-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
i liked the quote used by yb the other day. You know you've made it when you got haters.
Almost no one said anything about the other catchweights that were fought, besides 1 or 2 at the most.
Oscar-hopkins at 156?
Chavez-whitaker at 145? Hardly a moan.
Leonard-lalonde at 168? Hardly a moan.
Hopkins-wright and pavlik at 170? Hardly a moan.
Taylor-pavlik at 166? Hardly a moan.
Taylor-norris at 150? Hardly a moan.
Williams-marinez at 158? Hardly a moan.
But with pacquiao it's a problem and considered to be breaking the rules of boxing.
And if the guys think it's unfair to come down in weight. Then don't sign the contract. No one forced them to. And if they did complain, then take responsibility for accepting the terms.
Btw no one forced oscar to fight manny, it was oscar that wanted to fight a guy that just jumped 3 divisions within a year and was only taking 32% of the fight purse and ppv money. Oscar was never forced to do anything in his boxing career. He was always the a side of the draw and had the upper hand in negotiations. And that includes his fight with manny.
in those fights listed how many of the guys coming down to the weight lost?
i think in all of those fights the favourite won. Having watched many of them i don't see that weight drain was a factor in any of the fights i saw. You presumably disagree?
my point was actually going to be the guy coming down in weight won the majority of those fights, i think hopkins won all of his on that list and that's why no fuss was made. That can't be said for the pacquiao fights. In all of those the guy coming down looked weak and slow and got a one sided beating and that's why a fuss was kicked up
you think the out come of hagler vs leonard would have been the same if they had had the weight stipulations?
the result isn't what matters because that's always in 20/20 hindsite. If cotto had beat pacquiao, he would have been still forced to make a lower weight, the nefarious reason behind the weight dropping was still there. Right? You are upset because of the reason behind having the catchweight, to have someone lose weight so that the fighter is less effective, and his opponent having an unfair advantage. Right? If that is the case, what williams did with martinez is just as bad because it was for that exact same reason.
In my opinion, the only fight pacquiao had where i thought they maybe did that for that reason was the cotto fight. Margarito was a career welterweight, 150 actually is probably his ideal weight. Pacquiao fought hatton at hatton's natural weight - 140, mayweather made hatton come up to 147. Pac met odlh at a middle point, and don't forget, odlh was heavily favored going into that fight. Clottey was at 147.
of course it matters who wins. That's the whole point of boxing. No ones going to make a fuss when a big guy comes down a couple of pounds and beats a little guy. Because it's expected. However when a big guy has to come down in weight and then looks and fights like a damn zombie, of course people are going to say something.
I don't need to discredit pacquiao because the facts speak for themselves.
what you are saying is that if williams had beat martinez, you would given him a ton of crap like you are doing now, but because he lost, you're giving him a free pass?
answer this question....
Did martinez look like a zombie shadow of a man in the ring?
You didn't answer my question.
My point was that varying the weight from the weight class (e.g. 145 from 147 or 158 from 160) to gain an advantage is the actual problem. Whether the advantage pays off is really besides the point.
What you are saying is that is that if Martinez had looked gaunt and out-of-it, you would have given Williams crap for doing it?
To answer your question, I was there and I didn't think Martinez looked like a Zombie shadow of a man, but I thought it was low for Williams to make him come down in weight either way, and in a sense, he got his just desert.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
i liked the quote used by yb the other day. You know you've made it when you got haters.
Almost no one said anything about the other catchweights that were fought, besides 1 or 2 at the most.
Oscar-hopkins at 156?
Chavez-whitaker at 145? Hardly a moan.
Leonard-lalonde at 168? Hardly a moan.
Hopkins-wright and pavlik at 170? Hardly a moan.
Taylor-pavlik at 166? Hardly a moan.
Taylor-norris at 150? Hardly a moan.
Williams-marinez at 158? Hardly a moan.
But with pacquiao it's a problem and considered to be breaking the rules of boxing.
And if the guys think it's unfair to come down in weight. Then don't sign the contract. No one forced them to. And if they did complain, then take responsibility for accepting the terms.
Btw no one forced oscar to fight manny, it was oscar that wanted to fight a guy that just jumped 3 divisions within a year and was only taking 32% of the fight purse and ppv money. Oscar was never forced to do anything in his boxing career. He was always the a side of the draw and had the upper hand in negotiations. And that includes his fight with manny.
in those fights listed how many of the guys coming down to the weight lost?
i think in all of those fights the favourite won. Having watched many of them i don't see that weight drain was a factor in any of the fights i saw. You presumably disagree?
my point was actually going to be the guy coming down in weight won the majority of those fights, i think hopkins won all of his on that list and that's why no fuss was made. That can't be said for the pacquiao fights. In all of those the guy coming down looked weak and slow and got a one sided beating and that's why a fuss was kicked up
you think the out come of hagler vs leonard would have been the same if they had had the weight stipulations?
the result isn't what matters because that's always in 20/20 hindsite. If cotto had beat pacquiao, he would have been still forced to make a lower weight, the nefarious reason behind the weight dropping was still there. Right? You are upset because of the reason behind having the catchweight, to have someone lose weight so that the fighter is less effective, and his opponent having an unfair advantage. Right? If that is the case, what williams did with martinez is just as bad because it was for that exact same reason.
