Are We Underestimating The Beating Mijares Took?

[acb_]

Originally Posted by Sir Amsterdam

I find it absolutely ridiculous that I'm accused of agenda anytime I assert something, especially something factual like this. Watch the fight, it was split 2 rounds a piece going into the 5th round and Vic was indeed coming on stronger before getting hit with that shot, that's not opinion, that's fact.

If you want to believe it's a schooling then that is contrary to what actually happened in the fight.

Stop with these agenda accusations, I'm posting freely from my observations and have no agenda. What agenda would I have? Turning the opinions of this forum? The whole point of this forum is to have open discussion among equal posters with no trolls or idiots, so what would that provide me by trying to make everyone think like me on subjects?

This is so stupid, about the 10th fucking time I've been accused of agenda pushes just because I'm a strong debater.

Nonsense.

[acb_]

Amsterdam there are a lot of intelligent people on this forum who can debate with you and hold their own doing so. Its a little crass IMO to act as if you are criticized because we can't hang with you.

What BB is getting at is that you place value judgments on specific aspects of fights that happen to support your narrative on the boxers you are a fan of. Your argument is one argument that could be made, but not necessarily the correct or objective one.

Donair dominated Vic because he landed the money shot. Rather than emphasize this fact you marginalize the KO in a subtle way by speaking instead to how the fight was even leading up to it. Your emphasis is on how the fight was going until the KO. Its subtle, but don't tell me its not real.

[Sir Amsterdam]

Amsterdam there are a lot of intelligent people on this forum who can debate with you and hold their own doing so. Its a little crass IMO to act as if you are criticized because we can't hang with you.

I think that most can not only hang with me, but also beat me in a lot of area's. Where did you get from that post that I said nobody can debate with me?

What the fuck are we talking about here? I meant by that 'come on strong' basically.

What BB is getting at is that you place value judgments on specific aspects of fights that happen to support your narrative on the boxers you are a fan of. Your argument is one argument that could be made, but not necessarily the correct or objective one.

When do I say it's the correct one, I place out my argument though for discussions sake.

Donair dominated Vic because he landed the money shot. Rather than emphasize this fact you marginalize the KO in a subtle way by speaking instead to how the fight was even leading up to it. Your emphasis is on how the fight was going until the KO. Its subtle, but don't tell me its not real.

That's the way you see it, I'm just posting what I have observed and I only mentioned that the tide was turning several times prior to the KO because everybody thinks Vic was dominated... which was NOT the case of what happened.

[Benny Blanco]

Originally Posted by jecxbox

my bad, I meant it more along the lines that he could have ran around the ring just to make it to the 12th round but he stuck with it right in front of Vic knowing that he'd either fight it out and try to pull something out of nothing, or just get KO'd...I didn't mean it in the way I originally said that

My bad papo, I guess sometimes I need things to be explained to me more in more detail.

[acb_]

Originally Posted by Sir Amsterdam

I think that most can not only hang with me, but also beat me in a lot of area's. Where did you get from that post that I said nobody can debate with me?

What the fuck are we talking about here? I meant by that 'come on strong' basically.

Then its a miscommunication, because I read it to say that people were giving you a hard time because you were a strong (as in good) debater.