Sunday, June 24, 2012

Howard Cosell is Spinning in His Grave

Is there a more corrupt sport on this planet than boxing? Manny Pacquiao landed close to 100 more punches (most of them "power punches") than this Bradley character and virtually every boxing expert at ringside had Pacquiao winning 10-11 rounds and, still, STILL, Bradley comes away with the split decision? Seriously?...................................................................................One of the theories that's been floating around is the two judges who voted for Bradley were in their 70s and possibly senile (they brain-farted their way through the hour, essentially). Another possibility, of course, is that the fight was rigged, and that the only reason that they gave it to Bradley was to orchestrate an even more lucrative rematch down the road. Whatever it is, it thoroughly stinks and makes me think even less of the sport than I did before.

36 comments:

Rational Nation USA said...

Boxing was, at one time a great sport.

Loved to watch, loved doing it as well. Many years ago.

Ah, the fond memories!

w-dervish said...

Corrupt? I have no idea. I'd say it's the most barbaric. This judge you say "brain farted"... maybe he was an ex-boxer with brain damage?

A great sport? How is two people beating on each other a "sport"? This is the kind of thing people who slow down to gawk at car wrecks watch, IMO.

Boxing and football are two sports I say we should do away with. They're too violent and too dangerous.

dmarks said...

If you don't like football or boxing. don't participate in them or watch them. Problem entirely solved!

Rational Nation USA said...

oh wd, go powder your nose. :)

Rusty Shackelford said...

Just another example of how the system is "rigged."


Every aspect of everyday american life for a pool soul like WD (A.K.A.greasy bastard)is rigged,including boxing

dmarks said...

"Muhammad Ali... plutocrat"

w-dervish said...

Will said boxing was rigged/corrupt, dmarks (AKA lying asshole). I said it was dangerous. The dude doesn't even care if his lies are applicable... he'll shoe horn them in regardless!

BTW, George bush beat Laura while he was in the White House. I've heard it's true. Either condemn bush for this or I'll take it as an admission that you support wife beating.

FYI my parents were married when I was born (and they're still married). Therefore I can't be a bastard.

w-dervish said...

Excuse me, it was Rusty who thinks I said boxing was rigged, not dmarks. Although dmarks is happy to play along, and I think mixing up two idiot comments is understandable. (Rusty = lying asshole #1 and dmarks = lying asshole #2).

I don't give a shit if boxing is rigged or corrupt... because I don't give a shit about it period... except that people get brain damaged participating in it. For that reason I think it should be abolished. And, no, not by governmental legislation.

BTW, I don't apologize for the profanity and insults, as it was Rusty and dmarks who decided to throw civility entirely out the window with their vile lies about me supporting child sexual abuse.

dmarks said...

You lied about and defended Scott Ritter many times. And I am referring to the crimes he was convicted of (not his taking hundreds of thousands from Saddam Hussein's business network and lying about Iraq as a result)

Jerry Critter said...

Given the huge amount of money and relatively few owners involved in most professional sports, it would not surprise me one bit if they all are fixed to some degree of the other. After all, like most businesses, it is all about the profits.

w-dervish said...

dmarks lied: You lied about and defended Scott Ritter many times. And I am referring to the crimes he was convicted of...

I NEVER lied about this. You're lying about me lying about it.

I only corrected you when you got the facts wrong. You said he was convicted of molesting kids, but he never molested any. It appears as though he wanted to, because he showed up when a police officer (posing as a young girl) contacted him and they agreed to meet, but he never actually did.

You simply can't stand it when you get called out for playing fast and loose with the facts. And it also angered you greatly that I called you out for diverting attention from the real issue -- which is that Scott Ritter was RIGHT when he said Iraq was disarmed.

What Scott Ritter did years after he accurately reported that Iraq had disarmed is irrelative. And you attempting further diversion from the actual issue by falsely claiming I defend child sexual abuse is vile and despicable.

dmarks should be ashamed. My opinion of him (which wasn't that high to begin with) has sunk to new depths. dmarks isn't just wrong politically, he's a terrible human being with zero compunction when it comes to lying about those who disagree with him. dmarks is utter slime in my opinion. Him and Rusty both.