In my opinion, the only fight pacquiao had where i thought they maybe did that for that reason was the cotto fight. Margarito was a career welterweight, 150 actually is probably his ideal weight. Pacquiao fought hatton at hatton's natural weight - 140, mayweather made hatton come up to 147. Pac met odlh at a middle point, and don't forget, odlh was heavily favored going into that fight. Clottey was at 147.
of course it matters who wins. That's the whole point of boxing. No ones going to make a fuss when a big guy comes down a couple of pounds and beats a little guy. Because it's expected. However when a big guy has to come down in weight and then looks and fights like a damn zombie, of course people are going to say something.
I don't need to discredit pacquiao because the facts speak for themselves.
what you are saying is that if williams had beat martinez, you would given him a ton of crap like you are doing now, but because he lost, you're giving him a free pass?
answer this question....
Did martinez look like a zombie shadow of a man in the ring?
You didn't answer my question.
My point was that varying the weight from the weight class (e.g. 145 from 147 or 158 from 160) to gain an advantage is the actual problem. Whether the advantage pays off is really besides the point.
What you are saying is that is that if Martinez had looked gaunt and out-of-it, you would have given Williams crap for doing it?
To answer your question, I was there and I didn't think Martinez looked like a Zombie shadow of a man, but I thought it was low for Williams to make him come down in weight either way, and in a sense, he got his just desert.
Martinez didn't look like a zombie and won the fight. Was he weight drained? well if he was he didn't show it. The complete opposite of pacs recent opponants.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
i liked the quote used by yb the other day. You know you've made it when you got haters.
Almost no one said anything about the other catchweights that were fought, besides 1 or 2 at the most.
Oscar-hopkins at 156?
Chavez-whitaker at 145? Hardly a moan.
Leonard-lalonde at 168? Hardly a moan.
Hopkins-wright and pavlik at 170? Hardly a moan.
Taylor-pavlik at 166? Hardly a moan.
Taylor-norris at 150? Hardly a moan.
Williams-marinez at 158? Hardly a moan.
But with pacquiao it's a problem and considered to be breaking the rules of boxing.
And if the guys think it's unfair to come down in weight. Then don't sign the contract. No one forced them to. And if they did complain, then take responsibility for accepting the terms.
Btw no one forced oscar to fight manny, it was oscar that wanted to fight a guy that just jumped 3 divisions within a year and was only taking 32% of the fight purse and ppv money. Oscar was never forced to do anything in his boxing career. He was always the a side of the draw and had the upper hand in negotiations. And that includes his fight with manny.
in those fights listed how many of the guys coming down to the weight lost?
i think in all of those fights the favourite won. Having watched many of them i don't see that weight drain was a factor in any of the fights i saw. You presumably disagree?
my point was actually going to be the guy coming down in weight won the majority of those fights, i think hopkins won all of his on that list and that's why no fuss was made. That can't be said for the pacquiao fights. In all of those the guy coming down looked weak and slow and got a one sided beating and that's why a fuss was kicked up
you think the out come of hagler vs leonard would have been the same if they had had the weight stipulations?
the result isn't what matters because that's always in 20/20 hindsite. If cotto had beat pacquiao, he would have been still forced to make a lower weight, the nefarious reason behind the weight dropping was still there. Right? You are upset because of the reason behind having the catchweight, to have someone lose weight so that the fighter is less effective, and his opponent having an unfair advantage. Right? If that is the case, what williams did with martinez is just as bad because it was for that exact same reason.
In my opinion, the only fight pacquiao had where i thought they maybe did that for that reason was the cotto fight. Margarito was a career welterweight, 150 actually is probably his ideal weight. Pacquiao fought hatton at hatton's natural weight - 140, mayweather made hatton come up to 147. Pac met odlh at a middle point, and don't forget, odlh was heavily favored going into that fight. Clottey was at 147.
of course it matters who wins. That's the whole point of boxing. No ones going to make a fuss when a big guy comes down a couple of pounds and beats a little guy. Because it's expected. However when a big guy has to come down in weight and then looks and fights like a damn zombie, of course people are going to say something.
I don't need to discredit pacquiao because the facts speak for themselves.
what you are saying is that if williams had beat martinez, you would given him a ton of crap like you are doing now, but because he lost, you're giving him a free pass?
answer this question....
Did martinez look like a zombie shadow of a man in the ring?
You didn't answer my question.
My point was that varying the weight from the weight class (e.g. 145 from 147 or 158 from 160) to gain an advantage is the actual problem. Whether the advantage pays off is really besides the point.
What you are saying is that is that if Martinez had looked gaunt and out-of-it, you would have given Williams crap for doing it?
To answer your question, I was there and I didn't think Martinez looked like a Zombie shadow of a man, but I thought it was low for Williams to make him come down in weight either way, and in a sense, he got his just desert.
Martinez didn't look like a zombie and won the fight. Was he weight drained? well if he was he didn't show it. The complete opposite of pacs recent opponants.
If you honestly believe both Cotto and Margarito were zombies then I will respect your opinion. But can you please post the facts that they were indeed weight drained/zombies/shadows of their former selves? I'm gonna tell you right now, if you're going to post an article from a boxing "expert" saying they were, then I'm not buying that because like what you're saying again and again, those are purely opinions.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arcanum26
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
i liked the quote used by yb the other day. You know you've made it when you got haters.
Almost no one said anything about the other catchweights that were fought, besides 1 or 2 at the most.
Oscar-hopkins at 156?
Chavez-whitaker at 145? Hardly a moan.
Leonard-lalonde at 168? Hardly a moan.
Hopkins-wright and pavlik at 170? Hardly a moan.
Taylor-pavlik at 166? Hardly a moan.
Taylor-norris at 150? Hardly a moan.
