Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Rungvisai?

[BitPlayer]

Boxrec have decided that all active Thai's will be listed by their birthnames, reasons have varied from from things like ringers (hey Georgia!) to advertising, as opposed to their fighting names. As a result if you whack their boxrec name into youtube you struggle to find footage of the Thai in question, instead if you use their fighting name you'll find a fair bit. It causes confusion, seems to make little real sense and actually harms a Thai in terms of becoming more well known in the West.

For example "Wisaksil Wangek" gives about 390 results on youtube, use his fighting name and you get about 5,460 results. If you're researching a Thai and use their real name you're really limiting yourself.

Knockout CP Freshmart got attention based on his name alone, but very few will even attempt to say Thammanoon Niyomtrong. And again if you're looking for footage using his fighting name is much more effective.

IMO it's pretty confusing and disrespectful to not use the name the fighter themselves use in their own country. Whilst others would suggest tagging a fighter with their gym name, or sponsor is disrespectful it's the way it's done in Muay Thai, and we shouldn't be ignoring their fighting culture just beause we don't do it...

It wouldn't be so bad but with non Thai fighters they are often happy to use their fighting name.
For example Christian Hammer (birth name Cristian Ciocan), Shane Dragonslayer (Shane Kavanagh) and Battling Nelson (Oscar Mattheus Nielsen)
And I'm guessing Snow Ball Beep Bop Killer is also on that list. http://boxrec.com/boxer/233320

[Baby Face Finster]

The 2 judges that had him winning gave Dogeater FIVE straight rounds - 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

Insanity.

Pure incompetence.

Why are you such a douchebag? How much money did you lose betting on Chocalotito?

[candyslim]

I scored it 117 - 114 Gonzelez: 20 - 17 down after two rounds winning the next four. 2nd half of the fight really difficult to score and I called most of them even. I was mildly surprised at the verdict but it was no robbery and a bloody good fight.

I do feel though that a champion should get the benefit of the doubt in a close decision. To dethrone the champ there shouldn't be any doubt about the result. That's my opinion but I'm sure many of you will strongly disagree.

[Baby Face Finster]

I scored it 117 - 114 Gonzelez: 20 - 17 down after two rounds winning the next four. 2nd half of the fight really difficult to score and I called most of them even. I was mildly surprised at the verdict but it was no robbery and a bloody good fight.

I do feel though that a champion should get the benefit of the doubt in a close decision. To dethrone the champ there shouldn't be any doubt about the result. That's my opinion but I'm sure many of you will strongly disagree.

And how exactly can a judge decide that way when he has to score the fight on the 10 point system and has to score rounds individually?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I scored it 117 - 114 Gonzelez: 20 - 17 down after two rounds winning the next four. 2nd half of the fight really difficult to score and I called most of them even. I was mildly surprised at the verdict but it was no robbery and a bloody good fight.

I do feel though that a champion should get the benefit of the doubt in a close decision. To dethrone the champ there shouldn't be any doubt about the result. That's my opinion but I'm sure many of you will strongly disagree.

And how exactly can a judge decide that way when he has to score the fight on the 10 point system and has to score rounds individually?

He needs to pay attention to ridiculous old cliches as gospel.

[ClivePatrickLyons]

It was close a lot closer than Kevin Kelley had it and i'm glad he [Gonzalez] lost because I said awhile ago he should not be rated anywhere near P4P Number 1.

[BAD INTENTIONS]

114-112 Srisaket
*sighs reading people use his birth name*

Can you explain this to me?

You could even PM the answer so you have to deal with angry American/British ignorant responses.

Boxrec have decided that all active Thai's will be listed by their birthnames, reasons have varied from from things like ringers (hey Georgia!) to advertising, as opposed to their fighting names. As a result if you whack their boxrec name into youtube you struggle to find footage of the Thai in question, instead if you use their fighting name you'll find a fair bit. It causes confusion, seems to make little real sense and actually harms a Thai in terms of becoming more well known in the West.

For example "Wisaksil Wangek" gives about 390 results on youtube, use his fighting name and you get about 5,460 results. If you're researching a Thai and use their real name you're really limiting yourself.

Knockout CP Freshmart got attention based on his name alone, but very few will even attempt to say Thammanoon Niyomtrong. And again if you're looking for footage using his fighting name is much more effective.

IMO it's pretty confusing and disrespectful to not use the name the fighter themselves use in their own country. Whilst others would suggest tagging a fighter with their gym name, or sponsor is disrespectful it's the way it's done in Muay Thai, and we shouldn't be ignoring their fighting culture just beause we don't do it...

At first, I thought it was weird, but that simple explanation convinced me.
There's a sense among people nowadays that this identity you were given to you by your parents is somehow sacred and the real you.

Thanks for clarifying that.

