This is where i standPerseus wrote:Running so much is the reason Peterson did not win and did not deserve to win.
Decision was for Garcia was correct.
Garcia v Peterson
Re: Garcia v Peterson
Re: Garcia v Peterson
You are talking shite. 114 114 was fairkidbazooka1 wrote:114 114 is bs.
Danny won that fight clearly.
Re: Garcia v Peterson
A fighter can move excessively yet deserve to win a round. I don't know why some people seem to think that if someone 'runs' all other factors are meaningless.
Also, I can't type very well tonight![[icon_witsend.gif] :witzend:](./images/smilies/icon_witsend.gif)
Also, I can't type very well tonight
Last edited by crusader on 11 Apr 2015, 23:18, edited 3 times in total.
-
kidbazooka1
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 959
- Joined: 14 Dec 2007, 13:56
Re: Garcia v Peterson
cuz Garcia clearly won means Im talking shiit?macaca wrote:You are talking shite. 114 114 was fairkidbazooka1 wrote:114 114 is bs.
Danny won that fight clearly.
Ok
Re: Garcia v Peterson
He did not win clearly
Edited by mod
Edited by mod
-
kidbazooka1
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 959
- Joined: 14 Dec 2007, 13:56
Re: Garcia v Peterson
He clearly wonmacaca wrote:He did not win clearly, retard.
Was it a competitive fight yes but Garcia won it
Edited by mod
Last edited by kidbazooka1 on 11 Apr 2015, 23:21, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Garcia v Peterson
He won about as clearly as Andy Lee, huh?
Go away.
Go away.
-
kidbazooka1
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 959
- Joined: 14 Dec 2007, 13:56
Re: Garcia v Peterson
[quote="diddy"]He won about as clearly as Andy Lee, huh?
Go away.[/quote
Edited by mod
Go away.[/quote
Edited by mod
Re: Garcia v Peterson
Tell me how did Danny win that fight "CLEARLY"?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
You fornicating cannot.
I did not see the Lee fight yet.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
You fornicating cannot.
I did not see the Lee fight yet.
-
kidbazooka1
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 959
- Joined: 14 Dec 2007, 13:56
Re: Garcia v Peterson
Some ppls children.macaca wrote:Tell me how did Danny win that fight "CLEARLY"?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
You effing cannot.
I did not see the Lee fight yet.
Danny won that fight 115 113
You might wanna go back and do your own rd by rd for yourself champ.
Re: Garcia v Peterson
Why, 114 114, shall I do it again and again and get 114 114. Bed time for you. Night night treasure kiss kiss x
Re: Garcia v Peterson
You have to excuse some boxing fans, they are generally not the brightest crayons in the box. Some dont know the definition of "clearly". You'll have to excuse their middle school education and Taco Bell occupation.
Re: Garcia v Peterson
Key word: excessively.crusader wrote:A fighter can move excessively yet deserve to win a round. I don't know why some people seem to think that if someone 'runs' all other factors are meaningless.
Also, I can't type very well tonight
Some running is ok. It happens.
Excessive running is unacceptable, boxing is a combat sport not a race.
Peterson's running was excessive and excessive running does indeed trump all other factors.
He was not "moving" he was not exhibiting good ring generalship he was just running away from his opponent.
Re: Garcia v Peterson
Excessive can just mean that he was moving more than was optimal. How does that justify no other factors being considered when scoring a round? The bit about boxing not being a race is ridiculous, as it's not like Peterson wasn't hitting Garcia and avoiding punches while he was supposedly running.Perseus wrote:Key word: excessively.crusader wrote:A fighter can move excessively yet deserve to win a round. I don't know why some people seem to think that if someone 'runs' all other factors are meaningless.
Also, I can't type very well tonight
Peterson's running was excessive and excessive running does indeed trump all other factors.
He was not "moving" he was not exhibiting good ring generalship he was just running away from his opponent.
Boxing is a combat sport not a race.
Saying that someone deserves to lose just because of their movement is inane.
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
Re: Garcia v Peterson
If any fight could'v had 4 or 5 even rounds scored it was this one. And even in the negative sense. Too many rounds with Garcia being an ineffective aggressor and Peterson basically being defensive and missing jabs. Peterson showed in the Khan fight he can be a highly effective aggressor . . .and he showed in the latter rounds here as well. Hell, Garcia was so out of gas towards the end Peterson could've maybe stopped him if he'd started coming forward earlier. But Peterson has no-one to blame but himself.
