Danny Garcia "i don't even know who Postol is"

Herrera is simply just an awkward operator who's style did not mesh well with Garcia's and of course caused us fans to see a less than aesthetically pleasing fight. If you thought Herrera won that's acceptable if you didnt think he did enough to take the belt I also think that's acceptable. The original outcome was far from a robbery and tbh I don't know anyone who's clamouring over a rematch since the first fight was simply uneventful. Just my twist on things....

 

Harrera was cherry picked. Fighting in PR received more promotion than Harrera did. He was just a patsy brought in. It was all about Danny's 'homecoming'.

 

Oh boy in the real world the person who gave the Herrera fight the "ok" would have been immediately let go. I mean serisouly he's known to be a spoiler and you set him up as your "coming out" party fight in PR. Just terrible business sense.

 

More like you can deal with it so you call them excuses. lol, you got it all figured don't you, you know what I'm thinking, what I should be thinking, and what it all is. Maybe I should just ask you what the meaning of life since you got all the answers. Fact remains that Danny fought Herrera, it was a close fight, and Danny got the nod. People want a rematch because they think it's a Herrera robbery, and it factually isn't, how do I know that's fact? Because you don't call close unclear fights robberies, and the loser of the close fight in no way can ever mistake themselves having fought to a clear victory and just not know it. If the loser thinks they won clearly, they say that and only that, (he never even said he won clear) they do not say it was a close fight like he did. They say it's close because they know they have to because it was unmistakably so.

The judges saw a close Danny victory, Herrera thought it was close and he was there and it would benefit him most to say he won clean, the punch stats say Danny won easy, and the commentator's said the fight was close throughout the entire ordeal although all their commentating was pro Herrera, they never once said robbery. All you want is for the rematch to happen to claim another robbery or say Danny is ducking when it doesn't happen, hater tactic 101, nothing more. And to your last bit about Floyd, that'd all work fine and dandy except for one thing...I didn't think Herrera won.

 

Took both Psychology and Philosophy in college. It ain't hard to deduce what's going on in someone's mind if you know the signs... Now, maybe I'm wrong about what I said, which is why I never claimed it to be true, but instead used phrases like "these are the types" and "I can't help but feel"... However, you do seem impressed, so maybe I'm not far off, hmm?

Look up the word "fact", then the word "robbery" cause you clearly have a distorted view on both. Your personal definition of the word "robbery" in regard to boxing will never ever be a FACT. You feel robberies can only be attributed to one-sided affairs, I feel that you can call any event where the man that was suppose to win (by official scoring criteria) a robbery. Period... My opinion, your opinion... Zero facts involved.

:rofl This is one of those comments that's so ridiculous that I wouldn't normally even bother replying to it, but knowing how you think, you'd chalk that up as a victory since petty victories are kinda your thing...

Herrera thought it was close because it was, but Herrera and everyon else other than those 3 bias judges and Danny's Trannies thought that he won the fight.

Punch stats are a few guys in a room pressing buttons... They decide when a punch did and didn't land. Danny hit a lot of air and a lot of glove, and punch stat likely gave him credit for a lot of those just because they looked like they may have landed... Who follows punch stats anyway? :huh From my experience, usually only guys that need any excuse they can muster, no matter how unreliable, to help their point

atsch Terrible job trying to guess what I'm thinking... I never said I wanted to see the fight, really I don't care to... My point is the simple fact that Danny is electing not to avenge a controversial victory... Twist it any way you want, convince yourself that Danny is thinking about being robbed, because God knows all the promoters and networks feel they'd make more money off of Herrera, right? So of course they'd ensure he'd get the nod in close rounds :nut

Now there's that convoluted idea you managed to pull out of your ass, or there's the logical "Garcia is simply showing a yellow streak"... One is backed up by absolutely nothing, the other is backed by such comments as

"Thurman hasn't fought anyone." (true, but neighter did Salka)

"Matthysse has to earn a rematch." (gave you a tough outting in the first fight, and was actually beaing you after the first half)

and

"I don't want to fight Peterson, it wouldn't mean anything" (other than being ranked number 3 in the division, having a style that gives yours some trouble, and having only lost 2 fights, both to top talents)

