If I hear "Bad Decisions are Part of Boxing" one more time.....

[TitoFan]

sorry but this thread is a bit ridiculous, we've seen worse decisions and there hasn't been as big of an uproar, where was all this drama when Chisora was ripped off against Helenius (which was just as bad a decision as Bradley/Pacquiao), where was the uproar when Macklin got robbed against Sturm, lets face it if Pacquiao hadn't been involved in the fight there wouldn't be so much drama, the decision was wrong IMO but it's not the worst decision in the history of the sport and there was already a simple solution which Pacquiao already has allegedly turned down which is the rematch, Titofan you get mad that people bring up the Marquez fights and although most see them as close fights, I'd dare say more had Marquez winning at least 2 of the 3 clearly, so to be robbed 2 out of 3 fights (had him winning all 3) is just as tragic as you play up Bradley/Pacquiao, it's not being a hater it's just pointing out clear facts, this uproar and drama about petitions and overturning decisions is just another example of how Pacquiao and even Mayweather get special treatment it's ridiculous

(summoning all the patience in my being.....)

For the umpteenth time: I'm not discrediting the Pac-Marquez fights, and people are perfectly within their rights to call them bad decisions as well. I still maintain.... what the FUCK does this have to do with the Pac-Bradley fight?

Number 2, and PLEASE read carefully: The whole premise here (from my point of view, anyway) is not that the decision was bad because Pac came out on the short end. The premise here is that bad decisions are becoming all too commonplace.

It could've been Joe Blow decisioning John Fuck in a bad decision... and at least my outcry would've been just as bad.

It just so happens I finally had enough on this particular fight, and it happens to have been a Pac fight. Feel free (please) to look back through my thousands of previous posts over the years. When the HELL have I ever come across as a "Pactard"?? That's what I thought. Sure, I like Pac as a boxer, and I thoroughly enjoyed his beatings of DLH (where he made him quit whimpering on the stool), Hatton (where he explosively dispelled any talk about Hatton being anywhere NEAR p4p), and Margarito (talk about "karma"...... THAT, my friend, was karma). He TKO'ed Cotto, but what the hell. Cotto wasn't adequately prepared, and it was his own damn fault.

As to WHY the thread....... well maybe I'm just a bit sick and tired of the same old song-and-dance after bad decisions: "Bad decisions are part of the game". Bullshit!! That's the complacent, "let's-sit-on-our-hands-and-do-nothing" point of view. And frankly, I want no part of it.

Do you understand now? Or shall I repeat any part of it?

[ElTerribleMorales]

sorry but this thread is a bit ridiculous, we've seen worse decisions and there hasn't been as big of an uproar, where was all this drama when Chisora was ripped off against Helenius (which was just as bad a decision as Bradley/Pacquiao), where was the uproar when Macklin got robbed against Sturm, lets face it if Pacquiao hadn't been involved in the fight there wouldn't be so much drama, the decision was wrong IMO but it's not the worst decision in the history of the sport and there was already a simple solution which Pacquiao already has allegedly turned down which is the rematch, Titofan you get mad that people bring up the Marquez fights and although most see them as close fights, I'd dare say more had Marquez winning at least 2 of the 3 clearly, so to be robbed 2 out of 3 fights (had him winning all 3) is just as tragic as you play up Bradley/Pacquiao, it's not being a hater it's just pointing out clear facts, this uproar and drama about petitions and overturning decisions is just another example of how Pacquiao and even Mayweather get special treatment it's ridiculous

(summoning all the patience in my being.....)

For the umpteenth time: I'm not discrediting the Pac-Marquez fights, and people are perfectly within their rights to call them bad decisions as well. I still maintain.... what the FUCK does this have to do with the Pac-Bradley fight?

Number 2, and PLEASE read carefully: The whole premise here (from my point of view, anyway) is not that the decision was bad because Pac came out on the short end. The premise here is that bad decisions are becoming all too commonplace.

It could've been Joe Blow decisioning John Fuck in a bad decision... and at least my outcry would've been just as bad.

It just so happens I finally had enough on this particular fight, and it happens to have been a Pac fight. Feel free (please) to look back through my thousands of previous posts over the years. When the HELL have I ever come across as a "Pactard"?? That's what I thought. Sure, I like Pac as a boxer, and I thoroughly enjoyed his beatings of DLH (where he made him quit whimpering on the stool), Hatton (where he explosively dispelled any talk about Hatton being anywhere NEAR p4p), and Margarito (talk about "karma"...... THAT, my friend, was karma). He TKO'ed Cotto, but what the hell. Cotto wasn't adequately prepared, and it was his own damn fault.

