De La Hoya Mosley II [Archive] - East Side Boxing Forum

Robbi

09-08-2007, 06:02 PM

DLH clearly won that fight, for those who said Mosley had the Harder shots, did it affect DLH whatsso ever? not at all, while DLH boxed the shit outta mosley landing nice shots in the process.

Mosley did have De La Hoya seriously hurt during the 9th round, with wicked shots to the body. And a massive left hook at the end of the 1st round buckled De La Hoya's knees.

However, De La Hoya won more rounds. I thought over the first 8 rounds he boxed Mosley pretty well, and also showed better defense.

De La Hoya won.

MagnificentMatt

09-08-2007, 06:02 PM

Especially when everyone knows DLH can hit hard if he trys, which makes it even worse.

DoumB

09-08-2007, 06:24 PM

Even if Oscar's jab did outland 2 to 1

Mosley outlanded Oscar to the body way more than a 2 to 1 margine:deal

Shane threw and landed the harder punches and was never hurt..unlike DLH that had to hold on to survive..

Mosely was never hurt..but Oscar was folded-over like an accordian from Shane's body assault..

Most on press row had Shane winning

I agree

U act like if oscar was on queer street, wasnt the case AT ALL, he got tagged and we could see it hurted him, that does not erase the 8 first rounds where he boxed mosley's ears off( maybe 7 outta 8) and I'm a HUGE mosley fan

Lance_Uppercut

09-08-2007, 06:28 PM

DLH clearly won that fight, for those who said Mosley had the Harder shots, did it affect DLH whatsso ever? not at all, while DLH boxed the shit outta mosley landing nice shots in the process.

Of course it had it's effect. DLH was the only one who had the look of a stunned fighter in the fight. And that happened a few times. You're just more impressed by flash, not substance. YOu probably bought into DLH's "round stealing" flurries from the Sturm fight as well...

Lance_Uppercut

09-08-2007, 06:29 PM

I dont know why people dont score jabs specially since DLH outlanded him in that department over 2 to 1 :huh

Of course judges and people score jabs. But all jabs aren't equal, and a jab certainly isn't equal to a harder power punch.

Jose FM

09-08-2007, 06:42 PM

Of course judges and people score jabs. But all jabs aren't equal, and a jab certainly isn't equal to a harder power punch.
Obviously i know that, but DLH controlled the fight with his jabs, and Mosley didnt control a damn thing in the entire fight. How do you win a fight when clearly the other guy is making you do what he wants you to do in the ring, isnt that the point of the sweet science? DLH clearly outboxed and outlanded Mosley. It was a robbery.

Lance_Uppercut

09-08-2007, 06:45 PM

Obviously i know that, but DLH controlled the fight with his jabs, and Mosley didnt control a damn thing in the entire fight. How do you win a fight when clearly the other guy is making you do what he wants you to do in the ring, isnt that the point of the sweet science? DLH clearly outboxed and outlanded Mosley. It was a robbery.

He didn't control the fight. He was being backed up while Shane pressed the fight for the most part.

I've watched a bunch od DLH's flurries in slo-mo and they were fore the most part, pretty weak.

It's funny how most at ringside and boxers in attendance, had Shane winning, but the FANS all seem to think it was DLH.

Robbi

09-08-2007, 07:25 PM

De La Hoya lost the first fight 7 rounds to 5.

mike464

09-08-2007, 07:41 PM

I had it 7-5 to Mosley. The British commentators were very biased towards DLH too (they always are).

Jose FM

09-08-2007, 10:24 PM

You probably think De La Hoya won the first fight too don't you?
You probably take it in the bum... When you assume you make an ass outta you.:hi:

andyZOR

09-08-2007, 10:26 PM

Hoya won IMO but i wouldnt call it robbery. I have a download link for anyone who hasnt seen it, PM me if you want it.

Hook it up. :good

Imperial1

09-08-2007, 10:27 PM

I had it 7-5 to Mosley. The British commentators were very biased towards DLH too (they always are).

7 rds to 5 for Mosley what fight were u watching?:admin :huh

Jose FM

09-08-2007, 10:29 PM

He didn't control the fight. He was being backed up while Shane pressed the fight for the most part.

I've watched a bunch od DLH's flurries in slo-mo and they were fore the most part, pretty weak.

