The decision in the Hopkins/Pascal fight is everything that's wrong with boxing. That's funny. I don't recall Schaefer even commenting on the decision in the first Diaz/Malignaggi fight. What are some other crappy decisions that have gone in favor of a G fighter, for which Schafer had no comment, let alone the claim that it were indicative of everything wrong in boxing?
As far as I know, Schaefer had nothing to say regarding that decision. And unlike Hopkins/Pascal, that decision was actually horrible.
I remember two on the same card... Daniel Ponce de Leon-Gerry Penalosa Demetrius Hopkins-Steve Forbes They wound up getting overshadowed by Lampley's disturbing man-love for Barrera, who wound up losing a decision to Juan Manuel Marquez in an accurately scored fight. I honestly believe that to this day, Lampley still wakes up in the middle of the night screaming, "THAT WAS A KNOCKDOWN." Anyway, in the aforementioned fights - even if you agreed with the winner, the scoring was so wide that it made you wonder if the cards were filled out by G itself.
It was a knockdown, which MAB managed to foul up by hitting the guy while he was down, leading me to believe there is something in Erik Morales claim that he, Barrera, "is just a motherfucker" ::
Oh I know it was. Nady blew the call, no question. But Lampley acted like it was the difference in the fight.
Well it was, what, a 2-3 point swing? :dunno: Anyways- this Golden Boy thing has all the potential to be as bent and as a corrupt as ANY managerial/promotional franchise in boxing. We've already seen hints of it, with Campbell and Ortiz not getting their share, the use of Joe Cortez to influence fights, etc.
No. I don't expect them to be objective. Is that any reason not to call him out on it? When he picks and chooses which "bad" decisions to be stunned by? I've got news for you. Nobody's entirely objective about anything. And yet it sounds like you might be saying that as long as someone has a reason to be bias that they're free to make inconsistent and unsubstantiated remarks, as if from a position of authority? And without regard for things he's said and not said before?
Yeah, I doubt anybody on here believes or expects promoters/managers/ fighters to be objective, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be called out. Like when DLH was complaining about Pacquiao using catch-weights, and then someone bringing up to him that DLH-Hopkins was fought at a catch-weight. The criticism of fighting at catch-weights is appropriate, there's just less hypocrisy when it comes from others.
Yeah. I mean, excuses and reasons and understanding can be found for even the worst of crimes. Does that mean we should not bother speaking out against it? Since we can't expect otherwise? As far as catch weights, it is telling that he fought Sturm at 160, but requested a catch-weight for Hopkins. I don't know what to think when it comes to Pacquiao. He clearly has the economic leverage to make demands like this, and for the fight to still go on. But in my mind, his insistence on doing it in every fight, even as he's had ample time to adapt as a welterweight, seems to suggest that he and/or his camp views it as a necessary advantage - one he's not willing to go without, even in the face of criticism.
