Pacland's Philippine Boxing Forum

Discussion on boxing and other sports, Filipino greats and anything under the sun.
It is currently Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:49 am

All times are UTC + 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 383 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:14 am 
Offline
Heavyweight

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:03 pm
Posts: 6263
reigncourts wrote:
Emmanuel53 wrote:
reigncourts wrote:
Emmanuel53 In an article at writer Steve Kim of Maxboxing.com, Roach says I’m against catchweight fights. Either do it or don’t Well, Pacquiao only had one, though. I mean, they’re calling him the ‘Catchweight King’ but he had one. So it’s a little unfair. I mean, if you’re going to fight for a title, fight for the whole one.” This is interesting news. I guess Roach doesn’t have much say so for what weight Pacquiao plans on fighting at, because he clearly plans on fighting for another title at yet another catchweight.

reigncourts:
With this statement, are you now trying to tell me a catchweight win is legitimate? And don't hide behind the statement of a misquoted Freddie Roach trying to explain Manny is not a Catchweight King. Whatever Freddie Roach believe have no bearing on my question. Again, is a catchweight title legitimate or not?

Emmanuel53
You've been getting off the hook so often with these type of FALSE ALLEGATIONS? AGAIN, I REPEAT WHERE IS THE MISQUOTE. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF FOR THESE OUTRIGHT BRAZEN LIES.

reigncourts
I asked you a direct question and you answer me with quotes from other sources and try to find fault again with my answers: For the 3rd time with your own words because I'm the one debating with you: Is a title won on catchweight legitimate or not?



If Manny wins the fight from Margarito, sure he claims the legitimate 154 jr. middleweight title at a catcweight but we're talking of enhancing his legacy here, and a fight done under dubious circumstances which you yourself admittedly imply, would not enhance Manny's legacy. Clear enough for you. Manny also won the title from Cotto at a catchweight. Did I question Pacquiao being crowned as the WBO welterweight king.


reigncourts reference:Emmanuel53
Fifty years from now, they will be reading articles of A Great Filipino Boxer who won his eight title in a travesty of a fight at the expense of a disgraced boxer who didn't do anything to deserve the title shot. They will also be reading that in two of his last three fights, two were at catchweights, a first in boxing history where the supposedly GREAT BOXER, requested a catchweight in a lower division only to climb up another higher division for another catchweight fight. Makes for GREAT READING ,eh. PEOPLE WILL TALK ONLY ABOUT WHAT THEY READ.WHEN EVERYTHING ELSE IS FORGOTTEN.

Reigncourts wrote:
If you believe in the legitimacy of a catchweight title, then we don’t have anything to debate on. I’m just wondering how you called the last two titles of Manny (to be won) “were at catchweights, the first in boxing history where the supposedly GREAT BOXER, requested a catchweight in a lower division only to climb up another higher division for another catchweight fight"which seems to me do not reflect your statement of legitimacy in catchweight titles. I understand you are against the Pac-Margo fight for moral issues against Margacheato, but a catchweight title should not be a reason.[b] I don’t debate with opinions, I would rather we talk about facts.

In this thread we ask if Manny's win enhances his legacy and we can all have opinions.


This is the most asinine statement I've encountered. You engage in a debate because you have opposing or varying opinions. If you talk about facts then there is no debate at all.
Legitimacy is not synonymous with the enhancement of one's legacy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:32 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:31 pm
Posts: 4686
Location: City of Angels, Pamp
Quote:
Emmanuel53 wrote:
Now that I answered your question. Did you not lie when you said Freddie Roach was misquoted or quoted out of context? Defend yourself on this one, because these things have become habitual from you. And I can no longer countenance these things. I am challenging you to prove that you didn't lie on the following issues:

1. I used historical pages from Wiki-Wiki as my sources when in fact I only got one definition ( there were two other definitions from different sources which I used.)
2. Freddie Roach was misquoted in his statement
3. I used a bag of tricks in your admission that skills and other factors can overcome a size disadvantage.