[candyslim]

I scored it 117 - 114 Gonzelez: 20 - 17 down after two rounds winning the next four. 2nd half of the fight really difficult to score and I called most of them even. I was mildly surprised at the verdict but it was no robbery and a bloody good fight.

I do feel though that a champion should get the benefit of the doubt in a close decision. To dethrone the champ there shouldn't be any doubt about the result. That's my opinion but I'm sure many of you will strongly disagree.

And how exactly can a judge decide that way when he has to score the fight on the 10 point system and has to score rounds individually?

Yes, you make a good point. I suppose he'd have to apply that thinking on a round by round basis but I'd be less comfortable with that. I accept there is something of a disconnect between the principle and the implementation.

[handsofstone]

115-112 Gonzalez

[caldo2025]

Again, i've mentioned it on previous posts but I do feel that this fight was a robbery of sorts. But not in the way you think it was. The fight was as even as you could get and each round was very tough to score but my robbery mention is in regards to the knockdown. That was CLEARLY a headbutt. It's sad that Boxing doesn't have an instant replay in big fights like this because that knockdown could have been a 3 point swing. I felt RG won that round aside from the headbut knockdown but Judges had to score it 10-8 because they are robots and are forced to score it that way. But if it was called correctly, it very well could have been a 10-9 round in RG's favor, hence the difference between a win and loss. Just pull IR on all knockdowns and the sport would be a lot better and the correct victors can be rewarded.

[squiggy]

The 2 judges that had him winning gave Dogeater FIVE straight rounds - 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

Insanity.

Pure incompetence.

I bet you are a Coweater and a Chickeneater and a Pigeater and a Fisheater.
Really stupid.

How many people have a pet cow or a pet chicken?

Dogs are companions.

There's a big world out there, go check it out sometime.

[punchoutsb]

At first, I thought it was weird, but that simple explanation convinced me.
There's a sense among people nowadays that this identity you were given to you by your parents is somehow sacred and the real you.

Thanks for clarifying that.

[BAD INTENTIONS]

At first, I thought it was weird, but that simple explanation convinced me.
There's a sense among people nowadays that this identity you were given to you by your parents is somehow sacred and the real you.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Modern smart people think people were always like us.
Unfortunately it's just a derivation of the "white people won" argument.
A history told completely in the perspective of one people.

But if you think that people EVERYWHERE were always running around waving flags and tattooing "family" names,
then I guess that's a fun reality, at least it removes reasonable self doubt.

[punchoutsb]

At first, I thought it was weird, but that simple explanation convinced me.
There's a sense among people nowadays that this identity you were given to you by your parents is somehow sacred and the real you.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Modern smart people think people were always like us.
Unfortunately it's just a derivation of the "white people won" argument.
A history told completely in the perspective of one people.

But if you think that people EVERYWHERE were always running around waving flags and tattooing "family" names,
then I guess that's a fun reality, at least it removes reasonable self doubt.

And some people love to sound progressive to impress people on the internet that couldn't care less what they think. These people tend to overthink simple things to the point where they find fictional fault in everything. These people aren't modern smart, in fact they're not smart at all. They like to make assumptions like the one you just made that really appears that you're somehow finding white supremacy in parents naming their children. I hate to break it to you, but parents have been naming their children all around the world for quite some time now.

In many cultures the name you were given actually *was* considered sacred and it was of substantial importance. I've been fortunate enough to spend a lot of years with American Indians and learned a lot about their culture and history. The name was an integral part of their culture, and this is dating back to a few years before "nowadays". Believe it or not American Indians aren't the only non-white group to name their children and to place great importance on that name.

DUH

[BAD INTENTIONS]

Modern smart people think people were always like us.
Unfortunately it's just a derivation of the "white people won" argument.
A history told completely in the perspective of one people.

But if you think that people EVERYWHERE were always running around waving flags and tattooing "family" names,
then I guess that's a fun reality, at least it removes reasonable self doubt.

And some people love to sound progressive to impress people on the internet that couldn't care less what they think. These people tend to overthink simple things to the point where they find fictional fault in everything. These people aren't modern smart, in fact they're not smart at all. They like to make assumptions like the one you just made that really appears that you're somehow finding white supremacy in parents naming their children. I hate to break it to you, but parents have been naming their children all around the world for quite some time now.

In many cultures the name you were given actually *was* considered sacred and it was of substantial importance. I've been fortunate enough to spend a lot of years with American Indians and learned a lot about their culture and history. The name was an integral part of their culture, and this is dating back to a few years before "nowadays". Believe it or not American Indians aren't the only non-white group to name their children and to place great importance on that name.

DUH

What? Simple things? What makes it simple?
The only thing that makes it simple is the fact you think you don't have to think about it.

