LOCK of the CENTURY? Hopkins-Pascal OVER 11.5 Rounds @ -290...

[lasker]

Hopkins is the one leading with the top of his head... why would he get cut?

he wouldn't get cut, naturally, because he's black.

and yea 5 of his 8 previous guys were black so they werent cut badly... correct.

oh, so now they don't get "cut badly," but cuts that aren't bad happen frequently? what you had said was "black fighters tend to cut less easily."

you just said that it was the first time in a long time that no fighter was cut in a Hopkins fight. If at least one fighter has been getting cut in the most recent Hopkins fights until this one, then black fighters have been getting cut quite a bit in his fights.

[phillybadboy]

nice call

[kball15]

he wouldn't get cut, naturally, because he's black.



oh, so now they don't get "cut badly," but cuts that aren't bad happen frequently? what you had said was "black fighters tend to cut less easily."

yea... "less easily," as in they cut just not as easily... i agree with what you said because I said it...

[lasker]

yea... "less easily," as in they cut just not as easily... i agree with what you said because I said it...

you said black fighters don't cut easily and then you said that in hopkins last few fights (most against fellow black fighters), at least one fighter has been cut. it's not the most consistent reasoning in the world...

anyway, what you claim as "FACT," is just bullshit. Good call on the over, but the reason you were ridiculed had nothing to do with the prediction. It's that your claim about black fighters getting cut less than white fighters is laughable. The color of their skin does not make them more or less resistant to getting cut.

[kball15]

you said black fighters don't cut easily and then you said that in hopkins last few fights (most against fellow black fighters), at least one fighter has been cut. it's not the most consistent reasoning in the world...

anyway, what you claim as "FACT," is just bullshit. Good call on the over, but the reason you were ridiculed had nothing to do with the prediction. It's that your claim about black fighters getting cut less than white fighters is laughable. The color of their skin does not make them more or less resistant to getting cut.

It DOES though. I hate how every is like shocked and denying this. It soooo obvious. Watch 100 fights between black fighters, and 100 fights between white fighters, and tell me which has more cut fighters.

Im willing to bet there are dozens more cuts in the fights involving the white fighters versuses the black fighters

Ive been watching boxing for yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeears. this isnt like some shocking out there statement. sure its not "FACT" that black fighters are harder to cut, but if took some stats im sure they would HEAVILY and OBVIOUSLY favor my claim

[kball15]

think of it this way. when was the last time we had a black fighter that was a "gusher," or a guy that would bleed before the fight even started basically?

We have PLENTY of white fighters like that today. Guys like Pavlik and Katsidis. Guys in the past like Gatti. All White.

Can you think of guys that are black that REGULARLY bleed without fouls? There aren't many if any around today. You'd have to go back a ways to find a real legit one.

[lasker]

It DOES though. I hate how every is like shocked and denying this. It soooo obvious. Watch 100 fights between black fighters, and 100 fights between white fighters, and tell me which has more cut fighters. Im willing to bet there are dozens more cuts in the fights involving the white fighters versuses the black fighters Ive been watching boxing for yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeears. this isnt like some shocking out there statement. sure its not "FACT" that black fighters are harder to cut, but if took some stats im sure they would HEAVILY and OBVIOUSLY favor my claim

i challenge you to produce a single reputable source to substantiate your claim that white people get cut more easily than black people. it is bullshit.

[HauntingTheHoly]

does anyone know if the hopkins-pascal fight had the option for a draw in the match on pinnacle's wesbite? I am trying to settle a dispute between people who bet following pinnacles rules. It says if draw was not an option bets are returned, but if draw was a option bets on hopkins would be considered a loss. Points awarded for help thanks.

If you simply bet on a side and the fight is a draw, that is a PUSH - bets are returned. If you bet on a specific outcome prop (ex: Hopkins by decision) then that bet is a LOSS (because you could have bet the DRAW prop for your specific outcome) This is how it works everywhere. I don't have a Pinnacle account, but there's no way it's any different there.

Edit: So therefore in solving your dispute, if someone bet Hopkins straight up to win the fight, their bet must be returned - doesn't matter if Draw was an option or not - but "Draw" is always an option everywhere.

[iQon]

Pinnacle only had the ML. It should have been a push/cancelled bet if you took either fighter straight up. The draw was simply a prop bet.

[A's Fan]

thanks both of you, and especially iqon was looking for pinnacle specifically.

[kball15]

i challenge you to produce a single reputable source to substantiate your claim that white people get cut more easily than black people. it is bullshit.

lol watever dude. im sorry there have been no studies on this very specific issue. I use common sense and knowledge gained from experience when i make a claim.

could you produce some evidence that black fighters and white fighters cut the SAME? didnt think so...