1. I did check Wiki’s definition but I couldn’t find a date when it started and who made the editions. Not reliable because it is still under continuing revision (editing). It’s not yet an official dictionary word but good enough for practical purposes.(Used with common sense).

2. You quoted a biased source who quoted a source who quoted Freddie Roach explaining Manny is not a catchweight king. A third hand info gets corrupted and is no good. For all we know Freddie, in asking a 151 catchweight has already explained the quote.

3. It’s a bluff, but I could have digged some if necessary. For now I’d rather keep it secret.Hint: I remember somebody debating that he can edit Wiki and he actually did it to the other fellows consternation.

_________________
I defend PAC on OSDT and Catchweight Issues; Not his Traditional Politics and Religious Exploits.

"Marcos, Hitler, Diktador, TUTA. Patalsikin ang bangkay ni Marcos sa LNMB". PATALSIKIN!!!
____


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:51 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:31 pm
Posts: 4686
Location: City of Angels, Pamp
Quote:
Emmanuel53
This is the most asinine statement I've encountered. You engage in a debate because you have opposing or varying opinions. If you talk about facts then there is no debate at all.
Legitimacy is not synonymous with the enhancement of one's legacy.

Here we go again, "asinine" wow! I didn't say that highlighted portion. I said we agree and don't debate on the legitimacy of a catchweight title. This thread ask: Will Manny win over Margo enhance his legacy and we can all have our opinions. I don't debate on opinions I said, in fact we should respect each others opinion. But if facts are misinterpreted according to ones knowlege, then a debate can follow.

_________________
I defend PAC on OSDT and Catchweight Issues; Not his Traditional Politics and Religious Exploits.

"Marcos, Hitler, Diktador, TUTA. Patalsikin ang bangkay ni Marcos sa LNMB". PATALSIKIN!!!
____


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:27 am 
Offline
Light Heavyweight

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:02 am
Posts: 1197
this LEGACY debacle still not over? :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:33 am 
Offline
Heavyweight

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:03 pm
Posts: 6263
reigncourts wrote:
Quote:
Emmanuel53 wrote:
Now that I answered your question. Did you not lie when you said Freddie Roach was misquoted or quoted out of context? Defend yourself on this one, because these things have become habitual from you. And I can no longer countenance these things. I am challenging you to prove that you didn't lie on the following issues:

1. I used historical pages from Wiki-Wiki as my sources when in fact I only got one definition ( there were two other definitions from different sources which I used.)
2. Freddie Roach was misquoted in his statement
3. I used a bag of tricks in your admission that skills and other factors can overcome a size disadvantage.


1. I did check Wiki’s definition but I couldn’t find a date when it started and who made the editions. Not reliable because it is still under continuing revision (editing). It’s not yet an official dictionary word but good enough for practical purposes.(Used with common sense).

2. You quoted a biased source who quoted a source who quoted Freddie Roach explaining Manny is not a catchweight king. A third hand info gets corrupted and is no good. For all we know Freddie, in asking a 151 catchweight has already explained the quote.

3. It’s a bluff, but I could have digged some if necessary. For now I’d rather keep it secret.Hint: I remember somebody debating that he can edit Wiki and he actually did it to the other fellows consternation.



Quote:
Quote:
reigncourts wrote:
So, the "cut & paste" specialist cannot make his own definition of a catcthweight and start cluttering the page with his favorite pages in history provided by the infallible Wiki-Wiki.


1.I used barely two lines in citing Wikipedia - are those the historical pages you're saying - then that is a brazen lie to cast credibility on my arguments. I used Eastside Boxing and Time Magazine for those historical pages you're referring to.
2. Here's the link on the actual interview by Steve Kim for Doghouse boxing http://www.doghouseboxing.com/DHB/Kim081110.htm. The statements are precisely Roach's own words.
Do you think even the most biased of sources will quote a false statement from somebody like Freddie Roach? That could spell a setback on whatever journalistic aspirations the writer has because it will create a negative knock on his reputation and celebrities or future interviewees will think twice before granting an audience with this scribe.
And don't tell me that Steve Kim is another biased source. Steve was the one who conducted the interview with Roach and the link I posted is from this first hand source.
3. I'm calling your bluff. Check the other definitions I provided, in fact check any definition on the internet which relates catchweight to weigh in date and good luck if you can find any.
4. You still haven't answered what bag of tricks I used in those two simple questions. I thought you were going to expose them.
Another stupid bluff. I'm calling that one as well.
At the end of the day, you actually lived up to your monicker of the Penguin, because you're not beyond deceit and propagating lies to further your cause.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:20 am 
Offline
Heavyweight