It's funny how most at ringside and boxers in attendance, had Shane winning, but the FANS all seem to think it was DLH.
Even Shane's dad was telling Mosley to not let DLH control the fight! He said it plain and clear on HBO, so if you have the fight go back and look at it. The reason why DLH was backing up was because he was counter-punching. He said that he would do that before the fight and he did it. Obviously DLH knew how not to fight Mosley so he fought completely different than the first fight, and he did enough to win, but was again burned by the judges.

Maxmomer

09-08-2007, 10:31 PM

Hoya won IMO but i wouldnt call it robbery. I have a download link for anyone who hasnt seen it, PM me if you want it.

I'll take it.

Sonny Carson

09-08-2007, 10:51 PM

I had Shane winning.

Lance_Uppercut

09-08-2007, 11:13 PM

Even Shane's dad was telling Mosley to not let DLH control the fight! He said it plain and clear on HBO, so if you have the fight go back and look at it. The reason why DLH was backing up was because he was counter-punching. He said that he would do that before the fight and he did it. Obviously DLH knew how not to fight Mosley so he fought completely different than the first fight, and he did enough to win, but was again burned by the judges.

His dad also said he thoght Shane needed a KO since they did not believe they could win a close decision in Vegas v DLH. I don't need to go back, I heard what his dad said.

Like I said, it's pretty split between who people thought won. Fans thought DLH won, judges and those at ringside had Shane winning. And I guess it also matters what people judge by. More punches landed vs. the harder punches.

Thread Stealer

09-09-2007, 03:17 AM

Not a robbery, and people look too far into Compubox, but I still scored the bout for De La Hoya.

mike464

09-09-2007, 08:34 AM

7 rds to 5 for Mosley what fight were u watching?:admin :huhThe same fight the judges were watching. When the judges don't give a fight to DLH, you can be pretty sure he lost.

Zhaakal

09-09-2007, 09:09 AM

Mosley won no doubt

Betty Swollocks

09-09-2007, 09:46 AM

Hoya was doing OK for a few rounds, then did his usual and faded badly. Mosley deserved the win in the end, and had Hoya stooping over like an old granny after landing body shots.

Imperial1

09-09-2007, 11:11 AM

As good as Mosley's body punches were he didn't throw enough punches in the whole fight to deserve the nod !!How anyone can win a fight throwing ten punches a round because they were more "effective "is nonesense !! Oscar landed aboust as much if not more punches as was just as effective !

The Master

09-09-2007, 02:51 PM

Close fight that was tough to score for sure! Judges say Mosely won. He was definitely landing the much harder punches and inflicting more damage. Oscar was flashier with the jabs and flurries for the crowd. I think Mosely was starting to believe that they were falling for it. He looked a little discouraged there. But damn! Mosely was beating the crap out of him! Oscar was a round or two away from goin down. 15 Rounds = Mosely KO's Oscar.
I don't understand when people call it a robbery. It was a close fight. Judges said Mosely won.

DoumB

09-09-2007, 03:15 PM

No doubt Oscar won this fight. Just look at Sugar's reaction to the decision. He was already thinking about how to get a third fight. De La Hoya was cleary more agressive in this fight. Check out [Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) for boxing news, predictions, and pound-for-pound rankings.

yeah oscar won that fight and even mosley and his corner new it, how ne one see mosley win is ok but clear win is very absurd, on top of it the supposed power punch are a HUGE joke, of course mosley landed some hard shots, but FAR from what some of u are saying.

El Bombasto

09-09-2007, 03:15 PM

I thought DLH won the fight, but: it was close, I did not have the same perspective that the judges had, the judges did not hear the same commentary that I heard, and the judges and I most likely have different biases. Given that, any fight that is won by 1-2 rounds could really go either way.

DoumB

09-09-2007, 03:24 PM

The prob here is some ppl seem to think were talking about their first fight where oscar did good for the first 6 rounds but kinda gased out after, were talking about the second were he was dominating(not necessarly but winning most of these rounds if not all) for 8 rounds and after that shane came strong but lost 1 of the 3 If I remember correctly,

First fight clear win for mosley
Second fight clear win for Hoya

cuchulain

09-09-2007, 04:38 PM

His dad also said he thoght Shane needed a KO since they did not believe they could win a close decision in Vegas v DLH. I don't need to go back, I heard what his dad said.

