Bute v. Andrade Poll

[montsegur1234]

A few points:

- Interesting fact: Marlon B. Wright, the referee for the fight, is a personal friend of Howard Grant's (Montreal native), Andrade's trainer.

- The fight result is very controversial in Montreal. On Montreal Talk Radio, a majority of listeners say Andrade was robbed. A caller said it was the most egregious boxing outcome he ever saw.

- A boxer must go to the neutral corner when his opponent is on the ground as result of a punch. He told Andrade to go to the neutral corner three times.

Controversy or not:

- the referree respected the neutral corner rule
- Bute would have gotten up in any event
- Bute completly dominated the fight
- The only reason Bute went down was because he wanted the give the crowd a show in the 12th, but he did get back up
- Bute would probably win against Andrade again
- Calling the Montreal boxing scene corrupt is laughable (again, Marlon B. Wright is a personal friend of Howard Grant's and he could actually have been more severe towards Andrade (elbows etc.)

[hfahrenheit]

[quote=montsegur1234;623190]

Controversy or not:

- The only reason Bute went down was because he wanted the give the crowd a show in the 12th, but he did get back up

You have to love conjecture presented as fact--

montsegur1234, you're truly an idiot. Bute went down because he got KTFO.

[ICB]

[quote=hfahrenheit;623196]

Controversy or not:

- The only reason Bute went down was because he wanted the give the crowd a show in the 12th, but he did get back up

You have to love conjecture presented as fact--

montsegur1234, you're truly an idiot. Bute went down because he got KTFO.

No he is right Bute did exchange punches in the 12th round to give the crowd a show, he almost payed for it. It was a good learning experience for him that you never have the fight in the bag until all 12 rounds have been completed.

[hfahrenheit]

[quote=ICB;623204]

You have to love conjecture presented as fact--

montsegur1234, you're truly an idiot. Bute went down because he got KTFO.

No he is right Bute did exchange punches in the 12th round to give the crowd a show, he almost payed for it. It was a good learning experience for him that you never have the fight in the bag until all 12 rounds have been completed.

No, you're saying what he should have: "he exchanged punches in the 12th to give the crowd a show."

He said "he went down just to give the crowd a show..." -he's attempting to diminish the knock down.

And, I disagree with you both with your usage of the word ALMOST... he traded punches and got put on the canvas. That's paying for it; there's no almost about it.

[ICB]

[quote=hfahrenheit;623208]

No he is right Bute did exchange punches in the 12th round to give the crowd a show, he almost payed for it. It was a good learning experience for him that you never have the fight in the bag until all 12 rounds have been completed.

No, you're saying what he should have: "he exchanged punches in the 12th to give the crowd a show."

He said "he went down just to give the crowd a show..." -he's attempting to diminish the knock down.

And, I disagree with you both with your usage of the word ALMOST... he traded punches and got put on the canvas. That's paying for it; there's no almost about it.

Ahh my bad i did misread that i agree with you on that is indeed ridiculous, but i disagree with you that Bute deserved to lose. The timer in the round was up so regardless of the ref. Ridiculously telling off Andrade about not being in the neutral corner is irrelvant. Because Andrade wouldn't have got another chance to finish Bute.

The only thing that should be controversial with hindsight, is whether or not the ref should of let Bute finish the fight. Bute did get up at the count 8, he looked at his corner twice so he was still aware, and he responded to the ref.

No rules were actually broken although the ref did clearly use the rules to his advantage, but if Andrade would of been given the fight with no time left in the round. I think that would of been a traversity IMO, it would be Julio Cesar Chavez vs Meldrick Taylor all over again.

[montsegur1234]

[quote=ICB;623211]

No, you're saying what he should have: "he exchanged punches in the 12th to give the crowd a show."

He said "he went down just to give the crowd a show..." -he's attempting to diminish the knock down.

And, I disagree with you both with your usage of the word ALMOST... he traded punches and got put on the canvas. That's paying for it; there's no almost about it.

Ahh my bad i did misread that i agree with you on that is indeed ridiculous, but i disagree with you that Bute deserved to lose. The timer in the round was up so regardless of the ref. Ridiculously telling off Andrade about not being in the neutral corner is irrelvant. Because Andrade wouldn't have got another chance to finish Bute.

The only thing that should be controversial with hindsight, is whether or not the ref should of let Bute finish the fight. Bute did get up at the count 8, he looked at his corner twice so he was still aware, and he responded to the ref.

No rules were actually broken although the ref did clearly use the rules to his advantage, but if Andrade would of been given the fight with no time left in the round. I think that would of been a traversity IMO, it would be Julio Cesar Chavez vs Meldrick Taylor all over again.

Hey guys,

Of course I meant that Bute could have averted the risk of being knocked out with more disciplined boxing in the 12th. But he was indeed knocked out. However, I understand how my comment could have been interpreted differently. But people must say a lot of outlandish stuff on this forum for you guys to think this lol.

All I am saying is that Bute would have won the fight in any event.
It would have been another story altogether if the knockout had occurred 1 min before.

[HattonTheHammer]

Part of me actually feels sorry for marlon

Biggest fight of his career and real chance to shine and he totally choked under the pressure of a big moment.

