Juan manuel marquez aka el dinamita army

[:::PSL:::]

Yea I thought so.

...Pussy

[FinitoElDinamita]

Yea I thought so.

...Pussy

You're the real pussy... U only have the balls to bet when your fighter is a massive favorite..<< that's a coward..

8-1 favorite that is.. lol So who's the real pussy Brighten up will ya..

If you are anywhere near LA, im willing to bet REAL MONEY and we gotta bet according to the ODDS..

Forget that soft ass sig bet.. It doesnt accomplish anything..

If you think u know better, come holler at me at Saddo prediction league and see if you can hang..

[:::PSL:::]

Yea I thought so.

...Pussy

You're the real pussy... U only have the balls to bet when your fighter is a massive favorite..<< that's a coward..

8-1 favorite that is.. lol So who's the real pussy Brighten up will ya..

If you are anywhere near LA, im willing to bet REAL MONEY and we gotta bet according to the ODDS..

Forget that soft ass sig bet.. It doesnt accomplish anything..

If you think u know better, come holler at me at Saddo prediction league and see if you can hang..

No matter how you twist it. You know deep in your heart that your boy doesn't stand a chance.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

I don't know why some posters keep saying that Marquez won twice. If they present it as their opinion, then they are entitled to it. But they make it appear as fact. Based on what? I assume it's because they have knowledge that more people (probably not even a hundred) believe that Marquez won. There are likely to have been more than 500,000 people who watched the first and second fights so whatever knowledge they have is not even a representative sample of all the people who watched. It's like saying that McCain should have won the last US presidential election instead of Obama based on their survey of 1,000 people.

The official score is a DRAW and a WIN FOR PACQUIAO in the two fights that are too close to call. Give it a rest.

[Gandalf]

I don't know why some posters keep saying that Marquez won twice. If they present it as their opinion, then they are entitled to it. But they make it appear as fact. Based on what? I assume it's because they have knowledge that more people (probably not even a hundred) believe that Marquez won. There are likely to have been more than 500,000 people who watched the first and second fights so whatever knowledge they have is not even a representative sample of all the people who watched. It's like saying that McCain should have won the last US presidential election instead of Obama based on their survey of 1,000 people.

The official score is a DRAW and a WIN FOR PACQUIAO in the two fights that are too close to call. Give it a rest.

Okay, Pac got the verdict of the judges in their second bout. But boxing scoring is not an exact science and when you have most boxing writers and forum members arguing that Marquez won then you have to give that its weight as well.

They say history is only written by the winners, but that does not mean that we ignore what really happened and what contemporary commentators really thought at the time.

The second fight in particular was close, but most believe Marquez edged it.

[Snakey]

Well if you saw someone murdered and the judge said the person who did it was not guilty does it mean that person didnt murder someone?


A bunch of people saw Marquez win those two fights, just coz some judges say otherwise doesnt mean it didnt happen.

[FinitoElDinamita]

OJ simpson is innocent because the judge said so.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

Well if you saw someone murdered and the judge said the person who did it was not guilty does it mean that person didnt murder someone?


A bunch of people saw Marquez win those two fights, just coz some judges say otherwise doesnt mean it didnt happen.

How many in numbers is that 'bunch'?

And how did you see both fights: are they close or was one of them dominant?

[InTheNeutralCorner]

I don't know why some posters keep saying that Marquez won twice. If they present it as their opinion, then they are entitled to it. But they make it appear as fact. Based on what? I assume it's because they have knowledge that more people (probably not even a hundred) believe that Marquez won. There are likely to have been more than 500,000 people who watched the first and second fights so whatever knowledge they have is not even a representative sample of all the people who watched. It's like saying that McCain should have won the last US presidential election instead of Obama based on their survey of 1,000 people.

The official score is a DRAW and a WIN FOR PACQUIAO in the two fights that are too close to call. Give it a rest.

Okay, Pac got the verdict of the judges in their second bout. But boxing scoring is not an exact science and when you have most boxing writers and forum members arguing that Marquez won then you have to give that its weight as well. This means that the boxing writers and forum members judging are likewise not an exact science. So how can one be better than the other when both are not exact science. And what do you mean by most? How many are this in numbers?

