Teach me about Marvin Hart

Not really, because you're not calling a spade a spade... Let me ask you this Luf.. If you admit a rule set was stupid and not one commonly used... they why back a verdict on a rule set that sucks? You shouldn't back such a verdict based on a stupid criteria.

 

Because that was the rule it was fought under.

It's not about backing it, it's about preserving it's place in history. The fight was what it was. With modern rules Johnson wins, with the rules it was fought under Hart wins.

We are agreeing here kurupt. We both agree Johnson landed the cleaner shots and we both agree hart was the aggressor in more rounds than not.

 

:good

 

Rules aren't just rules.. when rules are shitty they are SHITTY rules. Period. Trying to act like this doesn't matter is being disingenuous. It does matter, just like it matters that the ref was the promoter. Just like it matters that using a more competent criteria would've lead to a different result. It matters, so let's stop acting like it doesn't.

 

If you fight under the rules, however proposperous in your opinion, you accept the rules, if you don't like 'em you don't do it. Don't ***** afterwards-especially you should accept the 100 year old "too late to ***** rule".
BTW I'm a big Johnson fan.

 

:good