Understanding The Desperation Of The "7 Days" Complainers vs Pac

The point is not 7 days. The point is that he said he agreed to ALL of Mayweather's testing demands, put Mayweather on blast for "ducking", and now we find out he LIED! On top of that he like AGAIN!

We are establishing a pattern here. He LIED about a 14 day cut off. He LIED about a 0 day cut off. It is obvious that either this man doesn't want to test or doesn't want to fight.

 

This content is protected

he lives...

****. wrong thread.

 

Ok who gives a **** already!!! Both sides ****ing lied, both are ****ing Jackasses...but now we have a 7-day cut-off offer which is more than adequate to stop anyone from ****ing cheating. GET THIS ****ING FIGHT STARTED!!!

 

If Pac said I want 60/40 purse split and PBF says no? What would you say?
Of course you would say that Pac is pricing himself out.

If Pac says 60/40 or no deal, then you are going to say he is ducking by pricing himself out.

What happens if PBF says 45% for him and 55% for Pac and Pac still says no. Is Pac still pricing himself out still and ducking?

Now reverse that and instead of purse make it in days.


It depends on what side you are on and the topic at hand.

 

If you remember Pac tried to use the split as an excuse FIRST! Mayweather took the 50/50.

After he told his 14 day cut off lies, Pac then went on to have horrible promotion and an even worse showing with Clottey. So him asking for 60/40 would be BS because Pac's last fight did 700K buys. Nice try but you FAIL.

Yes, per your scenario? Pac is ducking.

Can't reverse it. Apples and oranges. Mayweather has numbers and the current state of sports on his side.

If you are on the side of common sense this is clear. If you are a *******? Then it "depends".

 

Again, you are just seeing it on PBF's side. Of course you can reverse it.

It has nothing about being a ******* of *****. It is simple logic. This is all subjective. Making a claim that is set in stone only shows the flaw in your logic.

 

Judging by your avatar you seem to have the same agenda, except his name isn't Manny Pacquiao. I'm not gonna play FBI and go into the specifics of Floyd's criminal record. I can post up a pic of Mike Tyson and write "******!!" next to it but that shows an act of desperation to demean someone. That is crass and shameful. Nobody, including his biggest fans, expect Floyd to be a saint. They aren't gonna start singing your tune after seeing your propaganda because they're fans of the boxer, not the person. Grow up.

By trashing Floyd you're doing the complete opposite. You're adding fuel to the fire. At the end of the day the truth is this: both sides cannot come to an agreement. Why continue to play the blame game if you want to stop the nonsense? I can easily say Team Pac didn't want the fight either since they KNEW Floyd would never allow them a cutoff date after the first wave of negotiations fell apart. Team Pac gets a cookie for going from 14 to 7 days. That's about it.

 

Huh? You CAN'T reverse it due to the FACTS. If you had FACTS to back up reversing it then it would make sense.

It has EVERYTHING with being a *******. What you are using is simpleton logic. It is NOT subjective. WTF is subjective about CONSISTENTLY out earning Manny in PPV and gate?

Leverage is real. Mayweather has it when dealing with Pac due to Arum and Pac's bumbling. They have squandered their leverage.

Making the claim I made shows that I actually understand what the hell is going on here and solidifies the fact that you are either a ******* or a spineless person who puts harmony over truth. Your call.

 

You are missing the point. 60/40 scenario was hypothetical.

No matter who said was, the logic you are arguing is the concept and definition of 'negotiation'.

It is not negotiation if it is 'all or nothing'. That is not a negotiation. That is an ultimatum.

Even if PBF said in the beginning 0 days or nothing it does not change the fact that it is not a negotiation. The point that one side is willing to change their stance means only one side is negotiating at this point. Meaning, that only one side has compromised. And to say that Pac is not compromising means people fail to understand the basic definition of 'negotiation'.
At that point I suggest Googling it. It is free and fast.

 

Yes. A completely baseless hypothetical that makes no sense to even bring up. He won't and can't ask for 60/40. So why the hell say it?