Williams-marinez at 158? Hardly a moan.
But with pacquiao it's a problem and considered to be breaking the rules of boxing.
And if the guys think it's unfair to come down in weight. Then don't sign the contract. No one forced them to. And if they did complain, then take responsibility for accepting the terms.
Btw no one forced oscar to fight manny, it was oscar that wanted to fight a guy that just jumped 3 divisions within a year and was only taking 32% of the fight purse and ppv money. Oscar was never forced to do anything in his boxing career. He was always the a side of the draw and had the upper hand in negotiations. And that includes his fight with manny.
in those fights listed how many of the guys coming down to the weight lost?
i think in all of those fights the favourite won. Having watched many of them i don't see that weight drain was a factor in any of the fights i saw. You presumably disagree?
my point was actually going to be the guy coming down in weight won the majority of those fights, i think hopkins won all of his on that list and that's why no fuss was made. That can't be said for the pacquiao fights. In all of those the guy coming down looked weak and slow and got a one sided beating and that's why a fuss was kicked up
you think the out come of hagler vs leonard would have been the same if they had had the weight stipulations?
the result isn't what matters because that's always in 20/20 hindsite. If cotto had beat pacquiao, he would have been still forced to make a lower weight, the nefarious reason behind the weight dropping was still there. Right? You are upset because of the reason behind having the catchweight, to have someone lose weight so that the fighter is less effective, and his opponent having an unfair advantage. Right? If that is the case, what williams did with martinez is just as bad because it was for that exact same reason.
In my opinion, the only fight pacquiao had where i thought they maybe did that for that reason was the cotto fight. Margarito was a career welterweight, 150 actually is probably his ideal weight. Pacquiao fought hatton at hatton's natural weight - 140, mayweather made hatton come up to 147. Pac met odlh at a middle point, and don't forget, odlh was heavily favored going into that fight. Clottey was at 147.
of course it matters who wins. That's the whole point of boxing. No ones going to make a fuss when a big guy comes down a couple of pounds and beats a little guy. Because it's expected. However when a big guy has to come down in weight and then looks and fights like a damn zombie, of course people are going to say something.
I don't need to discredit pacquiao because the facts speak for themselves.
what you are saying is that if williams had beat martinez, you would given him a ton of crap like you are doing now, but because he lost, you're giving him a free pass?
answer this question....
Did martinez look like a zombie shadow of a man in the ring?
You didn't answer my question.
My point was that varying the weight from the weight class (e.g. 145 from 147 or 158 from 160) to gain an advantage is the actual problem. Whether the advantage pays off is really besides the point.
What you are saying is that is that if Martinez had looked gaunt and out-of-it, you would have given Williams crap for doing it?
To answer your question, I was there and I didn't think Martinez looked like a Zombie shadow of a man, but I thought it was low for Williams to make him come down in weight either way, and in a sense, he got his just desert.
Martinez didn't look like a zombie and won the fight. Was he weight drained? well if he was he didn't show it. The complete opposite of pacs recent opponants.
If you honestly believe both Cotto and Margarito were zombies then I will respect your
opinion. But can you please post the facts that they were indeed weight drained/zombies/shadows of their former selves? I'm gonna tell you right now, if you're going to post an article from a boxing "expert" saying they were, then I'm not buying that because like what you're saying again and again, those are purely opinions.
Neither were 100% in my opinion.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Debating 101 kids. Never answer a question by asking a question. Whether in a essay, report, or regular debating. It shows poor critical thinking skills.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
hornfinger or myself can never win a debate with these rabid dirty pactardos. all over the internet, once somebody doesn't believe pacquiao is at least top 5 p4p all-time, these little rats come from all over the internet like little bitches arguing, with their necks swaying back and forth and making complete fools of themselves.
and these are the same idiots who swear oscar was not drained when he fought pacquiao. boy, do they've got a rude awakening when their anointed one retires cause they'll be without any great credible fighters, sans nonito donaire.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milmascaras1
hornfinger or myself can never win a debate with these rabid dirty pactardos. all over the internet, once somebody doesn't believe pacquiao is at least top 5 p4p all-time, these little rats come from all over the internet like little bitches arguing, with their necks swaying back and forth and making complete fools of themselves.
and these are the same idiots who swear oscar was not drained when he fought pacquiao. boy, do they've got a rude awakening when their anointed one retires cause they'll be without any great credible fighters, sans nonito donaire.
Go read up the entire thread first before posting. Who are the same idiots who swear oscar was not weight drained back when he fought? Also, why bring up that nationality BS again against filipinos? Not all who posted here defending pac are filipinos. Hell, even Bilbo who hates nonito is supporting pac on the whole catchweight issue and he's not a filipino.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Debating 101 kids. Never answer a question by asking a question. Whether in a essay, report, or regular debating. It shows poor critical thinking skills.
Skirting round the main issue and not sticking to the main point and facts just shows you're a woman.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
arcanum,
you delicate little biatch, where do you see the word "filipino" on my comments? doesn't pacquiao have any non-filipino fans? i wasn't talking to filipino fans but to all pacquiao fans. quit being such a pussy and go to school and learn to comprehend what somebody writes. that's what's wrong with pactardo fans, you peeps are too politically correct and you get offended by everything. learn to man up and defend yourselves without swiftly running to the mods for protection just because you THINK i said something racist!!! word of advise, grow some real man-plums instead of those little dingle berries you have now!