Like I said, it's pretty split between who people thought won. Fans thought DLH won, judges and those at ringside had Shane winning. And I guess it also matters what people judge by. More punches landed vs. the harder punches.

The Vegas location was not a factor.

Oscar lost a close decision to Tito there not long before.

Dad Mosley was concerned because HE THOUGHT Shane was losing the fight (and he was).

Watch Shane's look of surprise when the decision is announced.

cuchulain

09-09-2007, 04:47 PM

He thought, as I did, that Shane was gonna get robbed.

Jack !

Church is out aready?

You must be in a different time zone from me ( or maybe you didn't go today?)

Anyway, good to see you bring some of your 'man-lovin' imagery to the board.
...a lip-lock on the tip of DLH's penis ...

Why would Jack think his son was gonna be robbed when he knew that Oscar had been robbed in Vegas a short time before?

And why did Shane look so relieved, surprised and happy at the decision ?

Fight was close (as was first fight). No robbery here, but most believe Oscar won the fight (including Shane ! )

Lance_Uppercut

09-09-2007, 04:56 PM

Lance_Uppercut

09-09-2007, 04:59 PM

The Vegas location was not a factor.

Oscar lost a close decision to Tito there not long before.

Dad Mosley was concerned because HE THOUGHT Shane was losing the fight (and he was).

Watch Shane's look of surprise when the decision is announced.

Easy for you to say. DLH's gotten his share of nods on close fights.

You have NO CLUE was his dad thought. None, so please don't try to use that as some fact. What is a fact is they thought they needed to win big to get a decision or get a KO, as his dad clearly stated.

So what he was surprised. It was a close fight. You are trying to put YOUR MEANING behind it.

Lance_Uppercut

09-09-2007, 05:00 PM

yeah oscar won that fight and even mosley and his corner new it, how ne one see mosley win is ok but clear win is very absurd, on top of it the supposed power punch are a HUGE joke, of course mosley landed some hard shots, but FAR from what some of u are saying.

Really? Did they tell you, or is this just your assumption?

cuchulain

09-09-2007, 05:12 PM

Easy for you to say. DLH's gotten his share of nods on close fights.

You have NO CLUE was his dad thought.
None, so please don't try to use that as some fact.

Actually I do. In the same way I have a fair clue ast what you think. I read your post. While that doesn't guarantee that I'll know what you're thinking, it certainly provides some clue. In like fashion, by listening to his words, I DO have some clue as to what Mosley senior was thinking. And based on what he said, my take is that he felt his son was trailing, late in the fight.

What is a fact is they thought they needed to win big to get a decision or get a KO, as his dad clearly stated.

We're both agreed an that part. We just interpret differently, WHY his dad thought so. The fairly blatant robbery Delahoya suffered earlier in Vegas weakens your interpretation of the why.

So what he was surprised. It was a close fight. You are trying to put YOUR MEANING behind it.

I'm putting the most likely meaning on it that leaps to most minds.
Close fight or not, surprise at the decision means just that. Surprise.
By the definition of the word, that would appear to indicate Shane thought he had NOT won.

We don't know any of this with certainty, but, based on the evidence, we can assess the probabilities.

cuchulain

09-09-2007, 05:20 PM

First fight:
Everyone agrees SHane won (the SPLIT D was BS though)...

I scored it a draw. If I had to go one way or the other, I would give it NARROWLY to Shane

Second fight:
MOST Fans @ home think DLH won...
SOME People in boxing see Shane winning...FACT

People in boxing is way too general to qualify as a fact here.

Both fights were vey close. The word 'robbery' is not appropriate here. In the books, Shane is 2-0 over Oscar. I think Oscar did enough to at least split the series.

Lance_Uppercut

09-09-2007, 05:28 PM

Actually I do. In the same way I have a fair clue ast what you think. I read your post. While that doesn't guarantee that I'll know what you're thinking, it certainly provides some clue. In like fashion, by listening to his words, I DO have some clue as to what Mosley senior was thinking. And based on what he said, my take is that he felt his son was trailing, late in the fight.
No you don't. You have no idea to be perfectly honest. You have NO IDEAD what his dad thought.

We're both agreed an that part. We just interpret differently, WHY his dad thought so. The fairly blatant robbery Delahoya suffered earlier in Vegas weakens your interpretation of the why.
That isn't my interpretation. It's what his dad said.