And don't forget that ALL the UN weapons inspectors who spoke up on this issue said Iraq had no WMD. Scott Ritter was only one of many.

w-dervish said...

And dmarks should also be ashamed about defending and supporting George W. bush's beating of his wife Laura. He ignores the factual charges because he wishes to minimize bush's crimes (against his wife). How sickening.

The National Enquirer reported that bush beat his wife Laura. It was in the National Enquirer that broke the story about John Edwards cheating on his wife and fathering a child with his mistress (I mention the Edwards affair in case you want to dismiss the National Enquirer as not being a credible source. They were right about Edwards and have a track record of being right when they make serious accusations like these).

dmarks said...

"What Scott Ritter did years after he accurately reported that Iraq had disarmed is irrelative."

Yet, Ritter lied, so he was not accurate.

"which is that Scott Ritter was RIGHT when he said Iraq was disarmed."

He lied. What he said at this point was not true.

"dmarks isn't just wrong politically, he's a terrible human being with zero compunction when it comes to lying about those who disagree with him. dmarks is utter slime in my opinion. Him and Rusty both."

You have yet to point out even one lie. However, I do disagree with you a lot. That is your only basis for saying I am wrong politically and calling me slime.

If knowing what I am talking about makes me "slime", then I am proud to be a bubbling green ooze.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: You have yet to point out even one lie.

I've pointed out scores of your lies. However, the one I was referring to was your lie about me defending and supporting child sex abuse and wife beating. I never have done this. You can't produce one quote from me that proves I have. I condemn it.

Also, Scott Ritter told the truth about Iraq being disarmed. The proof is that no WMD was found after Saddam's regime was overthrown. Even George W. bush confirmed that no WMD was found.

And you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. But knowing or not knowing what you're talking about isn't what makes you slime. It's the lying about me "supporting and defending" sex crimes or domestic violence.

Another thing that makes you slime is YOUR support of domestic violence. If you didn't support it you would already have condemned George W bush for beating his wife Laura. Your silence on the issue speaks volumes.

dmarks said...

"I've pointed out scores of your lies. However, the one I was referring to was your lie about me defending and supporting child sex abuse and wife beating."

You did, many times. If you have stopped, then it is great, and we can move on. But no doubt you will lie about Schultz, which has the effect of defending him.

"Also, Scott Ritter told the truth about Iraq being disarmed. The proof is that no WMD was found after Saddam's regime was overthrown"

The proof that he lied is that WMD were indeed found after Saddam was overthrown. I provided you the detailed link, which you acknowledged... fudged with a sort of yeah there were WMD but not enough sort of logic.

"Even George W. bush confirmed that no WMD was found."

I'm not referring to what WMD said. I am referring to what was actually found in Iraq.

"t's the lying about me "supporting and defending" sex crimes or domestic violence."

OK, now that you have stopped defending it, I am looking forward to you joining Rusty and myself in condemning what Schultz did, which is documented in a court of law.

As for the other names you mention, there's no proof in court records, like there is for Schultz.

Rusty provided this. But, in support of what Schultz did, you lie about it and defend it. Or you have been up to this point. If you have decided to stop now, then fine.

dmarks said...

Re: Ed Schultz:

From http://publicsearch.ndcourts.gov/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=203281

(A government site)

"11/02/1995 Converted Event Codes Doc ID# 72 (EXP01 ) EX PARTE TEMPORARY PROTECTION ORDER (CC TO CC SHER. & FGO. PD) 11/02/1995 Application Doc ID# 71 APPLICATION FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROTECTION ORDER "

I can't see how you, WD, can lie about this and thus defend and support Schultz' actions.

If there is any such documentation about George W. Bush, show it to me. Otherwise, you and I both know you have made it up for some sort of rhetorical point.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Fact: Ed Schultz is a wife beater.

Fact: WD supports Ed Shultz.

Fact: WD therefore supports Ed Schultz's actions.

Fact: By proxy WD supports wife beating.

