ok i realise your just trolling now. I have no ****ing argument you joker . i dont care either way! i watched the entire interview 5 times. and at NO point did he say what your referring to. and you clearly know this yourself aswel, thats why your terrified to go back to the interview and see for yourself. its ok keep living in your delusion :good its obvious your just pissing around now. your last 5 posts have all been BS and not responded to a single question asked of you. anyways im done with you troll :hi:
lol. Comon bro. Give me some credit here is an email exchange between me and chuck giampa, dating back to november 2009. I swear to God it's legit. I only removed my family name. I guess his answer said I was wrong but i still think my way of seeing it makes more sense. I guess I'm old school lol. I guess you're right, it is stubborness This content is protected This content is protected
You keep on insisting on your point yet you don't have an argument. Learn how to watch an interview moron.
I'd have to respond with this Phil:: More proof that if you are knocked down and win the round, its 10-9 to your opponent. During cotto vs pacquiao, the judges explained why they scored round 3 10-9 to pacquiao despite knocking cotto down. [url]http://www.**************/boxingforum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=5293.0[/url] from that article ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ thats from Duane Ford in his ABC certification classes. a direct explanation from judges themselves.
This is absolutely ridiculous, that is not how you score a round...at all, like not even close. I have come to the conclusion you are just too proud to admit you're wrong, because there is no way you believe this to be true. FYI there's no shame in just saying "I was wrong", and moving on.
WHAT is my point?!?! your so ******ed My point is that im ASKING people if they know wether or not a judge can over rule a ref. its a very interesting question, one which it seems no-one has a proper answer for! Wot the **** is YOUR point troll!?! And seriously your totally utterly embarrassing yourself with your interview comments. are you so terrified to watch it over again and realise your full of ****?/! cmon be brave. watch the interview again
Thought I'd made clear in my responses I am sure. [url]http://www.wbo-int.com/revised/WBO_Rules_Regulations.pdf[/url] Section 25 F. "Only the referee may determine whether there has been a knockdown."
exactly what i thought :good so it seems the ref's made a pretty poor error. thank god it didnt have any bearing on the outcome of the fight.
You have literally embarassed the **** out of yourself in this thread. I'm not sure what you're so defensive about, and I don't know why you are on and on the way you are, but you are clearly and obviously wrong, and I honestly don't understand why you are acting like such a ****** about.
I am not ashamed to admit I am wrong. Ok. I'm wrong. Although this is not how it's scored, that's how I've always felt it should be... since a KD is supposed to be worth one point, not two. I guess I cannot come to terms with the logic that would have a KD have a two point swing in some cases and a 1 point swing in others. To me it makes no sense. A KD should be worth one point at all time. But you're right. It isn't but notice how Giampa says it used to be scored that way. So I wouldn't say "not even close", just not anymore