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:03 pm
Posts: 6263
Emmanuel53 wrote:
reigncourts wrote:
Quote:
Emmanuel53 wrote:
Now that I answered your question. Did you not lie when you said Freddie Roach was misquoted or quoted out of context? Defend yourself on this one, because these things have become habitual from you. And I can no longer countenance these things. I am challenging you to prove that you didn't lie on the following issues:

1. I used historical pages from Wiki-Wiki as my sources when in fact I only got one definition ( there were two other definitions from different sources which I used.)
2. Freddie Roach was misquoted in his statement
3. I used a bag of tricks in your admission that skills and other factors can overcome a size disadvantage.


1. I did check Wiki’s definition but I couldn’t find a date when it started and who made the editions. Not reliable because it is still under continuing revision (editing). It’s not yet an official dictionary word but good enough for practical purposes.(Used with common sense).

2. You quoted a biased source who quoted a source who quoted Freddie Roach explaining Manny is not a catchweight king. A third hand info gets corrupted and is no good. For all we know Freddie, in asking a 151 catchweight has already explained the quote.

3. It’s a bluff, but I could have digged some if necessary. For now I’d rather keep it secret.Hint: I remember somebody debating that he can edit Wiki and he actually did it to the other fellows consternation.



Quote:
Quote:
reigncourts wrote:
So, the "cut & paste" specialist cannot make his own definition of a catcthweight and start cluttering the page with his favorite pages in history provided by the infallible Wiki-Wiki.


1.I used barely two lines in citing Wikipedia - are those the historical pages you're saying - then that is a brazen lie to cast credibility on my arguments. I used Eastside Boxing and Time Magazine for those historical pages you're referring to.
2. Here's the link on the actual interview by Steve Kim for Doghouse boxing http://www.doghouseboxing.com/DHB/Kim081110.htm. The statements are precisely Roach's own words.
Do you think even the most biased of sources will quote a false statement from somebody like Freddie Roach? That could spell a setback on whatever journalistic aspirations the writer has because it will create a negative knock on his reputation and celebrities or future interviewees will think twice before granting an audience with this scribe.
And don't tell me that Steve Kim is another biased source. Steve was the one who conducted the interview with Roach and the link I posted is from this first hand source.
3. I'm calling your bluff. Check the other definitions I provided, in fact check any definition on the internet which relates catchweight to weigh in date and good luck if you can find any.
4. You still haven't answered what bag of tricks I used in those two simple questions. I thought you were going to expose them.
Another stupid bluff. I'm calling that one as well.
At the end of the day, you actually lived up to your monicker of the Penguin, because you're not beyond deceit and propagating lies to further your cause.


The truth of the matter is I'm providing the facts and reliable sources in this debate, while your work is to discredit them without any basis, invent your own definition which cannot be supported by any source, and muddle the issues.

Quote:
reigncourts wrote:
It's my own interpretation and according to my own definition,
let x = agreed weight + day of fight weigh in (fights held outside division limits)
let y = catchweight = agreed weight + day before fight weigh-in. (fights held outside
division limits)
Since Pac-Hoya fight was made at 147 (way out of div limits of both fighters) and day before fight weigh-in, then it is = to y = a catchweight. It' something like that.
In mathematics I can define almost any fact or truth and nobody can ever say I'm wrong, unless somebody comes up saying I'm wrong then we debate on it. 1 + 1 is always 2.


