BoxRec

I wouldn't like to see a "contraversial decision". What do you think about this possibility ?

The Las Vegas mob is still meeting at the downtown mob museum trying to figure out how they could rob them simultaneously

Tanzio wrote:The Las Vegas mob is still meeting at the downtown mob museum trying to figure out how they could rob them simultaneously

I was serious. Simply, I wouldn't like to see decision by robbery (something like Paquiao-Bradley I).

Anything close is going to Vasyl.

Dave Morretti has already scored it.

It's 117-111, Mayweather.

ValMar wrote:

Tanzio wrote:The Las Vegas mob is still meeting at the downtown mob museum trying to figure out how they could rob them simultaneously

I was serious. Simply, I wouldn't like to see decision by robbery (something like Paquiao-Bradley I).

As nearly everyone here knows, I thought Pac v Bradley 1 was very close and I had Bradley by a round.

I just want to see a great fight. It has the potential to be that. Walters will have to kd Lomachenko at least once to have a chance, imo.

Tanzio wrote:

ValMar wrote:

Tanzio wrote:The Las Vegas mob is still meeting at the downtown mob museum trying to figure out how they could rob them simultaneously

I was serious. Simply, I wouldn't like to see decision by robbery (something like Paquiao-Bradley I).

As nearly everyone here knows, I thought Pac v Bradley 1 was very close and I had Bradley by a round.

I just want to see a great fight. It has the potential to be that. Walters will have to kd Lomachenko at least once to have a chance, imo.

I respect your opinion, but Pacquiao-Bradley 1 was not a close fight. It was a pure robbery. It was so obvioius.
I agree with you - I want to see a great fight, and there is the potential..............

ValMar wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

ValMar wrote:
I was serious. Simply, I wouldn't like to see decision by robbery (something like Paquiao-Bradley I).

As nearly everyone here knows, I thought Pac v Bradley 1 was very close and I had Bradley by a round.

I just want to see a great fight. It has the potential to be that. Walters will have to kd Lomachenko at least once to have a chance, imo.

I respect your opinion, but Pacquiao-Bradley 1 was not a close fight. It was a pure robbery. It was so obvioius.
I agree with you - I want to see a great fight, and there is the potential..............

I appreciate your respect for my opinion and reciprocate. However, I will never change my opinion on that fight. Pac simply mailed that performance in and it cost him. He gave away too many rounds, basically ceding the entire second half of that fight to Ramming Speed. I get it, people gave Pac every close round off of 15-30 seconds of effort and two plus minutes of just being present.

Pac got what he deserved that night.

Tanzio wrote:

ValMar wrote:

Tanzio wrote: As nearly everyone here knows, I thought Pac v Bradley 1 was very close and I had Bradley by a round.

I just want to see a great fight. It has the potential to be that. Walters will have to kd Lomachenko at least once to have a chance, imo.

I respect your opinion, but Pacquiao-Bradley 1 was not a close fight. It was a pure robbery. It was so obvioius.
I agree with you - I want to see a great fight, and there is the potential..............

I appreciate your respect for my opinion and reciprocate. However, I will never change my opinion on that fight. Pac simply mailed that performance in and it cost him. He gave away too many rounds, basically ceding the entire second half of that fight to Ramming Speed. I get it, people gave Pac every close round off of 15-30 seconds of effort and two plus minutes of just being present.

Pac got what he deserved that night.

I can not agree, but I like the way you defend your opinion.

Tanzio wrote:

ValMar wrote:

Tanzio wrote: As nearly everyone here knows, I thought Pac v Bradley 1 was very close and I had Bradley by a round.

I just want to see a great fight. It has the potential to be that. Walters will have to kd Lomachenko at least once to have a chance, imo.

I respect your opinion, but Pacquiao-Bradley 1 was not a close fight. It was a pure robbery. It was so obvioius.
I agree with you - I want to see a great fight, and there is the potential..............

I appreciate your respect for my opinion and reciprocate. However, I will never change my opinion on that fight. Pac simply mailed that performance in and it cost him. He gave away too many rounds, basically ceding the entire second half of that fight to Ramming Speed. I get it, people gave Pac every close round off of 15-30 seconds of effort and two plus minutes of just being present.

Pac got what he deserved that night.

I thought he beat Bradley every bit as clearly in the 1st fight as he did in the 2nd fight.

gilgamesh wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

ValMar wrote:
I respect your opinion, but Pacquiao-Bradley 1 was not a close fight. It was a pure robbery. It was so obvioius.
I agree with you - I want to see a great fight, and there is the potential..............

I appreciate your respect for my opinion and reciprocate. However, I will never change my opinion on that fight. Pac simply mailed that performance in and it cost him. He gave away too many rounds, basically ceding the entire second half of that fight to Ramming Speed. I get it, people gave Pac every close round off of 15-30 seconds of effort and two plus minutes of just being present.

Pac got what he deserved that night.

I thought he beat Bradley every bit as clearly in the 1st fight as he did in the 2nd fight.

Fair enough, but I saw it differently. The second fight Pac fought a complete fight and fought most of every round. The first fight he didn't even seem to want to be there and sleep walked through most of the majority of rounds and more than half of the fight. Ramming Speed got himself back into the fight and just kept working to the final bell.

It was similar in the way the rounds went to the other night but Ward was in with a full fledged, wide awake beast and Ramming Speed was in with a distracted and disinterested version of Pac who seemed annoyed that the fight prevented him from going to the NBA playoffs. Pac gave away round after round and Ramming Speed was happy to do enough to take what was being given. Ward on the other hand made the adjustments necessary to wrest control of the fight away from Krusher and squeak out the decision under extremely tough circumstances.

The real injustice related to both fights is the disrespect and abuse that Bradley and Ward have suffered as a result of scoring they had no control over.

Pac got exactly what he deserved that night. It is too.bad anyone had to lose Ward v Krusher.

gilgamesh wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

ValMar wrote:
I respect your opinion, but Pacquiao-Bradley 1 was not a close fight. It was a pure robbery. It was so obvioius.
I agree with you - I want to see a great fight, and there is the potential..............

I appreciate your respect for my opinion and reciprocate. However, I will never change my opinion on that fight. Pac simply mailed that performance in and it cost him. He gave away too many rounds, basically ceding the entire second half of that fight to Ramming Speed. I get it, people gave Pac every close round off of 15-30 seconds of effort and two plus minutes of just being present.

Pac got what he deserved that night.

I thought he beat Bradley every bit as clearly in the 1st fight as he did in the 2nd fight.

I also had Manny winning both fairly comfortably, but I thought the 1st fight was a wider victory for Manny. Felt the same about Lewis/Holyfield as in I thought the draw was a wider win for Lewis than the rematch. Both clear victories, though.

I think the betting odds are pretty strong evidence that everyone figures the judges may favor Vasyl, who is also the home fighter in a sense. Only Vasyl has fought in Vegas, and he has the home promoter. It would not be possible to get 16:1 odds on a Walters decision if there were a universal belief that the judges plan to be fair.

Slightly off-topic, but according to Bob Arum, the only reason why HBO are covering the Walters-Lomachenko fight is because Canelo got injured.

Either HBO have run out of dough or they don't want to support boxing anymore.

Back on topic, the judges will probably score the winner of each round of the Walters-Lomachenko fight according to whoever the crowd supports the loudest, assuming all the other criterion is pretty much evenly contested.