Fact: WD is a greasy bastard.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: If you have stopped, then it is great, and we can move on. But no doubt you will lie about Schultz, which has the effect of defending him.

I can't stop something I never started. I've never lied about Ed Schultz, nor do I have any intention of starting to lie about him.

dmarks: The proof that he lied is that WMD were indeed found after Saddam was overthrown. I provided you the detailed link, which you acknowledged... fudged with a sort of yeah there were WMD but not enough sort of logic.

You're the one who is fudging. What little was found didn't justify bush's invasion. bush knew it didn't, which is why he blamed an "intelligence failure". You're even dumber than bush!

dmarks: OK, now that you have stopped defending it...

I never started.

dmarks: I am looking forward to you joining Rusty and myself in condemning what Schultz did, which is documented in a court of law.

It doesn't say "Ed Schultz" in the info you quoted "from a government site". There are no names at all.

The URL you give looks like it links to a specific page, but when I enter it all I get is a map of ND.

I tried to do a search on Cass county (which is where Schultz lived), and the search engine says, "No cases matched your search criteria".

dmarks: I can't see how you, WD, can lie about this and thus defend and support Schultz' actions.

Lying has nothing to do with it. I can't see how I can be expected to condemn someone without proof. I looked. I found none.

dmarks: If there is any such documentation about George W. Bush, show it to me. Otherwise, you and I both know you have made it up for some sort of rhetorical point.

The info comes from the National Enquirer. This is the same publication that broke the John Edwards story (so they have a track record of being right about this sort of thing). For the story see this link.

Now, are you going to continue to support bush's wife beating or are you going to denounce it?

Rusty: Fact: Ed Schultz is a wife beater.

Facts are things which are proven. An accusation isn't a fact. And an order of protection doesn't mean Ed Schultz beat his wife. There are other reasons such an order could be issued.

Rusty: Fact: WD supports Ed Shultz.

I watch his show very infrequently.

Rusty: Fact: WD therefore supports Ed Schultz's actions.

I have no idea what "actions" he has comitted in his personal life. It is therefore impossible for me to support them.

Rusty: Fact: By proxy WD supports wife beating.

I'm strongly opposed to wife beating. VERY strongly opposed.

Rusty: Fact: WD is a greasy bastard.

I'm not greasy or a bastard. A bastard is "a child whose birth lacks legal legitimacy -- that is, one born to a woman and a man who are not legally married". My parents were married when I was born.

w-dervish said...

From Wikipedia: Misuse of restraining orders is claimed to be widespread. Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, has remarked, "Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply... In many cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage".

A 1995 study conducted by the Massachusetts Trial Court that reviewed domestic restraining orders issued in the state found that less than half of the orders involved even an allegation of violence. Similarly a West Virginia study found eight out of 10 orders were unnecessary or false. The low burden of proof for restraining orders has led to some high-profile cases involving stalkers of celebrities obtaining restraining orders against their targets. [end Wikpedia expert]

I'm not accusing Ed Schult's ex-wife of lying... I'm just pointing out that I don't know what happened, and you don't know what happened. An order of protection being issued does not prove Ed Schultz beat his wife (if one was issued).

If you can find a news story that details what happened -- feel free to link to it. Until then I'm not convinced. I don't jump to conclusions based on incomplete evidence.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Jerry, I doubt very seriously if professional team sports are rigged. The concept of one owner tanking so another owner can profit more so doesn't seem very plausible. I suppose that a few players over the years have engaged in some point-shaving but even that doesn't make sense knowing that the players' livelihood is at stake.......And there's nothing inherently evil about profits. If I owned my own business, I would assuredly try to make some.

Rusty Shackelford said...

The vast majority of NFL,MLB,NBA and NHL owners are already insanely wealthy and a goodly number of them like Mark Cuban,Jerry Jones,Bob Kraft and Daniel Snyder are self made.These guys had to be competitive to achieve their success,winning is far more important then adding a couple bucks to their coffers.

