De La Hoya Mosley II

I am sick and tired of this BS myth started by bias HBO commentary that Oscar was robbed when he clearly lost. I wish his nutthugging fans would just get over it, I am sure they will create another myth stating he was robbed against PBF as well.

 

Like I already said, they figured they needed to win big to get the nod. And the fight was close.

If you want to argue on what they were thinking or why they reacted they way they did, you can go at it alone. None of us know. It would be a waste if time.

 

Perhaps, there some close rounds early in the fight that could have been scored for either guy but like the 1st fight SSM came on very strong in the 2nd half of the fight decively winning the last 4 or 5 rounds but the nutthuggers claim he schooled Mosley winning 8-4 or even 9-3 which is pure nutthuggery IMO.

 

Because I agree with them on this case, you come up with that conclusion about me? How childish...:roll:

 

16 of the 28 ringside writers polled said Mosley won. 8 said Oscar won. 4 had it a draw.

The Ring showed a list of media guys and their scorecards and the scorecards were extremely varied. More said Mosley won but the disparity in scores were vast.

That's the type of fight it was.

 

The Sturm fight was a complete robbery but the other 2 were close so I wuold say he should have 6 losses and 2 draws on his record.

 

You're not doing so well tonight, Lance. You're not up to you're usual high standards of debate. When you resort to name-calling, as you know, your case is probably weak.

Re: the above:

Not many other conclusions flow from your post. And you didn't touch on Shane's surprise.

I'll speculate that you might be into the sauce this evening. Helps fend off the Arctic nights.

Catch you later.

 

In that case, most arguments would be a waste of time since we often can't know all the factors with certainty. Still, we can speculate. ( And there is the 'preponderence of evidence thing')

And like I said, that points to them figuring they were behind.

 

this argument is going in circles. time for a new thread guys. noone is going to win this pissing contest

 

Did I call you a name? No, I didn't. I said what you assumed was childish. But I am not going to debate something that is nothing but opinion.

 

No it doesn't. That's the only fact here.

 

Calling someone childish falls under the general rubric of name-calling. You did that, rather than attempt to refute the point.

To refute the point, you would have offered ANOTHER plausible conclusion that flows from your posts.

Since none leaps to my mind, nor apparently to yours, I will consider my point as valid and in no way childish.

 

Yes it does point to that conclusion. And that's a fact.

 

:roll: I felt this was childish as a retort, " From your response, it appears the judges are 'right' when they see it your way, and (despite the training you mention) wrong when you see it differently."
So I wasn't insulting you.

You had no point. Only your opinion of what you think people really mean. One you can't even prove.