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milmascaras1
arcanum,
you delicate little biatch, where do you see the word "filipino" on my comments? doesn't pacquiao have any non-filipino fans? i wasn't talking to filipino fans but to all pacquiao fans. quit being such a pussy and go to school and learn to comprehend what somebody writes. that's what's wrong with pactardo fans, you peeps are too politically correct and you get offended by everything. learn to man up and defend yourselves without swiftly running to the mods for protection just because you THINK i said something racist!!! word of advise, grow some real man-plums instead of those little dingle berries you have now!
Are you really that stupid? Anytime you associate pac and nonito, which group springs to mind? Of course it's filipinos. So are you saying that all pacquiao fans are nonito fans too? Wow.. I mean really? If Pac retires, nonito is the only credible fighter left for pac fans around the world? I knew you were an idiot but really? And can you please enlighten me when did I "run" to the mods for protection? Trust me, you didn't need my help when you got banned. You had it coming. Again I advise you to read up on the entire thread before you start sputtering nonsense. You're just making a complete fool of yourself. Don't derail the topic.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milmascaras1
hornfinger or myself can never win a debate
Cuz both of yous love to bend and manipulate facts with your Pac hatred.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
:::PSL:::
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milmascaras1
hornfinger or myself can never win a debate
Cuz both of yous love to bend and manipulate facts with your Pac hatred.
Sorry can't understand a word you're saying with those pac testicals in your mouth.....
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
PSL,
there you go again, crying because of some fans different opinions on pacquiao. FYI, everybody doesn't have to love and adore pacquiao, okay! some of us aren't susceptible to believing everything we see, especially when you're dealing with a fighter as protected as pacquiao.
and so what if i fucking hate pacquiao? what's it too you? are you going to get mad? but before you go crying to the mods, i don't hate pacquiao. i admire the guy because he is a humble person and i admire the way he fights. it's his fans like you who i despise. fans who accuse others of hatred and racism just because they don't agree with everything pacquiao!
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milmascaras1
PSL,
there you go again, crying because of some fans different opinions on pacquiao. FYI, everybody doesn't have to love and adore pacquiao, okay! some of us aren't susceptible to believing everything we see, especially when you're dealing with a fighter as protected as pacquiao.
and so what if i fucking hate pacquiao? what's it too you? are you going to get mad? but before you go crying to the mods, i don't hate pacquiao. i admire the guy because he is a humble person and i admire the way he fights. it's his fans like you who i despise. fans who accuse others of hatred and racism just because they don't agree with everything pacquiao!
My dislike for pacquiao first started with his moronic fans. They do their man a real dis service.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milmascaras1
PSL,
there you go again, crying because of some fans different opinions on pacquiao. FYI, everybody doesn't have to love and adore pacquiao, okay! some of us aren't susceptible to believing everything we see, especially when you're dealing with a fighter as protected as pacquiao.
and so what if i fucking hate pacquiao? what's it too you? are you going to get mad? but before you go crying to the mods, i don't hate pacquiao. i admire the guy because he is a humble person and i admire the way he fights. it's his fans like you who i despise. fans who accuse others of hatred and racism just because they don't agree with everything pacquiao!
I'm curious. If you despise a group of people; in this case "fans who accuse others of hatred and racism", then wouldn't that make you a hater yourself? Also, do you hate me too? It's not a jest when I ask you that. I'm really curious why you labeled me as a "pactardo" and not give any proof why you did it. You remind me of Youtube trolls who upon seeing something that contradicts your view would immediately start throwing accusations/insults. I find that a bit ironic since I would assume the same trolls from youtube/other boxing forums is what's getting you so... well, hateful.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
listen arcanum, how can i hate you when i don't know you? and i believe you have the symptoms of a pactardo because, you're calling hornfinger and me haters because we don't agree with everything pacquiao. that's what i call a pactardo. it's all his fans know about boxing. it begins and ends with pacquiao, so why deny it!
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milmascaras1
listen arcanum, how can i hate you when i don't know you? and i believe you have the symptoms of a pactardo because, you're calling hornfinger and me haters because we don't agree with everything pacquiao. that's what i call a pactardo. it's all his fans know about boxing. it begins and ends with pacquiao, so why deny it!
When did I call you or Hornfinger haters? Damn, sorry if this is going completely off topic. I'm sorry milmascaras but I have to blame you for that unnecessary post of yours. Also, my love for boxing didn't begin with pac nor does it end there. Let's just say manny increased my interest on boxing to the point that I started reading up about boxing and watching past/present fights no matter if manny or a filipino fighter is involved or not. Like I said on my first post here in Saddo, which ironically is me criticizing manny's decisions about the blood test issue, I emphatically stated I'm not a huge boxing fan compared to the regulars here.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Debating 101 kids. Never answer a question by asking a question. Whether in a essay, report, or regular debating. It shows poor critical thinking skills.
thats the biggest load of bosh ive ever heard soz
of all the crazy opinions on this thread / forum you have to come up with a corker thats not boxing related
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milmascaras1
PSL,
there you go again, crying because of some fans different opinions on pacquiao. FYI, everybody doesn't have to love and adore pacquiao, okay! some of us aren't susceptible to believing everything we see, especially when you're dealing with a fighter as protected as pacquiao.
and so what if i fucking hate pacquiao? what's it too you? are you going to get mad? but before you go crying to the mods, i don't hate pacquiao. i admire the guy because he is a humble person and i admire the way he fights. it's his fans like you who i despise. fans who accuse others of hatred and racism just because they don't agree with everything pacquiao!
dude you are right PSL paddies at even the suggestion that pac has a fault
i suggested on one thread that hand wrappers were no worse than roiders (not even mentioning pac) and he took it to his pac heart and chucked a right wobbler
im not sure pac is protected tho
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Debating 101 kids. Never answer a question by asking a question. Whether in a essay, report, or regular debating. It shows poor critical thinking skills.
thats the biggest load of bosh ive ever heard soz
of all the crazy opinions on this thread / forum you have to come up with a corker thats not boxing related
No it's the simple facts of debating. You don't answer a question by asking a question, it usually means the other party has no rebuttal or seriously lacks critical thinking skills. ;)
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Debating 101 kids. Never answer a question by asking a question. Whether in a essay, report, or regular debating. It shows poor critical thinking skills.
thats the biggest load of bosh ive ever heard soz
of all the crazy opinions on this thread / forum you have to come up with a corker thats not boxing related
No it's the simple facts of debating.