 

lol, I established what I felt was fact, tell me if you disagree. Can you call unclear victory a robbery on anyone's part? That's what I said, and I'm not sure what I said about robbery but I'm pretty sure there's no Webster's dictionary definition for the term robbery in boxing. Great, now you're simply trying to dismiss the three judges who are who are certified professionals at scoring, and who were paid to judge that night meaning, they absolutely were depended on to give the fight their full, undivided, uninterrupted attention as their scores would be the only ones meaningful that night and life changing to the fighters.

Instead, you're gonna go with the scores of various peoples who were probably watching it with friends while talking, maybe drinking, and who all were listening to very biased commentating for Herrera, you of course are going with their opinion instead of the officials and in a close fight to top it off?? I could understand if the majority of scores were not close in this close fight to scream corruption but they were, they did reflect the fight. Punch stats are determined by thee button clickers, if two or more believe they saw a punch LAND the punch is counted. Very simple straight froward stuff, can't believe you'd try and make an issue out of it, people don't like including it in their arguments simply because it does not tell the impact or significance of the punch landed but, it does tell of the activity level and the types of punches which could tell you what the judges may or may not have seen.

It's seldom where you can include it in argument and have it be significant but it definitely is here when you have Danny having out landed Herrera by a whopping 80 power shots. Normally you see a one sided victory for that power with stats like that, which tells me the judges were in fact doing their job having the fight close. What does a rematch do for Danny, he already got the victory, if his stock takes a hit then he knows it was the wrong move, why would anyone care about that if they didn't like him anyway? Oh that's right, you don't care, which is what we're doing here...

 

Garcia is a joke. everyday he looks more and more like a paper champion, just like PEDerson is

 

Facts are fact... You don't get to feel what you think is a fact. It either is a fact or it isn't a fact. < That is a fact

This is my point. You don't think so, I do... Period

Are we now at that stage where we pretend boxing judges are faultless and cannot be paid off or otherwise persuaded?

I'm going off my own personal scoring of the fight, actually... I am merely reassured that my scoring wasn't atrocious by the fact that most observers agreed with me.

The fight was close, never said otherwise. Herrera still deserved to win it. Competent judging would have shown this

This is what I said :huh

For one, can you please punctuate your sentences better... Commas are not interchangeable with periods.

Second of all, taking the very possible corruption factor out of the equation, It simple human error that makes punch stat unreliable. Again, you seem to be implying that boxing is just this perfect machine of a sport where zero mistakes get made... Not true

A rematch would show very 2 important things,

1) Danny Garcia cares about his careers and legacy and hasn't turned into a cherry picker, which often happens after a fighter receives gift in a tough fight.

2) Exactly how good Danny Garcia is... The first fight could have been a fluke, and I wouldn't doubt the possibility. But he'd have to prove it by taking it... By not taking it, he's showing that he's not confident in his ability and would rather milk all he can from his undefeated record before someone like Thurman puts an end to his whack ass

 

Here it's human error, there it's corruption, here you don't care, here you do, here this opinion is fact (Herrera won), here it can't be. You are absolutely all over the place with inconsistencies, it's making this no fun anymore.

 

that was petty as hell...

The corruption and human error thing was just dumb. I shouldn't have to explain this, so I'm not going to. If you can't figure out what I mean, than you have a comprehension problem.

I never said I cared, so the "here you don't care, here you do" thing is just flat out wrong... I don't care to see the fight, I just observe the meaning of the fight not happening... Never said otherwise. There I explained it as plainly as possible

The "opinion" that Herrera won is supported by the actual official scoring system boxing has, e.g. clean punching, affective aggression, ring generalship, defense... So it can be argued as a fact that Herrera, and the FACT that most people agree supports that argument. That being said, I never claimed it was a fact, so once again... You messed up lol


There, I've even broken down this petty little comment and this isn't even about boxing... Please get back on track or give up... Don't be petty like this anymore, its a waste of time