whining whilst accusing others of doing the same. IMO you consider brute spamming long posts to constitute a debate in which you give little regard to the other person's opinion. That's how I see it. I don't enjoy speaking with zealots of any kind and will repeat that I find the suggestion that Canelo isn't at a big advantage when fighting in Vegas laughable. For me it's comparable to when some of his fans claimed that clenbuterol not being a steroid made it less of an issue that he failed a test for it.
What do you think I whine about? Can you give me some specific examples? Canelo is at a big advantage because he is incredibly gifted as a fighter. Typical Vegas treats fighters who perform at that kind of a level well which is well deserved as a result of the level at which fighters perform at. The better they perform, the more talented they are the bigger draw they are and the more $$ they make. What you have is a theory based largely on what you expected to happen (GGG knocking out Canelo or GGG beating Canelo soundly) not happening. And as a result you need to find some excuse to explain away what happened. To me this is just you and other GGG fans just being a sore loser. And that's just how I see it. So don't be mad at me for how I see it and I won't be mad at you for how you see it, which is very differently. Now the question is which view is more reasonable, yours or mine. And to test this you need to look at which view is more justifiable. Are you a sore loser making excuses for GGG in claiming that Canelo gets some kind of preferential treatment by Vegas? Or is Vegas really doing something to protect Canelo, and your just pointing out the obvious? Can it be proved either way? It seems that your view requires a more convoluted theory to explain what you believe vs what I believe which is just basic not having to believe something so crazy and something that would really need to be proved in some way to have validity to it. With me I just don't believe tin foil hat stuff, I just see Canelo is a great fighter, Vegas treats him like any other foreigner. Canelo made himself, and earned his wins by performing at a high level. And one thing that I can't stand is when fans sit at home and try to take away from a fighter's accomplishments due to some crazy out there theory that can't be proven in any way and is likely a result of some butthurt by the fighter who you liked not performing at a high enough level to win and as a result you feel a need to make up some theory to explain why it happened that isn't at all based in reality. But don't be mad at me, that's just how I see it man. And I accept how you see it, but even though we see it very different there's no reason why we can't talk about it and make our points and be respectful about it. Well considering that there's now a threshold for clenbuterol and that what he tested positive for (and punished for) is now not even a violation. Yet somehow I'm sure you'll spin this as evidence that being the only fighter to be punished and suspended for that is somehow proof that Vegas was protecting him by sweeping his positive test under the rug so nobody knew about it which never happened.
Christ. This thread is nothing but you whining and I'll be honest and say that the above is the kind of **** that from you that I can no longer be bothered to read. Shadow's patented death by boring partisan diatribe.
This is like you waiving the white flag in the middle of an important talk. I addressed the points that you brought up. Have the decency to address and counter points that you made. That way it'll end better. I'm interested in putting to the test the idea that Canelo gets some kind of unfair advantages by fighting in Vegas which is your argument. Do you have any proof or reasoning to back up that claim. Where was Pattt wrong? Canelo and GGG are not Americans. They are foreigners. Vegas is known as the Fight Capital of the World. That's where any boxer aspires to end up, Vegas is where the biggest fights historically happen. That's not to say that they are immune to corruption and / or bias but in this forum it's like Vegas corruption for certain fighters like Canelo that the consensus seems to dislike is essentially assumed as true without ever needing to be proven. There's nothing wrong with not believing that Vegas is giving Canelo some kind of unfair advantages. That's a more reasonable view then believing some kind of deep seeded conspiracy.
Again you confuse someone giving up on YOU with them giving up the argument. I find your position on many things to be so ridiculous that to attempt to reason with you to be pointless. You'll just respond with paragraph after paragraph of the kind of obtuse mental gymnastics for which you're famous for on these boards. When you're claiming Vegas is neutral territory for Canelo you've not just jumped the shark but somersaulted over it several times.
For anyone else interested let's look at the cards in Vegas for Canelo that show just how well looked after he is there - Got given a draw on a card against Mayweather when he was totally shut out. Got given waaay too wide a score against Cotto in Las Vegas. Khan was behind on points when he was KTFO out despite winning every round up until that point in you guessed it Las Vegas. They were about to job Kovalev before he was KTFO in yep Las ****ing Vegas. That's without even opening up the can of worms that is the Golovkin fights. Oh and we could also talk about Canelo failing a drugs test so they upped the threshold for future fights, you know to make sure it doesn't happen again and try to legitimise his BS.
You need to get a pair of glasses and learn how to score and not be riding Mayweather's nuts and giving him every round because he's Mayweather. Each of the first 6 rounds were extremely close. The 3rd and 4th rounds he clearly won. Canelo did well in the 10th and the 12th as well. So you're off to a fabulous start. 0/1 Says who? You, the guy who delusionally thinks Mayweather shut out Canelo. Canelo easily beat Cotto. Cotto only won a couple of rounds at most. 0/2 And yet the one judge who had him ahead was guess who the judge who you wanted to run out of town after Canelo GGG 1. Details details. Adalaide Byrd had Khan up. And the other judges only differed by a single round. I thought Khan was ahead but 1 or 2 of those rounds could be argued for Canelo. ½ / 3 I had Kovalev up after 10 rounds too. But it wasn't a clear convincing score. All the rounds were very low output rounds with only a few punches landed. Not an easy one to score. Now you would have more of an argument if a judge had Canelo up 8-2 or 9-1 or something crazy. He was up only by a very small margin. Many of those rounds could be argued either way. Canelo wasn't as active as Kovalev but would land the better shots. Quantity vs Quality. 1 / 4 So you're batting about 25% after those 4 examples. two 0's and two ½'s.
How typical of you, spinning the threshold as a way to legitimize Canelo retroactively. If Vegas was so worried about protecting him then why didn't they sweep the initial test under the rug in the first place. If they so prioritized protecting Canelo and his image, wouldn't it have been better for Vegas to prevent that positive test from ever getting out in the first place than to suspend him and cause him to be negatively viewed by the boxing public for causing the rematch to be cancelled? Getting dragged through the mud for a postive test and then suspended doesn't equate with your belief that he's being unfairly protected. If he was being unfairly protected they never would have went out of their way to go to Mexico and "surprise" test him in the first place. He wasn't even in training camp yet.