[lasker]

could you produce some evidence that black
fighters and white fighters cut the SAME? didnt think so...

let's say someone claims invisible aliens from mars are living in Oklahoma. I say to give me proof. He says "can you produce some evidence that invisible aliens from mars DON'T live in Oklahoma? Didn't think so." ... Somehow it's not the least bit surprising that you're not familiar with a little concept called "burden of proof." You're the one making the counter-intuitive claim, that darker color also affects the toughness of the skin.

as for this "very specific issue," more minor things are studied and written about by academic scientists every day. This would be particularly interesting to many scientists who study race. maybe all people who believe in locks of the century also believe that what gives black skin that color is a strong extra protective layer of black cushioning that white people don't have. i'm basing this on "common sense and knowledge gained from experience."

lol watever dude. im sorry there have been no studies on this very specific issue. I use common sense and knowledge gained from experience when i make a claim.

it is not "common sense" to assume that the color of someone's skin can make them more resistant to cuts. Knowledge gained from experience is valuable but can only get you so far. You can't make sweeping generalizations based on a few fights that you've seen. Even if you've seen 1000 fights with black people and only a small percentage of the black fighters were cut, it doesn't prove anything beyond those particular fights. I can just as easily find 1000 fights with white fighters not getting cut. if there was even a grain of truth to your claim, it would have been studied and discussed by now.

[kball15]

let's say someone claims invisible aliens from mars are living in Oklahoma. I say to give me proof. He says "can you produce some evidence that invisible aliens from mars DON'T live in Oklahoma? Didn't think so." ... Somehow it's not the least bit surprising that you're not familiar with a little concept called "burden of proof." You're the one making the counter-intuitive claim, that darker color also affects the toughness of the skin.

as for this "very specific issue," more minor things are studied and written about by academic scientists every day. This would be particularly interesting to many scientists who study race. maybe all people who believe in locks of the century also believe that what gives black skin that color is a strong extra protective layer of black cushioning that white people don't have. i'm basing this on "common sense and knowledge gained from experience."




it is not "common sense" to assume that the color of someone's skin can make them more resistant to cuts. Knowledge gained from experience is valuable but can only get you so far. You can't make sweeping generalizations based on a few fights that you've seen. Even if you've seen 1000 fights with black people and only a small percentage of the black fighters were cut, it doesn't prove anything beyond those particular fights. I can just as easily find 1000 fights with white fighters not getting cut. if there was even a grain of truth to your claim, it would have been studied and discussed by now.

Fine. Evidence (which I already posted.) Why don't you counter this claim:
"when was the last time we had a black fighter that was a "gusher," or a guy that would bleed before the fight even started basically?

We have PLENTY of white fighters like that today. Guys like Pavlik and Katsidis. Guys in the past like Gatti. All White.

Can you think of guys that are black that REGULARLY bleed without fouls? There aren't many if any around today. You'd have to go back a ways to find a real legit one."

Your truly blowing me away right now.

Its like saying Black people are more athletic then white people. Would you say THAT is false? Im making that claim from my experiences watching sports and using common sense. Do I have proof? No. IS there proof? Not that I know of. I'm going off the fact that I've SEEN black athletes jump OVER 7 foot white athletes. Do I have PROOF that blacks are harder to cut in boxing? No, but I'm going off my experience of watching boxing.

and YEAH obviously more specific things are studied, but have they studied THIS? No. I'm sure people have racial fears and are afraid of the implications of a study like that. Its probably the same reason we don't have proof of why Black people are more naturally athletic.

and yea, experience can only get me so far. I've seen thousands of fights and blacks have CONSISTENTLY been cut less, but you are right. You could say the same thing about blacks being better athletes. Can't prove that, but lets face it, its TRUE.

I hardly have the time to go over every fight of the last 10 years and take stats, but even if I did by your estimations it wouldn't even prove anything. Even still, I'm sure if someone WERE to take such a survey, it would OVERWHELMINGLY be in favor of my claim.

I'm surprised this is so shocking to you. Black fighters cut less. Is it "FACT?" Maybe not, but it may as well be...

[creditcardclown]

hey OP, i would have bet with you if i saw this thread earlier so thanks for posting. and most people have a knee jerk reaction to comments on race, they are cowards who cant handle REAL TALK

[lasker]

I'm surprised this is so shocking to you. Black fighters cut less. Is it "FACT?" Maybe not, but it may as well be...

Why are you so surprised? Perhaps you didn't notice that I wasn't the only one mocking you for the claim?

Its like saying Black people are more athletic then white people. Would you say THAT is false?

yes, in fact I would, but at least with that one it's debatable. There are plenty of white people more athletic than black people, both among athletes and non-athletes. Of course you can say that "on average" it's true, but even then there is no proof and it's not just taken for granted. But at least for the athleticism claim a number of studies have been done on the speed of black people (I've seen some studies on African runners and the so-called "speed gene") so your reasoning "I'm sure people have racial fears and are afraid of the implications of a study like that" simply fails. Actually the study of race and genetics is a huge field among scientists, and plenty of studies have been done on way more specific topics. The reason there is no evidence for your claim is not because of any phobia of studying race -- it's done all the time -- but because your claim is absurd, stupid, and false.

