Rumour Mill - Mayweather v Ortiz to fight at Cowboys Stadium?

by BALTIMORA Wed May 04, 2011 2:57 am

First topic message reminder :

I can't-in fact I WON'T-vouch for the accuracy of this statement, because the site it's from is pretty bloody awful, although behind their terrible writing there's usually a nugget of truth. Anyway, link's here:

http://www.boxingnews24.com/2011/05/mayweather-to-fight-in-cowboys-stadium-by-end-of-summer-says-roger/#more-64787

Long story sport is that Roger Mayweather's apparently hinting at Floyd Jr fighting at the Dallas Cowboys stadium in late summer 2010. If true, the implications are obvious - pack the stadium more than a certain Filipino did, and restate your dominance as the so-called 'cash cow' of boxing.

Of course, uncle Roger could quite easily be saying something just to keep Floyd Jr's name in the media, but the other implication from this is that if Mayweather does fight at the Cowboys Stadium it's a clear precursor to setting the stage for a rubber match of negotiations, hopefully successful, between the Mayweathers and the representatives of the Filipino chap. I forget his name. Smile

Wait and see, eh?

by Young_Towzer Fri May 06, 2011 7:43 pm

I'm finding it difficult to tell the difference in your posts to be honest.
.........................
well
1. go up to the page and read i said i'll leave it at that, then you asked me a question saying whats the difference, therefore bringing it back up

2. I cant answer that question, i dont follow any religion and think its a myth, i rely solely on myself for inspiration or my family, i dont need some fake myth to move forward, also i refuse to judge someone who isnt a muslim like they do, ie protests, all that, thats the last im saying on the matter though for sure now azania, i dont mind talking to you about boxing but not that, as there are many mentallists near me who i used to tell the same to but i now choose to ignore them, as they do what they do to wind people up. Once again though, i'll talk boxing with you but lets end this here

by BALTIMORA Fri May 06, 2011 9:51 pm

azania wrote:Back on topic please gents (and lady).

Is Ortiz being the WBC WW champion is good comeback fight for Floyd?

Yeah, sure it is. A good sized welter, just taken the belt (and the '0') from Berto. Young, on-form and as game as they come. Only thing going against Ortiz is experience really.

by Scottrf Fri May 06, 2011 9:55 pm

Would love to see Floyd vs Ortiz, just don't think it will happen. Little surprised to see it on the boxrec schedule TBH.

by azania Sun May 08, 2011 5:11 am

BALTIMORA wrote:
azania wrote:Back on topic please gents (and lady).

Is Ortiz being the WBC WW champion is good comeback fight for Floyd?

Yeah, sure it is. A good sized welter, just taken the belt (and the '0') from Berto. Young, on-form and as game as they come. Only thing going against Ortiz is experience really.

If Floyd fights and wins the WBC belt, he should give Shane a rematch seeing as Shane gets better with age and has been more active since their last fight.

by BALTIMORA Sun May 08, 2011 5:17 am

If Shane continues with this amazing resurgence and rejuvenation he should be unified, undisputed WW champ and p4p #1 by 2067.

by azania Sun May 08, 2011 5:19 am

BALTIMORA wrote:If Shane continues with this amazing resurgence and rejuvenation he should be unified, undisputed WW champ and p4p #1 by 2067.

An absolute beast of a champion. He will have his granite chin and punch.

by BALTIMORA Sun May 08, 2011 5:21 am

azania wrote:
BALTIMORA wrote:If Shane continues with this amazing resurgence and rejuvenation he should be unified, undisputed WW champ and p4p #1 by 2067.

An absolute beast of a champion. He will have his granite chin and punch.

In several million years time Sugar Shane will have more than that. Once he's been petrifed his ENTIRE BODY will be granite!!! Manny's just fighting him while he's young and weak.

by azania Sun May 08, 2011 5:24 am

BALTIMORA wrote:
azania wrote:
BALTIMORA wrote:If Shane continues with this amazing resurgence and rejuvenation he should be unified, undisputed WW champ and p4p #1 by 2067.

An absolute beast of a champion. He will have his granite chin and punch.

