What robberies really, i mean really broke your heart ?

hating on pac is a mexicunt's favorite past time. :yep

 

Mexicunt.........now look who is butthurt!:hi:

By the way find a post of mine where I hate on Pac otherwise you're, as usual, just talking out your hurt-ass!

 

Check out the Mexican and Puerto rican thread you will see that i just owned your boy Boom Boom and really i guess all you PacTerds

 

No way did he give away enough rounds to lose that fight:nono Trinidad won the last 3 and maybe 1 even do the math. 117-112 or 116-112 is the best you could give Trinidad.

 

yey but i thought Ruiz got robbed in their first fight so it equals out.

 

I can't understand if you two are being serious or not? You honestly don't believe Whitaker v Chavez was a flat out robbery :??

 

Two wrongs dont make a right my friend......and for the record, I had Ruiz winning the first fight and Holyfield winning the 2nd and 3rd fight......

The 3rd fight was the more clear and convincing fight imo, and a fighter with the resume and legacy of Evander Holyfield sure did'nt deserve to get shafted like that.

 

I totally agree that Tito lost that fight, but that's what happens when you run(literatly). If he had fought all the rounds there was no way in hot hell they could've robbed him den even if he lost them while fighting.

 

wasn't the first time ask Lewis what happened in that last fight

 

No body ever mentions Foreman-Briggs for some reason but I always get pissed off whenever I watch it. People just don't give a damn because Big George is rich and Briggs is a good kid but...:think

 

Scored round by round, I had the fight a draw myself.
I've alway said that I had no problem with anyone who had Whitaker up a point or two.......but he sure did'nt win that fight by the margins that people like to tell it now.......

Certainly I dont believe Whitaker-Chavez should be mentioned in the lists of "greatest robberies of all-time."

......which is why I said Enzo must have seen the Sports Illustrated cover.....alot of people speak out of their arse not having seen or really studied a fight to blurt out "that fight was a robbery"

If I had a dime for every moron who did'nt score the fight but said, Whitaker was robbed against Chavez.....I would have worked up a sizeable savings ammount!

Such morons I would guarantee saw the Sports Illustrated cover that said "Robbed!"......and concluded Chavez-Whitaker was one of the worst decisions of all-time.

 

I don't buy that mate, I had it 116-112 for Whitaker and in my eyes the fight was most certainly a robbery.

 

No they were trying to rob him by giving some Oscars best rounds to Tito, and did you know 1 or 2 of the judges actually gave Oscar the last round in which he ran? They were trying to not make the scores look so ridiculous. Those judges were totally incompetent.

 

I'm not following what your point is......but for the record, imo Lewis clearly beat Holyfield the first fight, and Holyfield edged Lewis in the rematch.

Like I said my previous post, two wrongs dont make a right.......and certainly by the ridiculous wide scores that were read in the Holyfield-Lewis rematch.......those scores were just as bad as the scores for the first Holyfield-Lewis fight.

Knowing how wide those rematch scores were, I think its pretty safe to conclude that short of Evander Holyfield completely beating down and dominating Lewis, the judges who took alot of heat for their decision in that first fight, were not going to give any fight that was competitive in the rematch to Holyfield.

 

Thats not how I looked at it, and I've debated it many times in the classic section, I'm through with it now!