As to WHY the thread....... well maybe I'm just a bit sick and tired of the same old song-and-dance after bad decisions: "Bad decisions are part of the game". Bullshit!! That's the complacent, "let's-sit-on-our-hands-and-do-nothing" point of view. And frankly, I want no part of it.

Do you understand now? Or shall I repeat any part of it?

I fully understood what you were getting at, and I didn't direct my whole post towards you, if you took it that way well that's on you, I'm just expressing my own opinion and view on the whole drama, you brought up karma and well IMO what happened to Manny was karma, a guy who always has to have everything in his favor every fight (weight, gloves, ring size, venue, testing, usually the judges, etc.) and it still bit him in the ass

there have been bigger robberies within the last 12 months

[IamInuit]

I do not think there is any real robbery in the Pac/Marquez trilogy albeit the third riding the line. Its like the first two Mab/Morales fights. Imo the wrong man won both fights but they were close. When I speak of bad decisions I'm talking about:

Alvarez/Lopez 1
Casamyor/Cruz
Walcot/Louis 1
Whitaker/Ramirez 1
Forman/Shultz
Ali/Young
Toney/Tiberi
Briggs/Foreman
Leonard/Hearns 2
Whitaker/Chavez
Pac/Bradley

[TitoFan]

sorry but this thread is a bit ridiculous, we've seen worse decisions and there hasn't been as big of an uproar, where was all this drama when Chisora was ripped off against Helenius (which was just as bad a decision as Bradley/Pacquiao), where was the uproar when Macklin got robbed against Sturm, lets face it if Pacquiao hadn't been involved in the fight there wouldn't be so much drama, the decision was wrong IMO but it's not the worst decision in the history of the sport and there was already a simple solution which Pacquiao already has allegedly turned down which is the rematch, Titofan you get mad that people bring up the Marquez fights and although most see them as close fights, I'd dare say more had Marquez winning at least 2 of the 3 clearly, so to be robbed 2 out of 3 fights (had him winning all 3) is just as tragic as you play up Bradley/Pacquiao, it's not being a hater it's just pointing out clear facts, this uproar and drama about petitions and overturning decisions is just another example of how Pacquiao and even Mayweather get special treatment it's ridiculous

(summoning all the patience in my being.....)

For the umpteenth time: I'm not discrediting the Pac-Marquez fights, and people are perfectly within their rights to call them bad decisions as well. I still maintain.... what the FUCK does this have to do with the Pac-Bradley fight?

Number 2, and PLEASE read carefully: The whole premise here (from my point of view, anyway) is not that the decision was bad because Pac came out on the short end. The premise here is that bad decisions are becoming all too commonplace.

It could've been Joe Blow decisioning John Fuck in a bad decision... and at least my outcry would've been just as bad.

It just so happens I finally had enough on this particular fight, and it happens to have been a Pac fight. Feel free (please) to look back through my thousands of previous posts over the years. When the HELL have I ever come across as a "Pactard"?? That's what I thought. Sure, I like Pac as a boxer, and I thoroughly enjoyed his beatings of DLH (where he made him quit whimpering on the stool), Hatton (where he explosively dispelled any talk about Hatton being anywhere NEAR p4p), and Margarito (talk about "karma"...... THAT, my friend, was karma). He TKO'ed Cotto, but what the hell. Cotto wasn't adequately prepared, and it was his own damn fault.

As to WHY the thread....... well maybe I'm just a bit sick and tired of the same old song-and-dance after bad decisions: "Bad decisions are part of the game". Bullshit!! That's the complacent, "let's-sit-on-our-hands-and-do-nothing" point of view. And frankly, I want no part of it.

Do you understand now? Or shall I repeat any part of it?

I fully understood what you were getting at, and I didn't direct my whole post towards you, if you took it that way well that's on you, (maybe it was the bit about the thread being ridiculous) I'm just expressing my own opinion and view on the whole drama, you brought up karma and well IMO what happened to Manny was karma, a guy who always has to have everything in his favor every fight (weight, gloves, ring size, venue, testing, usually the judges, etc.) and it still bit him in the ass

there have been bigger robberies within the last 12 months

Hey, not a problem. You said I get mad when people bring up the Pac-Marquez fights, but you neglect to mention the real reason. It's because regardless of whether the Pac-Marquez fights were robberies or not..... it doesn't make one bit of difference when discussing THIS particular fight. Honestly.... I never thought this point would be so hard to explain.