You don't answer a question by asking a question, it usually means the other party has no rebuttal or seriously lacks critical thinking skills. ;)
I think Jesus Christ might disagree with you on this. But what does HE know, He was the only the Son of God after all. You're an expert.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Debating 101 kids. Never answer a question by asking a question. Whether in a essay, report, or regular debating. It shows poor critical thinking skills.
thats the biggest load of bosh ive ever heard soz
of all the crazy opinions on this thread / forum you have to come up with a corker thats not boxing related
No it's the simple facts of debating.
You don't answer a question by asking a question, it usually means the other party has no rebuttal or seriously lacks critical thinking skills. ;)
I think Jesus Christ might disagree with you on this. But what does HE know, He was the only the Son of God after all. You're an expert.
WTF?;D That was completely out of left field. Maybe I'll get Miles in here and we can talk about the Israelis. Heard Bob Arum is a Zionist Jew.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milmascaras1
fans who accuse others of hatred and racism just because they don't agree with everything pacquiao!
you always bring up that the philippines only has one good boxer while your country has a hundred.
you call people pactards, idiots and you always insult others.
you hate pac and anyone who think pac is great and yet majority of you posts is abut pac.
you said margarito will beat pac but still claim that pac is a protected fighter.
so your pretty much a hater and racist!
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Debating 101 kids. Never answer a question by asking a question. Whether in a essay, report, or regular debating. It shows poor critical thinking skills.
thats the biggest load of bosh ive ever heard soz
of all the crazy opinions on this thread / forum you have to come up with a corker thats not boxing related
No it's the simple facts of debating. You don't answer a question by asking a question, it usually means the other party has no rebuttal or seriously lacks critical thinking skills. ;)
doesnt dude
people who say shit like thar usually lack critical thinking skills :)
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mnmc10
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milmascaras1
fans who accuse others of hatred and racism just because they don't agree with everything pacquiao!
you always bring up that the philippines only has one good boxer while your country has a hundred.
you call people pactards, idiots and you always insult others.
you hate pac and anyone who think pac is great and yet majority of you posts is abut pac.
you said margarito will beat pac but still claim that pac is a protected fighter.
so your pretty much a hater and racist!
Well look on the bright side, even though the Phillipines has Pac as the only ATG fighter, it's going to take some really extraordinary fighter in the future to accomplish what Pac has done or even surpass it. Conservatively he's already considered a top 25 fighter in boxing history. To even break into that top
25 list, a fighter has to be really talented in terms of boxing attributes and accomplishments.
Regardless if people think that Pac's eight world titles are suspect in this era because of catchweights and too many weight divisions, 1 thing that can't be denied is that Pac is the only lineal champion in 4 different weight classes (and no catchweights I might add) and he won his 1st lineal title at 19. You can only count only a handful of boxers that became a lineal champ in their teenage years.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Debating 101 kids. Never answer a question by asking a question. Whether in a essay, report, or regular debating. It shows poor critical thinking skills.
thats the biggest load of bosh ive ever heard soz
of all the crazy opinions on this thread / forum you have to come up with a corker thats not boxing related
No it's the simple facts of debating.
You don't answer a question by asking a question, it usually means the other party has no rebuttal or seriously lacks critical thinking skills. ;)
I think Jesus Christ might disagree with you on this. But what does HE know, He was the only the Son of God after all. You're an expert.
WTF?;D That was completely out of left field. Maybe I'll get Miles in here and we can talk about the Israelis. Heard Bob Arum is a Zionist Jew.
Read the Bible, Jesus never answered a question directly. Instead he would turn it back on his accusers and leave them dumbfounded and wanting to string him up and nail him to a tree.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Sorry but your posts are ridiculous. So in your OWN words, it's not usually a big deal for a fighter to come down a couple of pounds and still beat up the little guy, it's what you would expect.
But because Pacquiao beats them, then obviously this proves the exception where the loss of a pound was pivotal and turned the fight result on its head? :confused:
Bigger men like Hopkins goes down and beat the smaller fighter
but if its Pacquiao. The smaller man beat up the bigger men because he weight drains him. :D
classic!!
LOL!
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mnmc10
you always bring up that the philippines only has one good boxer while your country has a hundred.
His country only have Javier Castillejo. Maybe you're talking about some other mexican poster.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Debating 101 kids. Never answer a question by asking a question. Whether in a essay, report, or regular debating. It shows poor critical thinking skills.
thats the biggest load of bosh ive ever heard soz
of all the crazy opinions on this thread / forum you have to come up with a corker thats not boxing related
No it's the simple facts of debating.
You don't answer a question by asking a question, it usually means the other party has no rebuttal or seriously lacks critical thinking skills. ;)
I think Jesus Christ might disagree with you on this. But what does HE know, He was the only the Son of God after all. You're an expert.