Is it "FACT?" Maybe not, but it may as well be...

I don't even know what this means. If it is not a fact, then it's not the case that it "may as well be" a fact. It's false.

I watch a lot more MMA than boxing (since I don't bet on boxing), and probably the two worst cuts I've seen were Marvin Eastman's gash when he fought Belfort, and Yves Edwards' hole in his head when he fought Stevenson. Guess what? Both fighters are black. Another one that ranks in the top 10 worst cuts I've seen was Gideon Ray's cut when he fought Loiseau. Guess what? Gideon Ray is black. Just three graphic examples off the top of my head (... or off the top of their heads). When you consider the tiny ratio of black fighters to non-black fighters in MMA, your "argument," if I can call it that, just keeps looking stupider.

Even still, I'm sure if someone WERE to take such a survey, it would OVERWHELMINGLY be in favor of my claim.

uh-huh. ok buddy.

[sideloaded]

Kball keep replying because every time you do you show your ignorance.

[Eccocide]

[kball15]

Why are you so surprised? Perhaps you didn't notice that I wasn't the only one mocking you for the claim?



yes, in fact I would, but at least with that one it's debatable. There are plenty of white people more athletic than black people, both among athletes and non-athletes. Of course you can say that "on average" it's true, but even then there is no proof and it's not just taken for granted. But at least for the athleticism claim a number of studies have been done on the speed of black people (I've seen some studies on African runners and the so-called "speed gene") so your reasoning "I'm sure people have racial fears and are afraid of the implications of a study like that" simply fails. Actually the study of race and genetics is a huge field among scientists, and plenty of studies have been done on way more specific topics. The reason there is no evidence for your claim is not because of any phobia of studying race -- it's done all the time -- but because your claim is absurd, stupid, and false.



I don't even know what this means. If it is not a fact, then it's not the case that it "may as well be" a fact. It's false.

I watch a lot more MMA than boxing (since I don't bet on boxing), and probably the two worst cuts I've seen were Marvin Eastman's gash when he fought Belfort, and Yves Edwards' hole in his head when he fought Stevenson. Guess what? Both fighters are black. Another one that ranks in the top 10 worst cuts I've seen was Gideon Ray's cut when he fought Loiseau. Guess what? Gideon Ray is black. Just three graphic examples off the top of my head (... or off the top of their heads). When you consider the tiny ratio of black fighters to non-black fighters in MMA, your "argument," if I can call it that, just keeps looking stupider.



uh-huh. ok buddy.

pffffff i stopped reading after that bold line. this is a lost cause. you're locked in your little world where everybody is the same and equal. lol watever dude

[iQon]

Is it safe to say white fighters are "gushers" because their idea of blocking punches involves using their face? Have you ever seen Floyd Mayweather take as many flush shots to the face as Arturo Gatti? Have you ever seen Pernell Whitaker blinded by his own blood like Kelly Pavlik? Did you ever see Roy Jones cut?

...Before he lost a step and took a beating from Joe Calzaghe...




It's really not that difficult to understand defending yourself is what limits swelling and cuts, and not your race.

[Vaughany]

[Vaughany]

I watch a lot more MMA than boxing (since I don't bet on boxing), and probably the two worst cuts I've seen were Marvin Eastman's gash when he fought Belfort, and Yves Edwards' hole in his head when he fought Stevenson. Guess what? Both fighters are black. Another one that ranks in the top 10 worst cuts I've seen was Gideon Ray's cut when he fought Loiseau. Guess what? Gideon Ray is black. Just three graphic examples off the top of my head (... or off the top of their heads). When you consider the tiny ratio of black fighters to non-black fighters in MMA, your "argument," if I can call it that, just keeps looking stupider.

Also, I believe the Jared Rollins vs War Machine fight was also one of the bloodiest fights ever and that all started with Rollins getting a deep cut above is eye...and that dude is rather black!

[Poppa Catfish]

Ok quit beating the dead horse. TS we need your amazing powers of racial observation to be directed towards MMA:

Is it going to be hard for BJ Penn to judge range in his upcoming fight with Fitch, what with Penn's slanted eyes.

[Vaughany]

Ok quit beating the dead horse. TS we need your amazing powers of racial observation to be directed towards MMA:

Is it going to be hard for BJ Penn to judge range in his upcoming fight with Fitch, what with Penn's slanted eyes.

Yeah I have a similar question regarding Guida vs Gomi....which one is going to have the biggest vision disadvantage? Gomi due to his slit-eyes or Guida due to his long greasy hair?

[jin2daj]

nice man, hope you made some good money

[A's Fan]

lool wow