I'm putting the most likely meaning on it that leaps to most minds.
Close fight or not, surprise at the decision means just that. Surprise.
By the definition of the word, that would appear to indicate Shane thought he had NOT won.
No, you are putting what you think, not the "Most likley" reason. You can believe what YOU THINK Is the truth, but the reality is it's just what YOU THINK. ANd I won't bother getting into it if we are going to go with your perception of things.

Lance_Uppercut

09-09-2007, 05:29 PM

People in boxing is way too general to qualify as a fact here.

Both fights were vey close. The word 'robbery' is not appropriate here. In the books, Shane is 2-0 over Oscar. I think Oscar did enough to at least split the series.

We agree, it wasn't a robbery. Was close. But a close, clear victory for Shane.

DoumB

09-09-2007, 05:53 PM

We agree, it wasn't a robbery. Was close. But a close, clear victory for Shane.

thats where u dont seem to understand, thats YOUR opinion, not the majority of ppl's opinion.

Lance_Uppercut

09-09-2007, 05:57 PM

thats where u dont seem to understand, thats YOUR opinion, not the majority of ppl's opinion.

My opinion, the judges opinion, and a majority of those at press row. And a majority of the people aren't capable of judging a close fight.

DoumB

09-09-2007, 06:14 PM

My opinion, the judges opinion, and a majority of those at press row. And a majority of the people aren't capable of judging a close fight.

how do u think the judges are any better at judging fights then normal ppl who've been following the sport for a long period of time or simply know a lot about it, sorry but if u can put a pull ull see my point.

Lance_Uppercut

09-09-2007, 06:53 PM

how do u think the judges are any better at judging fights then normal ppl who've been following the sport for a long period of time or simply know a lot about it, sorry but if u can put a pull ull see my point.

Because they are trained for one. Just being a fan doesn't mean you can judge.

cuchulain

09-09-2007, 08:24 PM

You did not offer anything to refute my assertion that I can have an idea of what someone is thinking by listening to his words.

As I said earlier:

...In the same way I have a fair clue as to what you think...by reading your post.

While that doesn't guarantee that I'll know what you're thinking, it certainly provides some clue.

In like fashion, by listening to his words, I DO have some clue as to what Mosley senior was thinking. And based on what he said, my take is that he felt his son was trailing, late in the fight.

You just repeated your unsupported statement over again.

No you don't. You have no idea to be perfectly honest. You have NO IDEAD what his dad thought.

And in repeating this absurdity, without even an attempt to justify it, you are in effect saying that all conversation is meaningless, since we can have no clue as to what someone is thinking by listening to their words.

No, you are putting what you think, not the "Most likley" reason. You can believe what YOU THINK Is the truth, but the reality is it's just what YOU THINK. ANd I won't bother getting into it if we are going to go with your perception of things.

If someone is surprised by an event, it means that they were not expecting that event to occurr. ( If they were expecting it to happen, then it would be no surprise.)

If Mosley was surprised by the outcome, it means he was probably expecting a different outcome. That's not merely my perception and it's not rocket science either!

cuchulain

09-09-2007, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by DoumB:
how do u think the judges are any better at judging fights then normal ppl who've been following the sport for a long period of time or simply know a lot about it, sorry but if u can put a pull ull see my point.

Because they are trained for one. Just being a fan doesn't mean you can judge.

Are you saying then that the judges always get it right?

Have there never been decisions where the judges were out to lunch, for whatever reason?

juancho214

09-09-2007, 08:35 PM

dlh won

Lance_Uppercut

09-09-2007, 08:38 PM

You did not offer anything to refute my assertion that I can have an idea of what someone is thinking by listening to his words.

As I said earlier:

...In the same way I have a fair clue as to what you think...by reading your post.

While that doesn't guarantee that I'll know what you're thinking, it certainly provides some clue.

In like fashion, by listening to his words, I DO have some clue as to what Mosley senior was thinking. And based on what he said, my take is that he felt his son was trailing, late in the fight.

You just repeated your unsupported statement over again.

And in repeating this absurdity, without even an attempt to justify it, you are in effect saying that all conversation is meaningless, since we can have no clue as to what someone is thinking by listening to their words.