Funny how you pick one group and label them "American Indians". There were many groups of "American Indians" who never knew of, or were remotely related to others. But you have come to the conclusion of "American Indian". Similar to the group "Africans". But you would never say Europeans are the same thing.

There's a difference between the legacy of family name, and the given name someone gets for their personal use.
If you can't see how Western thoughts of ownership and property rights lead to the significance of name, then whatever.

I'll keep finding FICTIONAL FAULT in a failing society.
Funny how people in a failing society refuse any critique of their failing society.

In your view of the world, you won.
You guys don't have to tell us we're stupid because we disagree.

Also, I am an actual "native". So please continue to educate me about my people. (Because we are one group )

[Tanzio]

This thread has veered into The Offal Topic Zone!

[punchoutsb]

This thread has veered into The Offal Topic Zone!

It happens whenever bad intentions gets involved. I mean it's right there in his name

What? Simple things? What makes it simple?
The only thing that makes it simple is the fact you think you don't have to think about it.

Funny how you pick one group and label them "American Indians". There were many groups of "American Indians" who never knew of, or were remotely related to others. But you have come to the conclusion of "American Indian". Similar to the group "Africans". But you would never say Europeans are the same thing.

There's a difference between the legacy of family name, and the given name someone gets for their personal use.
If you can't see how Western thoughts of ownership and property rights lead to the significance of name, then whatever.

I'll keep finding FICTIONAL FAULT in a failing society.
Funny how people in a failing society refuse any critique of their failing society.

In your view of the world, you won.
You guys don't have to tell us we're stupid because we disagree.

Also, I am an actual "native". So please continue to educate me about my people. (Because we are one group )

Oh you're right, I would never refer to Europeans as Europeans...you know unless I was talking about various peoples from Europe...then I would. Just like how I would refer to Sioux, Shoshone and Cherokee as American Indians.

An "actual native" huh? Funny you're the first "actual native" I've ever met that doesn't use the term peoples or tribe but rather "groups". You may want to stop crying over things that don't exist and go learn a little bit about your culture.

[BAD INTENTIONS]

This thread has veered into The Offal Topic Zone!

It happens whenever bad intentions gets involved. I mean it's right there in his name

What? Simple things? What makes it simple?
The only thing that makes it simple is the fact you think you don't have to think about it.

Funny how you pick one group and label them "American Indians". There were many groups of "American Indians" who never knew of, or were remotely related to others. But you have come to the conclusion of "American Indian". Similar to the group "Africans". But you would never say Europeans are the same thing.

There's a difference between the legacy of family name, and the given name someone gets for their personal use.
If you can't see how Western thoughts of ownership and property rights lead to the significance of name, then whatever.

I'll keep finding FICTIONAL FAULT in a failing society.
Funny how people in a failing society refuse any critique of their failing society.

In your view of the world, you won.
You guys don't have to tell us we're stupid because we disagree.

Also, I am an actual "native". So please continue to educate me about my people. (Because we are one group )

Oh you're right, I would never refer to Europeans as Europeans...you know unless I was talking about various peoples from Europe...then I would. Just like how I would refer to Sioux, Shoshone and Cherokee as American Indians.

An "actual native" huh? Funny you're the first "actual native" I've ever met that doesn't use the term peoples or tribe but rather "groups". You may want to stop crying over things that don't exist and go learn a little bit about your culture.

The quotations was around "native", not "actual native".
That was inferring my objection to the term.
So that deals with that.

Don't exist? You must be either American, British or really stupid.

[punchoutsb]

The quotations was around "native", not "actual native".
That was inferring my objection to the term.
So that deals with that.

Don't exist? You must be either American, British or really stupid.

I know which word they enclosed, but that doesn't change the phrase you used. If you object to the term, why did you use it?

Your bigotry is shining through, you should probably give this up.

[BAD INTENTIONS]

The quotations was around "native", not "actual native".
That was inferring my objection to the term.
So that deals with that.

Don't exist? You must be either American, British or really stupid.

I know which word they enclosed, but that doesn't change the phrase you used. If you object to the term, why did you use it?

Your bigotry is shining through, you should probably give this up.

You win.
I checked a high school history book and you're right.

[punchoutsb]

The quotations was around "native", not "actual native".
That was inferring my objection to the term.
So that deals with that.

Don't exist? You must be either American, British or really stupid.

I know which word they enclosed, but that doesn't change the phrase you used. If you object to the term, why did you use it?

Your bigotry is shining through, you should probably give this up.

You win.
I checked a high school history book and you're right.

Awesome, I imagine that quadrupled your knowledge

[gilgamesh]

I thought Gonzalez edged it, but I didn't score it as thoroughly as I usually score fights. I'd like to watch the fight again.

It was definitely a very close fight.