Work with what was I given. Your opinion. I'll trust the official ruling. What rounds did you give to Rahman? If you are going to cry robbery as genuine argument and be all snug about it, it's probably best if you aren't the only person crying wolf. Did anybody else in the media score the fight to Rahman? It seems the only controversy was Lathan's weird card where he had Rahman ahead by a point.
I don't understand your reasoning. Iran Barkley is the ONLY guy to ever beat Thomas Hearns TWICE, something even Sugar Ray Leonard could not do. Yeah, the rest of his resume is lacking, but so what? Barely scraping by a shot Hagler, getting a fluky lucky win over a 30 year old, sick Duran with stomach cramps and getting a robbery draw vs Hearns does not top that. Those 2 wins over the ATG Hearns trump anything Leonard did.
Dont worry, we all work with what we're given, you just got less in the way of brains than most people. As far as Holyfield Rahman, Holyfield was notorious for illegal headbuts and for getting questionable decisions. He got the a win because of both. You are welcome to disagree. Just try not to crow so much about others opinions on the bout, since you reject it as a meaningful criteria in other threads.
I'm going to have to assume you have never watched the fight, there is no reason to think you have. Another non-boxing fan I suppose. Where?
I watched the fight years ago and thought it unique in it's double headed robbery. And I already know you are not a real boxing fan. Anyone who thinks Byrd is an equal or superior fighter to Vitali really can't care for the sport. When you reply, please try to break this up in multiple sections again to make it as unnecessarily long and fragmented an argument as possible. Also, throw in a music video and a reference to a prior post if possible. It all helps distract from your lack of ability to rationally argue.
Sanders was lethal that night he steamrolled over Wlad and almost as dangerous when he almost did the same with Vitali. On those 2 nights he beats both Byrd and Peter on their best nights. Peter was best when he had his jab, but he was still basic, tho very powerful. Byrd was the most skillful and had he had power he might had been the next great southpaw heavyweight champ.
I know, both Holyfield and Vitali had this problem with him. It's all because of his unique and amazing skill. Cobra said it so it's gotta be true!
Another article. Seems nobody agrees with your unique opinion. "Holyfield won six of the first seven rounds on two ringside scorecards -- although a third judge inexplicably had Rahman ahead -- and landed the bigger and better punches in a no-holds-barred fight in which both boxers refused to back up." ESPN The only controversy is the judge who had Rahman ahead by a point.
Great, another article on a topic that has already been addressed thoroughly! Can you add another one, with a music video in your next response! Please? But fair enough, I guess I'll back down from my unique opinion of you back down from yours about Vit, even though mine is about a million times more rational than yours.
You challenged my opinion that Holyfield beat Rahman with a "robbery allegation" I just defended my opinion, not my problem if you never watched the fight and just want to disagree with me.