If someone is surprised by an event, it means that they were not expecting that event to occurr. ( If they were expecting it to happen, then it would be no surprise.)

If Mosley was surprised by the outcome, it means he was probably expecting a different outcome. That's not merely my perception and it's not rocket science either!

I need to refute that you think you KNOW what people really mean or think? :huh

Why? All you've said is you know what Mosley's dad REALLY MEANT? That's just your opinion. I'm not a mind reader and neither are you.

You can sayy all day what you think MOsley's actions meant, but like I said, that's just you.

Lance_Uppercut

09-09-2007, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by DoumB:
how do u think the judges are any better at judging fights then normal ppl who've been following the sport for a long period of time or simply know a lot about it, sorry but if u can put a pull ull see my point.

Are you saying then that the judges always get it right?

Have there never been decisions where the judges were out to lunch, for whatever reason?

Did I say the judges ALWAYS get it right? Obviously they do not. Save the bullshit questions please. We all know they do not.

In this case, they got it right.

cuchulain

09-09-2007, 09:02 PM

I need to refute that you think you KNOW what people really mean or think? :huh

Why? All you've said is you know what Mosley's dad REALLY MEANT? That's just your opinion. I'm not a mind reader and neither are you.

You can sayy all day what you think Mosley's actions meant, but like I said, that's just you.

I never said I KNEW what Mosley's dad was thinking. I said what I believed he was thinking, and that's open for debate.

You said I had NO CLUE as to what he was thinking. While I won't claim to know with certainty what was in his mind, I certainly have a clue from listening to his words. If you go back to post #62, I said:

We don't know any of this with certainty, but, based on the evidence, we can assess the probabilities.

That is where you went overboard. Saying I have no clue from his words, even if you say it three times in the same line, is just false, and that is evident to anyone who can hear and read and think.

And as for saying all day....

I have said what I think he meant based on the clues presented. (His words)

And what about Shane's surprise at the decision?

You were on much shakier ground there. Could it now be evident to you that surprise indicates something unexpected?

cuchulain

09-09-2007, 09:09 PM

Did I say the judges ALWAYS get it right? Obviously they do not. Save the bullshit questions please. We all know they do not.

In this case, they got it right.

Your response to Doumb's question indicated a trust in the expertise of the judges.

I wanted to know how far you would trust that expertise, therfore it's not a bullshit question.

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.

And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that viewpoint. I suspect that's how most fans view things.

DoumB

09-09-2007, 10:07 PM

I have nothing against u Lance and I think u no it... I know u dont realy like DLH but I can understand someone thinking shane won but to say it was clear I cant realy agree on that... thats my opinion of course

TheGreat

09-10-2007, 12:24 AM

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.

kirk

09-10-2007, 12:26 AM

I think its a damn close fight that you can score for eather fighter depending on your mood.

Lance_Uppercut

09-10-2007, 12:40 AM

I never said I KNEW what Mosley's dad was thinking. I said what I believed he was thinking, and that's open for debate.

You said I had NO CLUE as to what he was thinking. While I won't claim to know with certainty what was in his mind, I certainly have a clue from listening to his words. If you go back to post #62, I said:

We don't know any of this with certainty, but, based on the evidence, we can assess the probabilities.

That is where you went overboard. Saying I have no clue from his words, even if you say it three times in the same line, is just false, and that is evident to anyone who can hear and read and think.

And as for saying all day....

I have said what I think he meant based on the clues presented. (His words)

And what about Shane's surprise at the decision?

You were on much shakier ground there. Could it now be evident to you that surprise indicates something unexpected?

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.

TheGreat

09-10-2007, 12:41 AM

I think its a damn close fight that you can score for eather fighter depending on your mood.

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.

Lance_Uppercut

09-10-2007, 12:41 AM

Your response to Doumb's question indicated a trust in the expertise of the judges.

I wanted to know how far you would trust that expertise, therfore it's not a bullshit question.

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.

And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that viewpoint. I suspect that's how most fans view things.

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

Thread Stealer

09-10-2007, 12:43 AM

lampley just said 4 out of 5 writers thought shane won

wonder who they were

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.

TheGreat

09-10-2007, 01:08 AM

Add Whitaker, Quartey and Sturm to that list. This man should have 8 losses on his record.