Andrade has every right to feel robbed, had the ref of done his proper job bute would of got the standing 8 with a good 10 seconds left and marlon would of had to stop the contest as he was clearly out.

But lets not forget bute had won 8 of the previous 11 rounds and but for a lapse in concentration late on was the better man on the night.

Me thinks a rematch is in order!!!!!!!!!!

[montsegur1234]

[quote=hfahrenheit;623208]

No he is right Bute did exchange punches in the 12th round to give the crowd a show, he almost payed for it. It was a good learning experience for him that you never have the fight in the bag until all 12 rounds have been completed.

No, you're saying what he should have: "he exchanged punches in the 12th to give the crowd a show."

He said "he went down just to give the crowd a show..." -he's attempting to diminish the knock down.

And, I disagree with you both with your usage of the word ALMOST... he traded punches and got put on the canvas. That's paying for it; there's no almost about it.

I am not diminishing the knock down. He just shouldn't have put himself in the position of trading punches in the 12th round of a fight in which he completely dominated. I am looking forward to the rematch; notwithstanding the controversy, it was a great fight.

[montsegur1234]

[quote=hfahrenheit;623196]

Controversy or not:

- The only reason Bute went down was because he wanted the give the crowd a show in the 12th, but he did get back up

You have to love conjecture presented as fact--

montsegur1234, you're truly an idiot. Bute went down because he got KTFO.

No need to insult me. I don't think the context of a boxing forum warrants such exegesis of a banal comment.
And if you want to have a discussion on the epistemology of causality, let me know.

[hfahrenheit]

[quote=montsegur1234;623232]

You have to love conjecture presented as fact--

montsegur1234, you're truly an idiot. Bute went down because he got KTFO.

No need to insult me. I don't think the context of a boxing forum warrants such exegesis of a banal comment.
And if you want to have a discussion on the epistemology of causality, let me know.

Well, montse, I'm glad you found your thesaurus. I wasn't being too critical, you made a lazy statement that in fact insinuated something ridiculous. Ridiculous, not banal. Your statement would have been banal if it had been correctly stated, ergo if you would have said he "traded punches to put on a show" instead of "he went down to put on a show"...

But, that's what you said and you have to own it. Welcome to SaddoBoxing.

but if you misspoke, that's fine, don't worry of it.

Now, if you want to have a discussion about the epistemology of pretension and how it applies to over "wordsmithing" statements, find a different forum.

[montsegur1234]

[quote=hfahrenheit;623324]

No need to insult me. I don't think the context of a boxing forum warrants such exegesis of a banal comment.
And if you want to have a discussion on the epistemology of causality, let me know.

Well, montse, I'm glad you found your thesaurus. I wasn't being too critical, you made a lazy statement that in fact insinuated something ridiculous. Ridiculous, not banal. Your statement would have been banal if it had been correctly stated, ergo if you would have said he "traded punches to put on a show" instead of "he went down to put on a show"...

But, that's what you said and you have to own it. Welcome to SaddoBoxing.

but if you misspoke, that's fine, don't worry of it.

Now, if you want to have a discussion about the epistemology of pretension and how it applies to over "wordsmithing" statements, find a different forum.

Wordsmithing notably seeks to enhance clarity of content. And I thought "epistemology of causality" to be quite clear. Nothing pretentious about using the obvious and clearest term to make a point. You clearly understood what I meant this time around. Same thing with "exegesis"; it was the best word to make another point. And again, you knew exactly what I meant.

As for banal, the content in question was indeed quite banal. It was so banal that I chose to take a shortcut in causality. I wrote:

"The only reason Bute went down was because he wanted the (sic) give the crowd a show in the 12th, but he did get back up"

I chose not to underline that the last causalistic element in the equation was Andrade punching Bute in such a manner that it led Bute to fall to the ground. In other words, I wanted to avoid a tautology for rhetorical purposes. However, this excess manifestly led to a misinterpretation of my point.

Good one on epistemology of pretension lol and I agree, let's get back to discussing boxing. It's all good, I'll try to be sharp as best I can be.

[CFH]

The recent verbal masturbation in this thread is nauseating.

[montsegur1234]

The recent verbal masturbation in this thread is nauseating.

Hey dude, I wasn't being serious at all. Sorry for the annoyance.

[hfahrenheit]

[quote=montsegur1234;623358]

Well, montse, I'm glad you found your thesaurus. I wasn't being too critical, you made a lazy statement that in fact insinuated something ridiculous. Ridiculous, not banal. Your statement would have been banal if it had been correctly stated, ergo if you would have said he "traded punches to put on a show" instead of "he went down to put on a show"...

But, that's what you said and you have to own it. Welcome to SaddoBoxing.

but if you misspoke, that's fine, don't worry of it.

Now, if you want to have a discussion about the epistemology of pretension and how it applies to over "wordsmithing" statements, find a different forum.

...However, this excess manifestly led to a misinterpretation of my point...

My bad; guess I missed the "blatant" sarcasm...

[montsegur1234]

Analysis of the fight, could be of interest:

“Fighting Words” – Oy, Canada: Bute-Andrade Controversy