And finally, the title and origin of the thread. Again I'm having a problem getting people to understand the meaning behind it. It was fully directed at the typical response, which I imagine being given with a shrug: "Bad decisions are part of boxing." At least a dozen times I have explained that maybe they don't HAVE to be a part of boxing. That if we just sit on our hands and act complacent, and accept whatever piece of shit decision judges throw our way..... we're not helping boxing any. That there will always be the occasional bad decision? Hell yes. Judges are human and subject to error like any of us. But it should be the exception rather than the rule. Lately the opposite is true.

Hopefully, I've finally made myself understood.

[Onix]

sorry but this thread is a bit ridiculous, we've seen worse decisions and there hasn't been as big of an uproar, where was all this drama when Chisora was ripped off against Helenius (which was just as bad a decision as Bradley/Pacquiao), where was the uproar when Macklin got robbed against Sturm, lets face it if Pacquiao hadn't been involved in the fight there wouldn't be so much drama, the decision was wrong IMO but it's not the worst decision in the history of the sport and there was already a simple solution which Pacquiao already has allegedly turned down which is the rematch, Titofan you get mad that people bring up the Marquez fights and although most see them as close fights, I'd dare say more had Marquez winning at least 2 of the 3 clearly, so to be robbed 2 out of 3 fights (had him winning all 3) is just as tragic as you play up Bradley/Pacquiao, it's not being a hater it's just pointing out clear facts, this uproar and drama about petitions and overturning decisions is just another example of how Pacquiao and even Mayweather get special treatment it's ridiculous

(summoning all the patience in my being.....)

For the umpteenth time: I'm not discrediting the Pac-Marquez fights, and people are perfectly within their rights to call them bad decisions as well. I still maintain.... what the FUCK does this have to do with the Pac-Bradley fight?

Number 2, and PLEASE read carefully: The whole premise here (from my point of view, anyway) is not that the decision was bad because Pac came out on the short end. The premise here is that bad decisions are becoming all too commonplace.

It could've been Joe Blow decisioning John Fuck in a bad decision... and at least my outcry would've been just as bad.

It just so happens I finally had enough on this particular fight, and it happens to have been a Pac fight. Feel free (please) to look back through my thousands of previous posts over the years. When the HELL have I ever come across as a "Pactard"?? That's what I thought. Sure, I like Pac as a boxer, and I thoroughly enjoyed his beatings of DLH (where he made him quit whimpering on the stool), Hatton (where he explosively dispelled any talk about Hatton being anywhere NEAR p4p), and Margarito (talk about "karma"...... THAT, my friend, was karma). He TKO'ed Cotto, but what the hell. Cotto wasn't adequately prepared, and it was his own damn fault.

As to WHY the thread....... well maybe I'm just a bit sick and tired of the same old song-and-dance after bad decisions: "Bad decisions are part of the game". Bullshit!! That's the complacent, "let's-sit-on-our-hands-and-do-nothing" point of view. And frankly, I want no part of it.

Do you understand now? Or shall I repeat any part of it?

I fully understood what you were getting at, and I didn't direct my whole post towards you, if you took it that way well that's on you, (maybe it was the bit about the thread being ridiculous) I'm just expressing my own opinion and view on the whole drama, you brought up karma and well IMO what happened to Manny was karma, a guy who always has to have everything in his favor every fight (weight, gloves, ring size, venue, testing, usually the judges, etc.) and it still bit him in the ass

there have been bigger robberies within the last 12 months

Hey, not a problem. You said I get mad when people bring up the Pac-Marquez fights, but you neglect to mention the real reason. It's because regardless of whether the Pac-Marquez fights were robberies or not..... it doesn't make one bit of difference when discussing THIS particular fight. Honestly.... I never thought this point would be so hard to explain.

And finally, the title and origin of the thread. Again I'm having a problem getting people to understand the meaning behind it. It was fully directed at the typical response, which I imagine being given with a shrug: "Bad decisions are part of boxing." At least a dozen times I have explained that maybe they don't HAVE to be a part of boxing. That if we just sit on our hands and act complacent, and accept whatever piece of shit decision judges throw our way..... we're not helping boxing any. That there will always be the occasional bad decision? Hell yes. Judges are human and subject to error like any of us. But it should be the exception rather than the rule. Lately the opposite is true.

Hopefully, I've finally made myself understood.

So I am curious as to what your solution or what you're proposing that the hard core fans do? I made a thread last week "for everyone who wants to "fix" boxing" I basically said that to fix boxing people would have to give up boxing PPV, ESPN, HBO, etc. Alot of people didnt get that I was being sarcastic as no one would really ever do that. We complain about it but then we are right back next week watching the next fight.

There were some good points of view on it and how that would hurt boxing more than help it but thats all speculation till something is done.

So what is your idea?