Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
I'll send you a signed photo if you like?

I'm not arrogant enough to believe my scorecard is 100% bombproof definitive. I accept scoring fights is open to interpretation. It's subjective.

It was utterly IRRELEVANT whether or not miron_lang had seen the fight. His post highlighted a contradiction in peoples scorecards. It was a great expose on the hypocrisy of "robberies" in boxing. His idea could be put to use on all the robbery claims over the years, the fact it was this bout is irrelevant.

So, unless you believe your opinion is far superior to anyone elses (like Miles ), then it should be perfectly reasonable to accept people interpeted a fight different. Simple as that.
It was not IRRELEVANT whether miron_lang had seen the fight. His post called out all those people who thought they had witnessed a robbery and then used a very flawed piece of naive statistical analysis to propagate his massively prejudiced views. Imagine a crime occurring and being captured on cctv, people witness it and there is video evidence available, but before watching the cctv footage you start to question peoples interpretation of it and call into question the crime occuring at all. The only people who believe their opinion is far superior to anyone else, are those who draw conclusions without examining the evidence first hand. How was it a great expose on the hypocrisy of "robberies" in boxing. Great exposé's draw together numerous threads from extensive research to make irrefutable points. The fact that there is a contradiction in the scorecards of the super 5 is not a supporting fact for your argument at all, if anything it undermines your hypothesis. Judges scorecards very rarely tally exactly round for round, the discrepancy proves that the super 5 were being honest in their interpretation and no collusion has occurred.Not agreeing on rounds is minutiae, small and trivial compared to the overriding FACT that they all had JMM as a clear winner. If you used the idea that 5 separate people would have to agree round for round on the scoring of individual exact rounds before any decision could be questioned it would mean Judges have never ever have been corrupt, inept or flawed ever. It is only when 5 scorecards are identical round for round that you can then question their authenticity.Even the crackpot judging ringside by the official judges was not identical round for round.You are quite right people interpret a fight differently, so why is it using your own logic you can not see that the super 5's different interpretation of rounds won does nothing to undermine their conclusion that JMM won a fight erroneously awarded to Manny Pacquiao ? the only people suggesting mine or Miles's opinion is far superior to anyone else is you.You can discount both of our opinions and the overwhelming evidence of a ROBBERY will still be there. Simple as that, and yes a signed photo would be lovely