In several million years time Sugar Shane will have more than that. Once he's been petrifed his ENTIRE BODY will be granite!!! Manny's just fighting him while he's young and weak.

Manny will ask for weight stips then.

by Pound-for-Pound Sun May 08, 2011 5:27 am

Floyd Mayweather is apparently set to face Victor Ortiz in September.

Is this practice for another welterweight southpaw?

How do you expect it to go?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/691884-mayweather-jr-fighting-victor-ortiz-and-selling-take-the-tests-t-shirts

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=352&cat=boxer

by D4thincarnation Sun May 08, 2011 5:28 am

Old news, I did post it a couple of days ago, but it got merged with another topic?

by azania Sun May 08, 2011 5:33 am

Pound-for-Pound wrote:Floyd Mayweather is apparently set to face Victor Ortiz in September.

Is this practice for another welterweight southpaw?

How do you expect it to go?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/691884-mayweather-jr-fighting-victor-ortiz-and-selling-take-the-tests-t-shirts

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=352&cat=boxer

I like the idea of the t-shirt. Wonderful advertising for cleaning up boxing. It should be enough to embarrass Manny into taking the test if he can man up to face floyd.

by D4thincarnation Sun May 08, 2011 5:34 am

azania wrote:
Pound-for-Pound wrote:Floyd Mayweather is apparently set to face Victor Ortiz in September.

Is this practice for another welterweight southpaw?

How do you expect it to go?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/691884-mayweather-jr-fighting-victor-ortiz-and-selling-take-the-tests-t-shirts

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=352&cat=boxer

I like the idea of the t-shirt. Wonderful advertising for cleaning up boxing. It should be enough to embarrass Manny into taking the test if he can man up to face floyd.

Think he doing it just to raise a few buck, for court & lawyer fees, IRS payment and gamblind debts. A guys got to work.

by BALTIMORA Sun May 08, 2011 5:36 am

I love how D4 hates Floyd yet HAS to comment on him ALL the time. Floyd is well within his rights to campaign for better testing. He had it for HIS Mosley fight, and this is showing some consistency. Fair play to him.

by azania Sun May 08, 2011 5:39 am

azania wrote:
Pound-for-Pound wrote:Floyd Mayweather is apparently set to face Victor Ortiz in September.

Is this practice for another welterweight southpaw?

How do you expect it to go?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/691884-mayweather-jr-fighting-victor-ortiz-and-selling-take-the-tests-t-shirts

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=352&cat=boxer

I like the idea of the t-shirt. Wonderful advertising for cleaning up boxing. It should be enough to embarrass Manny into taking the test if he can man up to face floyd.

The fact that Jinkee's husband chickened out of taking the test is what scuppered their fight. Who wears the trousers in that household?

by D4thincarnation Sun May 08, 2011 5:41 am

BALTIMORA wrote:I love how D4 hates Floyd yet HAS to comment on him ALL the time. Floyd is well within his rights to campaign for better testing. He had it for HIS Mosley fight, and this is showing some consistency. Fair play to him.

How many commissions has Floyd lobbied again? Is he talking with the governing bodies of the sport?

Is he doing talks about this on the grass root level?

Is he trying to garner support from influential people in boxing?

Has he sought the top scientific and medical advice to put his his report?

Has he himself signed up to WADA testing program?

Does he tell all the young fighters that train with Roger to take the tests?

by BALTIMORA Sun May 08, 2011 5:43 am

Do you know the answer to all those questions? No. Go have yourself a drink and change the tune. I'm sure there's something under the sink you can neck.

by D4thincarnation Sun May 08, 2011 5:44 am

BALTIMORA wrote:Do you know the answer to all those questions? No. Go have yourself a drink and change the tune. I'm sure there's something under the sink you can neck.

The answers are NO

by BALTIMORA Sun May 08, 2011 5:49 am

D4thincarnation wrote:
BALTIMORA wrote:Do you know the answer to all those questions? No. Go have yourself a drink and change the tune. I'm sure there's something under the sink you can neck.