WTF?;D That was completely out of left field. Maybe I'll get Miles in here and we can talk about the Israelis. Heard Bob Arum is a Zionist Jew.
Read the Bible, Jesus never answered a question directly. Instead he would turn it back on his accusers and leave them dumbfounded and wanting to string him up and nail him to a tree.
That sounds like Ben Bernanke to me.
Jesus was the son of god, my arse. There is no god and so there can be no chosen people either. Those crazy zionist nutters! Is that left field enough? :D:p
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Actually, that post above was just a bit of fun, so let's stick to insulting one another and discusssing Manny Pac and his fondness of catchweights. I'm not one for hijacking the main board, but just thought I should add something as miles and Israel were being brought up and something a bit random was seemingly being asked for. That's all. :cool:
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
After 10 pages the fact remains the same.
If a couple of pounds under the weight limit makes no difference to a fighters performance on the night, why would pacroid, and his team of gay homo erotic cheating drug dealers, insist on the catch weight or lower weightclass?
,
If it made no difference Pacroid would have fought DLH at 154, Cotto at 147, Margarito at 154.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miron_lang
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Sorry but your posts are ridiculous. So in your OWN words, it's not usually a big deal for a fighter to come down a couple of pounds and still beat up the little guy, it's what you would expect.
But because Pacquiao beats them, then obviously this proves the exception where the loss of a pound was pivotal and turned the fight result on its head? :confused:
Bigger men like Hopkins goes down and beat the smaller fighter
but if its Pacquiao. The smaller man beat up the bigger men because he weight drains him. :D
classic!!
LOL!
The question is, are Pacroids opponants weakend/weight drained due to having to come down in weight? Well I'd say yes cuz they've all looked cack and lost.
Was Hopkins weight drained? Hard to tell cuz he won easily.
Why did no one make a fuss about B-Hop coming down? Because he won easily, and he was fighting ODH the most popular fighter in the sport who everyone want to win the fight.
Does that make it easy for you to understand?
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
And finally.........
If pacroid had lost to DLH, Cotto and margarito would we be having this conversation? No because there would be no debate. Those fighters would have won so you can't debate the reason why they lost.....
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Debating 101 kids. Never answer a question by asking a question. Whether in a essay, report, or regular debating. It shows poor critical thinking skills.
thats the biggest load of bosh ive ever heard soz
of all the crazy opinions on this thread / forum you have to come up with a corker thats not boxing related
No it's the simple facts of debating. You don't answer a question by asking a question, it usually means the other party has no rebuttal or seriously lacks critical thinking skills. ;)
Answering a question is 'not' poor critical thinking skills. It's just the basics taught in sociology by a structured thinkers. Answering a question with a question is complex thinking that implies an understood you. The fault of the understood you is that it assume all parties have the same evidence and premise. This is where comprehensive communication fails and why structured arguments are used in Law.
Question: Are you going to eat that? Answer: Would you eat that? What is the "understood you"? Mold, fungus, aesthetically displeasing? Or perhaps "Would you eat that?" is really a command rather than a question.
Typically answering a question with a question is directed at the originator to think more about the original question, rather than the superficial.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fan johnny
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Debating 101 kids. Never answer a question by asking a question. Whether in a essay, report, or regular debating. It shows poor critical thinking skills.
thats the biggest load of bosh ive ever heard soz
of all the crazy opinions on this thread / forum you have to come up with a corker thats not boxing related
No it's the simple facts of debating. You don't answer a question by asking a question, it usually means the other party has no rebuttal or seriously lacks critical thinking skills. ;)
Answering a question is 'not' poor critical thinking skills. It's just the basics taught in sociology by a structured thinkers. Answering a question with a question is complex thinking that implies an understood you. The fault of the understood you is that it assume all parties have the same evidence and premise. This is where comprehensive communication fails and why structured arguments are used in Law.
Question: Are you going to eat that? Answer: Would you eat that? What is the "understood you"? Mold, fungus, aesthetically displeasing? Or perhaps "Would you eat that?" is really a command rather than a question.
Typically answering a question with a question is directed at the originator to think more about the original question, rather than the superficial.
To be fair to GB, I would argue that if a genuine question is asked, then you are obligated to provide an answer to the best of your ability. To have a question and then randomly retort a quick fire question back. Well, that does imply a complete lack of ability to come to terms with the question that was being asked.
You should provide a decent response and only then fire back with a question of your own. Your own post is interesting, but in terms of the back and forth from earlier, I see no reason why a decent response could not have been produced rather than a quickfire question back whence the response that GB himself gave. I'm taking no sides in the argument as I think Hornfinger has at times made good points, but a question followed by a question? It's not the best way to stimulate debate. "I'll ask you a question!". "Well, I will ignore your question and ask another one!". I would rather ignore the person after that kind of exchange.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fan johnny
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Debating 101 kids. Never answer a question by asking a question. Whether in a essay, report, or regular debating. It shows poor critical thinking skills.
thats the biggest load of bosh ive ever heard soz
of all the crazy opinions on this thread / forum you have to come up with a corker thats not boxing related
No it's the simple facts of debating. You don't answer a question by asking a question, it usually means the other party has no rebuttal or seriously lacks critical thinking skills. ;)
Answering a question is 'not' poor critical thinking skills. It's just the basics taught in sociology by a structured thinkers. Answering a question with a question is complex thinking that implies an understood you. The fault of the understood you is that it assume all parties have the same evidence and premise. This is where comprehensive communication fails and why structured arguments are used in Law.