See the absurdity above that you invented again. You even fail to grasp the exactness of mathematics because you just cannot define any truth or axiom according to your whims. If you say 1+1 = 4, because you can define any truth or fact ( and those are your own words), would that be acceptable.
You cannot arbitrarily define terms if there are existing definitions on the subject, most especially if supported by opinions from respected authorities on the subject.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:31 am 
Offline
Welterweight
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:33 am
Posts: 245
Yes! A BIG YES!

FYI - Antonio Margarito TKO Sergio Martinez in rd 7!

Right now Sergio Martinez is the current Champion at Middleweight.

Sergio Martinez --> http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer.

So in case Manny Pacquiao won the light-middleweight title and beat Antonio Margarito who beat Sergio Martinez by TKO. Will Manny Pacquiao go for the 9th title in 9th different division?

Discuss... What do you think?

Also check my patter --> http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/9397 ... meline.jpg

_________________
Ok. Hello Boxing Fans. I need your help to put the puzzle all together. Anyway here's what I've done so far and I'm still long way to go. Did I miss something? Let me know...

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/9397 ... meline.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:23 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:31 pm
Posts: 4686
Location: City of Angels, Pamp
Quote:
reigncourts wrote:(reply to helven)
It's my own interpretation and according to my own definition,
let x = agreed weight + day of fight weigh in (fights held outside division limits)
let y = catchweight = agreed weight + day before fight weigh-in. (fights held outside
division limits)
Since Pac-Hoya fight was made at 147 (way out of div limits of both fighters) and day before fight weigh-in, then it is = to y = a catchweight. It' something like that.
In mathematics I can define almost any fact or truth and nobody can ever say I'm wrong, unless somebody comes up saying I'm wrong then we debate on it. 1 + 1 is always 2.

Emmanuel53
See the absurdity above that you invented again. You even fail to grasp the exactness of mathematics because you just cannot define any truth or axiom according to your whims. If you say 1+1 = 4, because you can define any truth or fact ( and those are your own words), would that be acceptable.
You cannot arbitrarily define terms if there are existing definitions on the subject, most especially if supported by opinions from respected authorities on the subject.


Reigncourts explains:
You call my presentation above as mathematically absurd. Is representing
“x = agreed weight + day of fight weigh in (fights held outside division limits)” not true? If it is true, then the statement is not according to my whims. It is true just like saying 1 + 1 is 2. Both statements are true. If you have knowledge the statement is false, I said we debate on it. But you proceed to ask, “If you say 1 + 1 = 4, would that be acceptable?” Why would I say something that is not true? I said 1 + 1 is always 2.
If I arbitrarily defined any term, then where is your proof that an x representing old time rules is not,
x = agreed weight + day of fight weigh-in when fights were held outside division limits? You can answer this question even without consulting your favorite writer or Wiki-wiki editable source, right?
But you proceed to quote them anyway that makes for lengthy debates hoping I make a mistake and you gleefully pounce on the mistake complete with highlighted effects.

Here is your latest example: I posed the question “Is a title won by a catchweight legitimate or not?
Your answer: An article quoting another writer quoting Freddie Roach saying he don’t believe in catchweights. The Roach quote is obviously not true (misquoted I said or whatever) because in fact the Pac-Margo fight is agreed at a catchweight of 151 lbs. Instead of saying you agree with Roach saying he didn’t believe in catchweight to answer my query, you pounce on this misquoted thing or whatever and blah, blah, blah in highlights and exclamations.

You’re such a great debater, I tell you. It is you who thrive in your absurdities. Anyway you already agreed that a catchweight title is legitimate, and THAT IS FACT.

SINCE WE BOTH NOW AGREE THAT A TITLE WON ON A CATCHWEIGHT IS LEGITIMATE, THIS ISSUE ON CATCHWEIGHT IS RESOLVED BETWEEN US.