They say history is only written by the winners, but that does not mean that we ignore what really happened and what contemporary commentators really thought at the time. But you are giving great value to the scores of those commentators who agrees with you. How many commentators did you know of that expressed their opinion as to who won?

The second fight in particular was close, but most believe Marquez edged it. How many in numbers is this 'most' that you talk about with regards to all the people who watched the fight.?

You already said that boxing scoring is not an exact science so until they find a better way on how to score a fight, we can disagree with the result but in a VERY CLOSE fight, you cannot insist that your score is right and the judges are wrong.

[Gandalf]

I don't know why some posters keep saying that Marquez won twice. If they present it as their opinion, then they are entitled to it. But they make it appear as fact. Based on what? I assume it's because they have knowledge that more people (probably not even a hundred) believe that Marquez won. There are likely to have been more than 500,000 people who watched the first and second fights so whatever knowledge they have is not even a representative sample of all the people who watched. It's like saying that McCain should have won the last US presidential election instead of Obama based on their survey of 1,000 people.

The official score is a DRAW and a WIN FOR PACQUIAO in the two fights that are too close to call. Give it a rest.

Okay, Pac got the verdict of the judges in their second bout. But boxing scoring is not an exact science and when you have most boxing writers and forum members arguing that Marquez won then you have to give that its weight as well. This means that the boxing writers and forum members judging are likewise not an exact science. So how can one be better than the other when both are not exact science. And what do you mean by most? How many are this in numbers?

They say history is only written by the winners, but that does not mean that we ignore what really happened and what contemporary commentators really thought at the time. But you are giving great value to the scores of those commentators who agrees with you. How many commentators did you know of that expressed their opinion as to who won?

The second fight in particular was close, but most believe Marquez edged it. How many in numbers is this 'most' that you talk about with regards to all the people who watched the fight.?

You already said that boxing scoring is not an exact science so until they find a better way on how to score a fight, we can disagree with the result but in a VERY CLOSE fight, you cannot insist that your score is right and the judges are wrong.

Yes, I can because a lot more people agree with me. I believe that boxing writers are not as stupid as they appear.

[Violent Demise]

I don't know why some posters keep saying that Marquez won twice. If they present it as their opinion, then they are entitled to it. But they make it appear as fact. Based on what? I assume it's because they have knowledge that more people (probably not even a hundred) believe that Marquez won. There are likely to have been more than 500,000 people who watched the first and second fights so whatever knowledge they have is not even a representative sample of all the people who watched. It's like saying that McCain should have won the last US presidential election instead of Obama based on their survey of 1,000 people.

The official score is a DRAW and a WIN FOR PACQUIAO in the two fights that are too close to call. Give it a rest.

Okay, Pac got the verdict of the judges in their second bout. But boxing scoring is not an exact science and when you have most boxing writers and forum members arguing that Marquez won then you have to give that its weight as well. This means that the boxing writers and forum members judging are likewise not an exact science. So how can one be better than the other when both are not exact science. And what do you mean by most? How many are this in numbers?

They say history is only written by the winners, but that does not mean that we ignore what really happened and what contemporary commentators really thought at the time. But you are giving great value to the scores of those commentators who agrees with you. How many commentators did you know of that expressed their opinion as to who won?

The second fight in particular was close, but most believe Marquez edged it. How many in numbers is this 'most' that you talk about with regards to all the people who watched the fight.?

You already said that boxing scoring is not an exact science so until they find a better way on how to score a fight, we can disagree with the result but in a VERY CLOSE fight, you cannot insist that your score is right and the judges are wrong.

The hell I can't. My scorecard is right. Anybody else that disagrees with it is wrong. And I know more than you. Scoring fights is not an exact science. It doesn't have to be. There is still a right way and wrong way to do it. Lot of muthfukkas think that just cuz a fool is an offical judge he knows the sport. Wrong. 60% have no buisness being judges.