Re: Garcia v Peterson
What an awful fight. I had it 115 - 113 LP but would never want to watch him again. Feather-fisted and running. DG is going downhill should not have won.
Re: Garcia v Peterson
Just finished it. Ughh…not a fun fight to watch. i scored it 114-114. Both guys looked like crap.
Re: Garcia v Peterson
Garcia the least impressive 30-0 reigning champ you will see. I just dont think he's that good.
Re: Garcia v Peterson
I don't think he is going downhill mate, (he is far from my favourite boxer too), BUT I think he had a fornicating shitty day at the office and was lucky he didn't get fired... certainly interesting will be his next fightruin795 wrote:What an awful fight. I had it 115 - 113 LP but would never want to watch him again. Feather-fisted and running. DG is going downhill should not have won.
Re: Garcia v Peterson
That's a pretty bold statement in light of what he was able to do to Khan (whom people overrate on what he did to lousy Collazo and Alexander) and what he did to Matthyse who easily dispatched the man he struggled with tonight in Peterson.diddy wrote:Garcia the least impressive 30-0 reigning champ you will see. I just dont think he's that good.
Re: Garcia v Peterson
macaca wrote:I don't think he is going downhill mate, (he is far from my favourite boxer too), BUT I think he had a effing shitty day at the office and was lucky he didn't get fired... certainly interesting will be his next fightruin795 wrote:What an awful fight. I had it 115 - 113 LP but would never want to watch him again. Feather-fisted and running. DG is going downhill should not have won.
After an impressive win against Matthysse (who I thought would wipe the floor with Garcia) he IMO lost to Herrerra and now LP
Re: Garcia v Peterson
It can mean that but that just is not what he was doing.crusader wrote:Perseus wrote:Key word: excessively.crusader wrote:A fighter can move excessively yet deserve to win a round. I don't know why some people seem to think that if someone 'runs' all other factors are meaningless.
Also, I can't type very well tonight
Peterson's running was excessive and excessive running does indeed trump all other factors.
He was not "moving" he was not exhibiting good ring generalship he was just running away from his opponent.
Boxing is a combat sport not a race.
Excessive can just mean that he was moving more than was optimal. How does that justify no other factors being considered when scoring a round? The bit about boxing not being a race is ridiculous, as it's not like Peterson wasn't hitting Garcia and avoiding punches while he was supposedly running.
Saying that someone deserves to lose just because of their movement is inane.
It was not just "movement" it was blatant running.
Try all you want but you can't justify your guy blatantly running and good luck finding judges who give rounds to blatant runners.
They gave him the rounds he won, the close scorecards show that but he didn't win enough rounds to deserve the win.
Do you think they have a clock to so they can see how many laps the boxers can do around the ring in three minutes?
Saying boxing is a combat sport not a race is not ridiculous it is an indisputable fact.
Boxing is not a race period.
Peterson did a good job of making a lot rounds look like a track meet tonight.
Last edited by Perseus on 11 Apr 2015, 23:52, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Garcia v Peterson
Lucas couldn't see for most of the fight retard. KBB
Re: Garcia v Peterson
He caught a guy with a weak beard after badly losing the early rounds. Khan has since changed his fighting tactics. If they fought again tmrw I suspect it would be different.KBB wrote:That's a pretty bold statement in light of what he was able to do to Khan (whom people overrate on what he did to lousy Collazo and Alexander) and what he did to Matthyse who easily dispatched the man he struggled with tonight in Peterson.diddy wrote:Garcia the least impressive 30-0 reigning champ you will see. I just dont think he's that good.
Garcia doesnt look great lately. He lost to Herrera. He arguably lost tonight. He seems to have already hit his peak and is on the downtrend. Time will tell. Good fighter. Not great. I'd like to see a rematch of this fight tonight. One in which Peterson fights the entire fight like he did the 2nd half - coming forward.
Re: Garcia v Peterson
Really? Do you honestly believe that is true? I saw the fight and he could see fine, sure his eye puff up a bit but they were able to manage the swelling and he was able to see fine, it was not totally closed.macaca wrote:Lucas couldn't see for most of the fight retard. KBB
Stop making excuses retard.