I think the liberal mind has a difficult time grasping the concept of honest competition...they are far more comfortable when everyone gets a trophy....you're all winners.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I agree, Russ (though I must say that I'm still pretty pissed off at Cuban for letting Tyson Chandler and JJ Barea slip away).

Rusty Shackelford said...

I think Mark Cuban is the cat's meow.Here's a guy who has F^*k You money that he made himself and he's enjoying it....for christ sake,he went on Dancing With the Stars.

There's a sports talk show on ESPN with a jerk named Skip Bayless as a co-host....Cuban went on the show last week and smoked this guys ass.

If you ever want to see a class act owner who also made his own money....look no further then Bob Kraft.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Maybe he (Cuban) knows what he's doing, Russ, but I just don't see letting the best defensive player on the entire planet walk without a fight......Now, if he's able to sign Dwight Howard in the off-season, I will take take it all back.

Rusty Shackelford said...

I never said Mark Cuban was the best basketball mind out there...but he certainly is one of the best promoters of the product the NBA has.Very similar to Jerry Jones and NFL.

w-dervish said...

This wealthy idolizing is a sickness IMO. Getting excited over someone having "Fu*k you" money while at the same time hating on poor people... I find it more than a little greasy.

dmarks said...

I would probably agree that "wealthy idolizing" is a sickness, if I ever saw enough of it to even think of it.

It's certainly never on display here. What we have is a complete lack of idolizing from the commenters. And also a lack of greedy jealousy and hatred of the wealthy also.

It's an indifference. I for one don't get bent out of shape angry OR jealous/worshipful just because someone else has more money than I do.

Rusty Shackelford said...

WD,you've seen Mark Cuban "hating" on poor people?

Rusty Shackelford said...

Oh.....wait a minute here....you mean me hating on white people...you really think I spend part of my day hating on poor people.

w-dervish said...

I'm not even sure who this Mark Cuban is. A sports figure... I'll guess baseball.

Yes, I was referring to Rusty hating on poor people (not White people). I don't know how much of his day he spends doing it, I just know he does it here (in his comments posted to this blog).

He complains about them being "jealous" and being shameless in sticking their hand out asking the government for freebies. It's disgusting how he denigrates the less fortunate.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: It's certainly never on display here. What we have is a complete lack of idolizing from the commenters.

The opposite of this is true.

dmarks: And also a lack of greedy jealousy and hatred of the wealthy also.

You've accused me of this "greedy jealousy"... so you're retracting your previous comments now? If that's the case I commend you for admitting how wrong you were. Just don't backslide and start up again with these BS arguements that any criticism of the wealthy (or our system that is rigged in their favor) is due to jealously or greed.

dmarks said...

Criticism of the wealthy just for being wealthy (those who have committed no crimes) is illogical and unintellectual, and appeals to ignorance and base emotions loke jealousy and greed. I try to avoid both, so I don' whine just because someone has more than me.

Its not my business.

And yes there is a complete lack of idolizing the wealthy. No evidence of it.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Criticism of the wealthy just for being wealthy... is illogical and unintellectual...

Your comment is an illogical non-sequitor as nobody here has ever done this. It would be like you objecting to someone criticising you for saying giraffes eating too many leaves was none of your business.

dmarks: And yes there is a complete lack of idolizing the wealthy. No evidence of it.

There is evidence. Rusty said (in THIS thread) that Mark Cuban wasting his money gave him a boner. Anyone saying that isn't wealthy idolizing is lying.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Actually WD I said I thought Mark Cuban was the "cats meow" for enjoying his self made fortune...and,just to set the record straight there are only two things that give me a boner....one is Mrs.Rusty the other is your mom.

dmarks said...

WD said: "Your comment is an illogical non-sequitor as nobody here has ever done this"

Actually you have engaged in criticism of the wealthy just for the hell of it with your shifting self-defined pejorative bashing of them as "plutocrats".

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Actually you have engaged in criticism of the wealthy just for the hell of it...

Nope. The only reason you object is because it really impresses you when the wealthy take advantage of workers. dmarks probably gets more than a little giddy when he thinks of Governor Wanker busting unions. He loves it when working people get the shaft.