Replies

[Jack 1000]

For all on-going and post-fight reactions to tonight's title fight.

Jack

Administrator

[Method]

Then he came in and tried to convince Larry (and everyone else) that Pascal was "headbutting all night". I only saw ONE butt - the one resulting in the cut, and it was a mutual accident.

Which is is, "Bad"? Was the guy fighting a great technical fight? Or was he headbutting all night? You cant do both.

...and Aware, I dont consider Lennox Lewis P4P talent. He got KTFO by Rahman and Ollie McCall, sure, but I never considered Lennox P4P. As far as Hopkins/Taylor, they were disputed decisions, whatever. Nobody was disputing the scoring here, except for that 108-101 card.

[Aware]

Then he came in and tried to convince Larry (and everyone else) that Pascal was "headbutting all night". I only saw ONE butt - the one resulting in the cut, and it was a mutual accident.

Which is is, "Bad"? Was the guy fighting a great technical fight? Or was he headbutting all night? You cant do both.

...and Aware, I dont consider Lennox Lewis P4P talent. He got KTFO by Rahman and Ollie McCall, sure, but I never considered Lennox P4P. As far as Hopkins/Taylor, they were disputed decisions, whatever. Nobody was disputing the scoring here, except for that 108-101 card.

Do you consider Paul Williams p4p talent (The Ring does)? He had an off night against Quintana, this situation is analogous to that. It happens there is no denying this, you cannot win this argument.

[Method]

Do you consider Paul Williams p4p talent (The Ring does)? He had an off night against Quintana, this situation is analogous to that. It happens there is no denying this, you cannot win this argument.

Again, P4P talent does NOT lose to Carlos fucking Quintana. There is no argument to win, as it's not for dispute.

Further, Williams lost to Martinez and was losing to Cintron. But that's neither here nor there. Losing to Quintana is inexcusable.

[Aware]

Again, P4P talent does NOT lose to Carlos fucking Quintana. There is no argument to win, as it's not for dispute.

Further, Williams lost to Martinez and was losing to Cintron. But that's neither here nor there. Losing to Quintana is inexcusable.

Well, you obviously don't grasp the nature of human beings. Everybody has off nights even the best of the best can lose to lesser opponents. Happened to Joe Louis in his prime, it happened to Tyson, Sugar Ray Robinson (P4P greatest), etc. Checkmate!

This post has been edited by Aware: Aug 15 2010, 12:23 AM

[tymoney]

Well, you obviously don't grasp the nature of human beings. Everybody has off nights even the best of the best can lose to lesser opponents. Happened to Joe Louis in his prime, it happened to Tyson, Sugar Ray Robinson (P4P greatest), etc. Checkmate!

Both of you guys are right. P4P talent dont lose to Carlos Quintana, and P4P talent dont lose to Buster Douglas either. But NO one with a brain can say that Tyson was not P4P one of the greatest ever. So I can buy into the argument that you can have an off night.. but I cant buy into the argument that this was one of Chad "off nights". I believe this is and always has been Chad Dawson, a talented guy that has mediocre wins over mediocre/old fighters.. and eventually got too damn comfortable and lost to another mediocre fighter. And the main reason why i cant put no money on him.. cuz after he got his ass whooped he had the audacity to say he thought he won the fight. Seriously dude? Lol.. not one word about going back to the drawing board.. i shouldve put more pressure on em etc.. nothing but excuses. I call that the "Zab Judah syndrome".. a talented guy that will never reach his full potential.

[Aware]

Both of you guys are right. P4P talent dont lose to Carlos Quintana, and P4P talent dont lose to Buster Douglas either. But NO one with a brain can say that Tyson was not P4P one of the greatest ever. So I can buy into the argument that you can have an off night.. but I cant buy into the argument that this was one of Chad "off nights". I believe this is and always has been Chad Dawson, a talented guy that has mediocre wins over mediocre/old fighters.. and eventually got too damn comfortable and lost to another mediocre fighter. And the main reason why i cant put no money on him.. cuz after he got his ass whooped he had the audacity to say he thought he won the fight. Seriously dude? Lol.. not one word about going back to the drawing board.. i shouldve put more pressure on em etc.. nothing but excuses. I call that the "Zab Judah syndrome".. a talented guy that will never reach his full potential.