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.

cuchulain

09-10-2007, 01:14 AM

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

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.

cuchulain

09-10-2007, 01:20 AM

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.

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')

...they figured they needed to win big to get the nod.

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

aliwasthegreatest

09-10-2007, 01:57 AM

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

Lance_Uppercut

09-10-2007, 02:54 AM

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.

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.

Lance_Uppercut

09-10-2007, 02:55 AM

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.

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

cuchulain

09-10-2007, 03:21 AM

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.

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.

cuchulain

09-10-2007, 03:22 AM

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

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

Lance_Uppercut

09-10-2007, 03:39 AM

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.

: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.

Lance_Uppercut

09-10-2007, 03:39 AM

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

Sure, whatever you say. I guess I'm just not a mindreader...:roll:

cuchulain

09-10-2007, 04:00 AM

:roll: I felt this what childish to say " 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.

On the contrary, I had a point which I stated:

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.

You did not offer any possible alternative conclusion that could be drawn from your response. Your only retort was that my point was childish. If some other conclusion were possible from your response, you failed to put it forth. Therefore my conclusion, while not certain, in the absence of any other, was likely correct. Calling it childish, without evidence, failed to refute it.

I'll accept that you weren't trying to insult, but simply stating something as childish without stating why, fails to address the point.

Lance_Uppercut

09-10-2007, 04:03 AM

On the contrary, I had a point which I stated:

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.

You did not offer any possible alternative conclusion that could be drawn from your response. Your only retort was that my point was childish. If some other conclusion were possible from your response, you failed to put it forth. Therefore my conclusion, while not certain, in the absence of any other, was likely correct. Calling it childish, without evidence, failed to refute it.

*YAWN* you win...:patsch

cuchulain

09-10-2007, 04:15 AM

Sure, whatever you say.

I'm glad you finally see it that way.

I guess I'm just not a mindreader...:roll:

Nor am I.

One doesn't have to be a mindreader to infer what was probably in a person's mind, based on what they've said.

(As an example, if I hear you say: "I really need to eat soon", I might conclude that you were hungry. Other explanations for such a statement are possible, but in their absence, hunger is the most likely explanation.

And one doesn't have to be a mindreader to arrive at such a conclusion)

cuchulain

09-10-2007, 04:17 AM

*YAWN* you win...:patsch

No-one has won, nor lost.

Things are just a bit clearer.

Wige247

09-10-2007, 04:26 AM

What is w/ people & scoring rounds even? I think that's a cop out and it's rare that a round should ever be scored even.

cuchulain

09-10-2007, 04:35 AM

What is w/ people & scoring rounds even? I think that's a cop out and it's rare that a round should ever be scored even.

You might be right.

If a round is very close (and they sometimes are) it can be very hard to decide who won it.

One solution would be to score every round for one or other fighter. That might lead to judges having an internal bias. (Last round was nearly even but I gave it to A, so if this round is close, I should give it to B)

Another possible solution would be to score all rounds even unless one fighter had a clear margin. That way, with only clear rounds counting, fighters might be more aggressive and fight harder every round.

A final possible solution (which has some serious drawbacks) would be to have the fight continue until a KO or until one fighter felt he couldn't (or didn't want to) continue. This would end robberies and 'gift' decisions.

Rumsfeld

09-10-2007, 09:13 AM

Mosley won, albeit, less decisively than in their first encounter.

SugarShane_24

09-10-2007, 09:31 AM

IMO, Mosley won that fight by a close margin.

DLH threw a lot of combinations but never really made a lot of impact. A lot of rounds were close but the difference was made when DLH seemingly faded down the stretch. That's when how I got him winning.

btw, that's how Oscar fought PBF but lost the decision. how ironic.

Thread Stealer

09-10-2007, 11:24 AM

Add Whitaker, Quartey and Sturm to that list. This man should have 8 losses on his record.

Losses to Quartey, Mosley I, Sturm, Hopkins, Mayweather

Draw with Whitaker

Close wins over Trinidad, Mosley II

IMO.

Danny Ocean

09-10-2007, 02:31 PM

What is w/ people & scoring rounds even? I think that's a cop out and it's rare that a round should ever be scored even.

i disagree,if you cant decide who won a round your `judgement is already in question giving it to someone completely discredits the other fighter by saying he didnt lose the round in my eyes but il only give him 9points anyway