Quote Originally Posted by El Kabong View Post
Quote Originally Posted by erics44 View Post
no im not

and your answers are so far fetched im starting to think you are taking the piss, you dont believe what you are saying do you?
Your posts are evidence of your bias. You never lament that Hatton fouled when it is brought up you only say "Well when compared to Wlad Hatton did it less" either FOULING is the issue and it's bad eric or it's NOT the issue and you are biased as fuck.

I don't mind how Hatton fought, I don't mind how Holyfield or Hopkins fight. I didn't like how Hopkins would take so many rounds off but nevertheless. The point is if a fighter feels he can get away with doing something which helps his ability to win and the ref doesn't call it then the fighter will continue to do that. For me it doesn't come down to names or country of origin, or race, or style, it's just a broad sweeping if fighter A is not called for rule infraction X then fighter A will continue that infraction if referee B never calls him on it and it's helping fighter A win.

Meanwhile when pressed on this very issue you go back to "Well Ricky didn't foul AS MUCH"...and that's not what you're getting asked. You are getting asked why you haven't ever complained about Hatton's fouling, it's not about how much he did it's the fact Hatton fouled and you never said peep about it ergo your reasoning stumbles upon "fouling was OK when Ricky did it." and that is your bias.
in england there is a saying (no doubt in america you have taken the saying and made it shit), i wonder if you have heard of it

The pot calling the kettle black

?