Question: Are you going to eat that? Answer: Would you eat that? What is the "understood you"? Mold, fungus, aesthetically displeasing? Or perhaps "Would you eat that?" is really a command rather than a question.
Typically answering a question with a question is directed at the originator to think more about the original question, rather than the superficial.
To be fair to GB, I would argue that if a genuine question is asked, then you are obligated to provide an answer to the best of your ability. To have a question and then randomly retort a quick fire question back. Well, that does imply a complete lack of ability to come to terms with the question that was being asked.
You should provide a decent response and only then fire back with a question of your own. Your own post is interesting, but in terms of the back and forth from earlier, I see no reason why a decent response could not have been produced rather than a quickfire question back whence the response that GB himself gave. I'm taking no sides in the argument as I think Hornfinger has at times made good points, but a question followed by a question? It's not the best way to stimulate debate. "I'll ask you a question!". "Well, I will ignore your question and ask another one!". I would rather ignore the person after that kind of exchange.
I don't disagree that answering a question with a question is an incomplete response to the subject or premise behind the question. I mean to point out that it doesn't mean the responder is not a "critical thinker" or suggests the responder has "poor critical thinking skills".
Arguing is natural to everyone, and many people don't structure their arguments when 'writing' responses. A person can be very good at critical thinking and analysis but may have complex thoughts that are difficult to organize in a structured response. They may have lazy communication skills, making it difficult for them to get their point across and thus resort to that laziness by answering a question with a question. It can also mean as I've stated before questioned response that is by design. It does not imply that they are poor critical thinkers as sociology educators teach, i.e. that application is for a structured rules that are followed by the participants.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hornfinger
After 10 pages the fact remains the same.
If a couple of pounds under the weight limit makes no difference to a fighters performance on the night, why would pacroid, and his team of gay homo erotic cheating drug dealers, insist on the catch weight or lower weightclass?
,
If it made no difference Pacroid would have fought DLH at 154, Cotto at 147, Margarito at 154.
Who has said it made no difference? We are saying that being weight drained was not a factor.
There are many people on here arguing that if Marquez is to fight Manny the fight shouldn't be above 140 because Marquez doesn't carry the weight as well as Manny, and that it is fairer to fight at junior welter than welter as Marquez is not a welterweight.
The argument isn't that Manny will be weight drained at 140, he could make the weight no problem. It's just that he is suited to a lower weight class.
Well it's the same for Manny. Manny is not nearly as big as Antonio Margarito, and is considerably smaller than Miguel Cotto also. He's NOT a junior middleweight. He entered the ring against Margarito weighing 148lbs, compared to Margarito's 165.
If it wasn't a catchweight Margarito would have likely entered the ring at 170. That would be a 22lb weight advantage. That's a big difference!
How can you not see this? When two guys are different sizes they have find somewhere to meet, a weight to fight at. Against Cotto it was agreed 145, against Margarito it was agreed 150. You could make exactly the same argument for fighting Cotto at full welter, why not at 154? And why not fight Margarito at 160?
The higher they go the more it favours the bigger man because Manny isn't gaining weight. He's being massively outweighed.
I've said it many times but I will reiterate it. Your posts are ridiculous.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
and Generalbulldog is dead wrong about answering questions with questions being a poor form of debate. As I've already said, the Son of God handled people almost exclusively like that. Done correctly it's the best form of destroying an argument.
Instead of getting into a debate (which obviously God is far too smart to do) He just redirected people's accusations and questions back to them. It was genuis.
As an example. The Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus out for his going around and forgiving people's sins, even when they were to be executed according to God's OWN law. So they tried to trap him in his own words by dragging a woman caught in the very act of adultary before him and demanding that she be stoned to death. How could HE reason HIS way out of this one they thought. He'll have to contradict Himself now and defy the word of God if He proposes to forgive her and deny the righteous punishment due to her.
But what did Jesus do? He didn't get into a debate, or argue why they were wrong. He just said 'Let him who is without sin throw the first stone'. He just turned it around on them. They demanded justice, but he deflected the accusation back on them. If they demand justice then justice applies to them too. They tried to trick Him and instead became trapped by their OWN accusations and demands.
Genius. A true genuis NEVER gets involved in lenghty debates and meet questions head on. They deflect the opponent's aggression like a push hands martial artist so that when they attack they hit only air and are knocked off balance by their own attack.
Generalbulldog does not have a clue on this. ;)
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fan johnny
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fan johnny
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Debating 101 kids. Never answer a question by asking a question. Whether in a essay, report, or regular debating. It shows poor critical thinking skills.
thats the biggest load of bosh ive ever heard soz
of all the crazy opinions on this thread / forum you have to come up with a corker thats not boxing related
No it's the simple facts of debating. You don't answer a question by asking a question, it usually means the other party has no rebuttal or seriously lacks critical thinking skills. ;)
Answering a question is 'not' poor critical thinking skills. It's just the basics taught in sociology by a structured thinkers. Answering a question with a question is complex thinking that implies an understood you. The fault of the understood you is that it assume all parties have the same evidence and premise. This is where comprehensive communication fails and why structured arguments are used in Law.
Question: Are you going to eat that? Answer: Would you eat that? What is the "understood you"? Mold, fungus, aesthetically displeasing? Or perhaps "Would you eat that?" is really a command rather than a question.
Typically answering a question with a question is directed at the originator to think more about the original question, rather than the superficial.
To be fair to GB, I would argue that if a genuine question is asked, then you are obligated to provide an answer to the best of your ability. To have a question and then randomly retort a quick fire question back. Well, that does imply a complete lack of ability to come to terms with the question that was being asked.