_________________
I defend PAC on OSDT and Catchweight Issues; Not his Traditional Politics and Religious Exploits.

"Marcos, Hitler, Diktador, TUTA. Patalsikin ang bangkay ni Marcos sa LNMB". PATALSIKIN!!!
____


Last edited by reigncourts on Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:24 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:59 am
Posts: 5571
Location: Planet Earth (PB# 0494)
Yes as he will be the only boxer to have won 8 titles in as many division.
No boxer to date will ever attain that feat!

_________________
He who knows and knows that he knows is a wise man. - Author: A fool man.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:25 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:59 am
Posts: 20032
....and the truth shall set us ALL free ..... 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:37 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:31 pm
Posts: 4686
Location: City of Angels, Pamp
JCOOL2329 wrote:
....and the truth shall set us ALL free ..... 8)


Thanks buddy, I really need that. :D

_________________
I defend PAC on OSDT and Catchweight Issues; Not his Traditional Politics and Religious Exploits.

"Marcos, Hitler, Diktador, TUTA. Patalsikin ang bangkay ni Marcos sa LNMB". PATALSIKIN!!!
____


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:42 pm 
Offline
Light Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:18 am
Posts: 1416
reigncourts wrote:
JCOOL2329 wrote:
....and the truth shall set us ALL free ..... 8)


Thanks buddy, I really need that. :D


no one with half a brain buys this catchweight championship bit. we all just wanna see dr. manny perform manual facial reconfiguration on someone again. luckily, arum found the perfect patient -- a plasterless, agility-challenged, psychologically-dismantled margarito.

this does little to add to manny's legacy because when people 20 years from now click on margo's fight record and realize that he was only two fights removed from the worst beating of his life at the hands of a 37-year old, the WBC belt that manny wins in the fight would appear as a ludicrous title.

decades from now, manny haters will bring up this fight to debate the notion that championship belts were practically spoon fed to him -- an unfair assessment, but one that a fight like this would nonetheless support.

_________________
Life is a tragedy for those who feel, but a comedy to those who think.
- Horace Walpole


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:57 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:03 pm
Posts: 6263
reigncourts wrote:
Quote:
reigncourts wrote:(reply to helven)
It's my own interpretation and according to my own definition,
let x = agreed weight + day of fight weigh in (fights held outside division limits)
let y = catchweight = agreed weight + day before fight weigh-in. (fights held outside
division limits)
Since Pac-Hoya fight was made at 147 (way out of div limits of both fighters) and day before fight weigh-in, then it is = to y = a catchweight. It' something like that.
In mathematics I can define almost any fact or truth and nobody can ever say I'm wrong, unless somebody comes up saying I'm wrong then we debate on it. 1 + 1 is always 2.

Emmanuel53
See the absurdity above that you invented again. You even fail to grasp the exactness of mathematics because you just cannot define any truth or axiom according to your whims. If you say 1+1 = 4, because you can define any truth or fact ( and those are your own words), would that be acceptable.
You cannot arbitrarily define terms if there are existing definitions on the subject, most especially if supported by opinions from respected authorities on the subject.


Reigncourts explains:
You call my presentation above as mathematically absurd. Is representing
“x = agreed weight + day of fight weigh in (fights held outside division limits)” not true? If it is true, then the statement is not according to my whims. It is true just like saying 1 + 1 is 2. Both statements are true. If you have knowledge the statement is false, I said we debate on it. But you proceed to ask, “If you say 1 + 1 = 4, would that be acceptable?” Why would I say something that is not true? I said 1 + 1 is always 2.
If I arbitrarily defined any term, then where is your proof that an x representing old time rules is not,
x = agreed weight + day of fight weigh-in when fights were held outside division limits? You can answer this question even without consulting your favorite writer or Wiki-wiki editable source, right?
But you proceed to quote them anyway that makes for lengthy debates hoping I make a mistake and you gleefully pounce on the mistake complete with highlighted effects.

Here is your latest example: I posed the question “Is a title won by a catchweight legitimate or not?
Your answer: An article quoting another writer quoting Freddie Roach saying he don’t believe in catchweights. The Roach quote is obviously not true (misquoted I said or whatever) because in fact the Pac-Margo fight is agreed at a catchweight of 151 lbs. Instead of saying you agree with Roach saying he didn’t believe in catchweight to answer my query, you pounce on this misquoted thing or whatever and blah, blah, blah in highlights and exclamations.