So Adamek was a mediocre fighter @ 175? It's so obvious, fuck. I guess I live in my own world. And for the record he never said he was winning.

This post has been edited by Aware: Aug 15 2010, 01:15 AM

[tymoney]

So Adamek was a mediocre fighter @ 175? It's so obvious, fuck. I guess I live in my own world. And for the record he never said he was winning.

Dude did you lose money on this fight or what? Lol.. Adamek is decent.. nothing more nothing less. And he didnt have to say he thought he won. If he cant take the L like a man when its clear to everyone that he got his ass whooped.. then thats a bitch move, period.

[Method]

Dude did you lose money on this fight or what? Lol.. Adamek is decent.. nothing more nothing less.

Yup, pretty much.

Well, you obviously don't grasp the nature of human beings. Everybody has off nights even the best of the best can lose to lesser opponents. Happened to Joe Louis in his prime, it happened to Tyson, Sugar Ray Robinson (P4P greatest), etc. Checkmate!

I have no problem with it happening to Ray Robinson. Losing isnt necessarily the point. Additionally, and much more important, look how many fights Ray Robinson has, and look how many times a year he fought. Get the fuck out of my face with the comparison. Chad fought 2 times in 2009. Pascal fought 4.

Dont come in here with your half-assed arguments and ending them w the self proclaimed "checkmate" as if declaring yourself the winner after such a half-assed effort/baseless argument. That's such a " Williams/Quintana 1" effort.

Chad Dawson is WAY over-hyped...and has been. He's got decent enough skills, and he's athletic, but he is NOT the total package.

[Aware]

Yup, pretty much.



I have no problem with it happening to Ray Robinson. Losing isnt necessarily the point. Additionally, and much more important, look how many fights Ray Robinson has, and look how many times a year he fought. Get the fuck out of my face with the comparison. Chad fought 2 times in 2009. Pascal fought 4.

Dont come in here with your half-assed arguments and ending them w the self proclaimed "checkmate" as if declaring yourself the winner after such a half-assed effort/baseless argument. That's such a " Williams/Quintana 1" effort.

Chad Dawson is WAY over-hyped...and has been. He's got decent enough skills, and he's athletic, but he is NOT the total package.

Dude you got mated, just stop! We can do a postmortem and analyze where you went wrong in your arguments... All I gotta say is put your money where your mouth is and bet with me on the rematch!

This post has been edited by Aware: Aug 15 2010, 08:25 PM

[Method]

Dude you got mated! We can do a postmortem and analyze where you went wrong in your arguments. All I gotta say is put your money where your mouth is and bet with me on the rematch!

Apparently you're the only one that believe anyone was "mated". STFU.

As far as money where my mouth is, I won $300 on Pascal in this fight. How much did YOU win? Whether I think he wins the rematch is IRRELEVANT to my thoughts on Dawson, you fucking moron (I never said ANYTHING about IT, in particularly, nor did I ever claim ANYTHING about Pascal's supremacy to Dawson). What aren't you understanding here?

[Aware]

Apparently you're the only one that believe anyone was "mated". STFU.

As far as money where my mouth is, I won $300 on Pascal in this fight. How much did YOU win? Whether I think he wins the rematch is IRRELEVANT to my thoughts on Dawson, you fucking moron (I never said ANYTHING about IT, in particularly, nor did I ever claim ANYTHING about POascal's supremecy to Dawson). What aren't you understanding here?

I didn't bet on the fight ( I haven't bet on a fight since De La Hoya-Mosley II). When you make the statement Dawson was "exposed" (which was the original premise of your argument) it is implied that you believe he would lose a rematch. Unless of course you have a weird definition of exposed. You cannot have it both ways. "Whether I think he wins the rematch is irrelevant...". Damn son you're playing yourself. Of course whether Dawson had an off night or not is purely subjective at this point.