You should provide a decent response and only then fire back with a question of your own. Your own post is interesting, but in terms of the back and forth from earlier, I see no reason why a decent response could not have been produced rather than a quickfire question back whence the response that GB himself gave. I'm taking no sides in the argument as I think Hornfinger has at times made good points, but a question followed by a question? It's not the best way to stimulate debate. "I'll ask you a question!". "Well, I will ignore your question and ask another one!". I would rather ignore the person after that kind of exchange.
I don't disagree that answering a question with a question is an incomplete response to the subject or premise behind the question. I mean to point out that it doesn't mean the responder is not a "critical thinker" or suggests the responder has "poor critical thinking skills".
Arguing is natural to everyone, and many people don't structure their arguments when 'writing' responses. A person can be very good at critical thinking and analysis but may have complex thoughts that are difficult to organize in a structured response. They may have lazy communication skills, making it difficult for them to get their point across and thus resort to that laziness by answering a question with a question. It can also mean as I've stated before questioned response that is by design. It does not imply that they are poor critical thinkers as sociology educators teach, i.e. that application is for a structured rules that are followed by the participants.
You do not answer a question with a question, just the basics of debating. You're talking about some sociology class you took, I"m talking about some debating/speech class that I took for my general ed years ago in college. 2 entirely different fields.
It seriously implies not being able to give a decent rebuttal on the question and a complete sidetracking of it in this case to another topic. And I'm pretty sure the guy I was debating with isn't some deep critical thinker.
I asked how come there were barely any outrage over other recent catchweight bouts and got fired right back with some question that has no relation at all to the topic. Now this topic has veered into Pacquiao taking drugs by the same guy who can't answer other people's questions, when the topic was originally about catchweights.
-
Re: De La Hoya: Pacquiao makes fighters lose on the scales 1st
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fan johnny
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fan johnny
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Debating 101 kids. Never answer a question by asking a question. Whether in a essay, report, or regular debating. It shows poor critical thinking skills.
thats the biggest load of bosh ive ever heard soz
of all the crazy opinions on this thread / forum you have to come up with a corker thats not boxing related
No it's the simple facts of debating. You don't answer a question by asking a question, it usually means the other party has no rebuttal or seriously lacks critical thinking skills. ;)
Answering a question is 'not' poor critical thinking skills. It's just the basics taught in sociology by a structured thinkers. Answering a question with a question is complex thinking that implies an understood you. The fault of the understood you is that it assume all parties have the same evidence and premise. This is where comprehensive communication fails and why structured arguments are used in Law.
Question: Are you going to eat that? Answer: Would you eat that? What is the "understood you"? Mold, fungus, aesthetically displeasing? Or perhaps "Would you eat that?" is really a command rather than a question.
Typically answering a question with a question is directed at the originator to think more about the original question, rather than the superficial.
To be fair to GB, I would argue that if a genuine question is asked, then you are obligated to provide an answer to the best of your ability. To have a question and then randomly retort a quick fire question back. Well, that does imply a complete lack of ability to come to terms with the question that was being asked.
You should provide a decent response and only then fire back with a question of your own. Your own post is interesting, but in terms of the back and forth from earlier, I see no reason why a decent response could not have been produced rather than a quickfire question back whence the response that GB himself gave. I'm taking no sides in the argument as I think Hornfinger has at times made good points, but a question followed by a question? It's not the best way to stimulate debate. "I'll ask you a question!". "Well, I will ignore your question and ask another one!". I would rather ignore the person after that kind of exchange.
I don't disagree that answering a question with a question is an incomplete response to the subject or premise behind the question. I mean to point out that it doesn't mean the responder is not a "critical thinker" or suggests the responder has "poor critical thinking skills".
Arguing is natural to everyone, and many people don't structure their arguments when 'writing' responses. A person can be very good at critical thinking and analysis but may have complex thoughts that are difficult to organize in a structured response. They may have lazy communication skills, making it difficult for them to get their point across and thus resort to that laziness by answering a question with a question. It can also mean as I've stated before questioned response that is by design. It does not imply that they are poor critical thinkers as sociology educators teach, i.e. that application is for a structured rules that are followed by the participants.
You do not answer a question with a question, just the basics of debating. You're talking about some sociology class you took, I"m talking about some debating/speech class that I took for my general ed years ago in college. 2 entirely different fields.
It seriously implies not being able to give a decent rebuttal on the question and a complete sidetracking of it in this case to another topic. And I'm pretty sure the guy I was debating with isn't some deep critical thinker.
I asked how come there were barely any outrage over other recent catchweight bouts and got fired right back with some question that has no relation at all to the topic. Now this topic has veered into Pacquiao taking drugs by the same guy who can't answer other people's questions, when the topic was originally about catchweights.
You missed the point completely. Answering a question with a question is done all the time in the real world. In your educated world, it is a rule you learned about in your "debating/speech class" that apparently has labeled people incorrectly outside of the structure in which you were taught. Inside of the rules you follow, the definition may work, but not outside of the rules. And It may very well be the guy you are talking about is a mindless idiot. however, I'm not defending him.
My point is, Answering a question with a question is common and has it's applications. It does not mean a person using this method of debating does not have critical thinking skills. Since you don't believe me, here is a general link about the methodology. Socratic method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. You can easily find others in a google search explaining the methodology and the history of the definition.
BTW: Debating and Speech are taught under the category of Social Sciences.
Sorry for the OT, Guys...