You’re such a great debater, I tell you. It is you who thrive in your absurdities. Anyway you already agreed that a catchweight title is legitimate, and THAT IS FACT.

SINCE WE BOTH NOW AGREE THAT A TITLE WON ON A CATCHWEIGHT IS LEGITIMATE, THIS ISSUE ON CATCHWEIGHT IS RESOLVED BETWEEN US.


1. Did you read my rebuttal or are you simply dense? I actually provided you with the article written by Steve Kim who interviewed Roach at the Wild Card Gym for Doghouse Boxing. So it was Steve Kim quoting Freddie Roach. I now provided the actual first hand source. And the fact that Pac-Margo was agreed at a catchweight of 151 lbs. doesn't mean that the quote was untrue. You're saying that Steve Kim, one of the most respected boxing writers hereabouts, lied ??? Why should I not pounce on your penchant for mouthing untruths and falsehoods?
2."In mathematics I can define almost any fact or truth and nobody can ever say I'm wrong" - mathematics is an exact science and this statement is obviously fallacious- in mathematics, there are rules which strictly limit definitions. This statement is an absurdity. Mathematics is for the most part QUANTITATIVE or things which can be measured . Your definitions are far from that - they're QUALITATIVE or qualities, conditions. Quantities can be added up, subtracted, multiplied or divided. Can you now discern the absurdity of your logic?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:04 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:31 pm
Posts: 4686
Location: City of Angels, Pamp
The Historical significance of an Eight Division Title for Manny

What some boxing fans especially Pacquiao fans don’t seem to realize is that historically, the title of being the first Octuple Boxing Champion will do wonders for The Pacman’s legacy. Octuple what ? You may wonder what kind of an 8 legged monster is an Octuple Champion? You’re right, if you google Octuple Boxing Champion today, you won’t find anybody there. Before the Cotto win, you google Septuple Champion and you may find Hector Camacho with his 7 division title with major and minor title categories.

After the Cotto win, Manny Pacquiao became the first recognized Septuple Champion with his seven titles listed as major titles. And when a PacFan googles Septuple Champion he/she finds The Pacman up there with his seven (7) major-major titles to back up the claim. No catchweight asterisks will be attached with the major-major titles.

Hopefully if Manny gets past Marga(cheato?) he becomes the first ever Octuple Champion and a new word is introduced to describe The Great Filipino Boxer. A new word that can be searched by Wikipedia lovers to find Manny Pacquiao up there alone with his eight (8) major-major titles to back him up. No catchweights and loaded handwrap asterisks will be listed in the win columns.

_________________
I defend PAC on OSDT and Catchweight Issues; Not his Traditional Politics and Religious Exploits.

"Marcos, Hitler, Diktador, TUTA. Patalsikin ang bangkay ni Marcos sa LNMB". PATALSIKIN!!!
____


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:15 pm 
Offline
Light Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:38 am
Posts: 1861
Grand Inquisitor wrote:
reigncourts wrote:
JCOOL2329 wrote:
....and the truth shall set us ALL free ..... 8)


Thanks buddy, I really need that. :D


no one with half a brain buys this catchweight championship bit. we all just wanna see dr. manny perform manual facial reconfiguration on someone again. luckily, arum found the perfect patient -- a plasterless, agility-challenged, psychologically-dismantled margarito.

this does little to add to manny's legacy because when people 20 years from now click on margo's fight record and realize that he was only two fights removed from the worst beating of his life at the hands of a 37-year old, the WBC belt that manny wins in the fight would appear as a ludicrous title.

decades from now, manny haters will bring up this fight to debate the notion that championship belts were practically spoon fed to him -- an unfair assessment, but one that a fight like this would nonetheless support.


Well written Grand Inquisitor, very reasonable.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 383 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next

All times are UTC + 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
philboxing.com | pinoygreats.com
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group