No. It is the concept of negotiation AFTER you gave the guy all he asked for the FIRST time negotiating in good faith ad he LIED and threw your career off track. If not for the tragedy of the typhoon in Haiti Mayweather might be screwed.

So brainchild normal humans negotiate based on the actual facts surrounding the situation. Due to PREVIOUS negotiations and Pac's negotiating in BAD FAITH Mayweather issued a REASONABLE ultimatum.

If? He said 0. Then Pac said 30. Then Mayweather split it and said 14. Pac LIED said 14 wasn't offered and fought someone else. Putting Mayweather's career in jeopardy because Arum controled all of the top WWs and the only other remaining WW was a young stablemate. After going through that debacle and Mosely testing his stance changed. Pac again got in the press repeating the EXACT same pattern of lying and using Mayweather as a springboard to fight another person and AVOID testing.

Unlike you, I have a long term memory. The entire situation spanning back to last year was ALL negotiations. During this time Pac lost his leverage. Pac isn't compromising. Pac is asking for BS just like in your BS hypothetical all in the name of DUCKING!

Quit trying to be smart. You aren't. I have learned and forgotten more about Google than you ever have known. I suggest you check old threads and ESB archives. It is free and (not quite) fast.

 

Again, you are applying your logic only to one side. Everything PBF does is 'reasonable' while anything Pac does is not negotiating. It is like a child sticking his fingers in his ear and screaming 'wawaaa'.

You are also pressing the reality of 60/40 when it is hypothetical. Again you missed the point. I could have easily just used aliens and purple sky monsters and the point would still stand.

I already agree that PBF from day one, ONLY wanted up to the day or no fight. That is not hard to agree on.

The point is then it means that OSDT WAS NEVER NEGOTIABLE. Thus people saying PBF negotiated is FALSE. So he either negotiated- meaning OSDT days was on the table or he did not (always 0 days).

If you are still following, that brings up us to 0 days. There is no scientific proof (as per Conte's letter regarding drug scheduling during off season) that cycling once in 7 days matters. Hell for boxers you could argue cycling 21 days matter very little.

If you are talking about "leverage" then that defeats the whole idea that the OSDT was to clean up the sport or to catch some one cheating. If you say that the 14 days was based on 'leverage' then that means it was NEVER about cheating or cleaning up the sports. It means you have alternate motives.
So either 14 days was ok or it was always about 0 days.
If PBF really wanted to clean up the sport or catch PAc cheating, why use the OSDT as a leverage at all then?

You are inconsistent on your motives and conclusions.


And I am not sure what you mean by trying to be smart. You must be projecting or something.

 

I will agree that it looks like Floyd may be ducking this time around, but that wasn't the case the first time around and your above post is incorrect. Floyd did offer the 14 day window the first time around, and Manny said he would not go below 21. That was why the fight didn't happen. First time, 14 was on the table, and Pacquiao refused. This has been confirmed true by both camps.

After beating Mosley, Floyd said 14 days was off the table (was only applicable to the first negotiations) and it would have to be full OSDT with no cut-offs or no fight. Then Pacquiao said he would do 7 days. After Floyd said he would not accept a cut off.

Do I think 7 is reasonable? Yes, I do. Floyd should not have a problem going with 7 days when he was willing to go with 14. However, to say Floyd ducked both times is wrong because he did put 14 on the table but Pac refused.

 

And you bolded it. You're a moron. Did Floyd tell you about the negotiations? No. It's coz he doesn't want to fight. AND THAT IS THE POINT OF THE THE THREAD. Log off you jackwad.

 

You're reversing the order a bit there. First time Floyd offered 14; then Manny insisted on 21 (after 14 was offered). Second time Floyd said 0, then after Floyd said 0, Manny said 7.

I'm not playing any games, I said 7 was reasonable and should have been accepted. You're the one who can't look at the situation from an unbiased approach. I don't give a damn about either Floyd or Manny, so can look at it from outside and say, first Manny messed it up by not accepting 14 when it was on the table; second time Floyd messed it up by not acceoting the 7.