The answers are NO

You have no more proof of that than I do. I'm done here, you're boring.

by D4thincarnation Sun May 08, 2011 5:52 am

He hasn't, hmmmm, unless he has done it by covert methods, because the press have not reported it.

by azania Sun May 08, 2011 5:53 am

Manny is now tainted forever because he refused to take comprehensive tests against performance enhancing drugs. There will always be a question mark above him because of the number of excuses he gave. Was he lying when he said he was scared of needles?

Was Atlas lying when he mentioned the emails that were allegedly sent questioning what would happen if Manny tested positive?

Floyd is doing a sterling job trying to clean up boxing. Manny is casting doubt on this noble sport we all love.

by Imperial Ghosty Sun May 08, 2011 5:53 am

D4thincarnation wrote:He hasn't, hmmmm, unless he has done it by covert methods, because the press have not reported it.

The press would have no way of knowing

by azania Sun May 08, 2011 5:56 am

D4thincarnation wrote:
BALTIMORA wrote:Do you know the answer to all those questions? No. Go have yourself a drink and change the tune. I'm sure there's something under the sink you can neck.

The answers are NO

On a serious note D4, you are speculating here. UNless you can 100% back up what you are saying that is. If you cant I will remove your post.

The choice is yours. And please refrain from making such wild and unverifiably claims.

by D4thincarnation Sun May 08, 2011 5:57 am

http://www.boxingscene.com/naazim-talks-pacquiao-hopkins-roach-mosley-more--36550

Nazim Richardson: I don't address those issues. I went through a lot of that when my fighters were amateurs. It's just irritating. It bogs you down.

They can call for drug testing with these two if they want to, but I'm not going to make any accusations about Manny Pacquiao because I don't have any evidence to hold forth on it.

I wouldn't do that to any man. Maybe I don't do it because of the way that I look. When I came up, people would walk up and say, 'He's mean,' and they knew nothing about me.

But I was a big black man with hair on his face and a bald head. So there's a certain stigma to it. I'm not going to demean any man out there who puts on a great performance by attaching that kind of stigma to it.

There's families on the line. I wouldn't say something like that about an athlete unless there is something to base it on.

The guy again is spot on.

by Scottrf Sun May 08, 2011 5:57 am

If you are campaigning for something you don't keep your efforts quiet.

Especially not someone who courts publicity like Mayweather.

by D4thincarnation Sun May 08, 2011 5:59 am

azania wrote:
D4thincarnation wrote:
BALTIMORA wrote:Do you know the answer to all those questions? No. Go have yourself a drink and change the tune. I'm sure there's something under the sink you can neck.

The answers are NO

On a serious note D4, you are speculating here. UNless you can 100% back up what you are saying that is. If you cant I will remove your post.

The choice is yours. And please refrain from making such wild and unverifiably claims.

Prove me wrong find something that says Mayweather did those thing?

And stop trying to make me prove something that hasn't happen. You know who does that. And you should also know it cannot be proved to 100%

Maybe thats why you asked it.

by azania Sun May 08, 2011 6:03 am

D4thincarnation wrote:
azania wrote:
D4thincarnation wrote:
BALTIMORA wrote:Do you know the answer to all those questions? No. Go have yourself a drink and change the tune. I'm sure there's something under the sink you can neck.

The answers are NO

On a serious note D4, you are speculating here. UNless you can 100% back up what you are saying that is. If you cant I will remove your post.

The choice is yours. And please refrain from making such wild and unverifiably claims.

Prove me wrong find something that says Mayweather did those thing?

And stop trying to make me prove something that hasn't happen. You know who does that. And you should also know it cannot be proved to 100%

Maybe thats why you asked it.

The onus is on you to prove it hasn't happened. Saying it hasn't is not enough. If you cannot prove it dont say it. Legal reasons mate.

by Scottrf Sun May 08, 2011 6:05 am

Libel law is very expensive, I'm sure we will be safe.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Sun May 08, 2011 6:05 am

Scottrf wrote:If you are campaigning for something you don't keep your efforts quiet.

Especially not someone who courts publicity like Mayweather.

Peolpe are talking about it and he has more important things to deal with atm.

by azania Sun May 08, 2011 6:06 am

Scottrf wrote:Libel law is very expensive, I'm sure we will be safe.

Floyd nickname is MONEY. He loves it.

by Scottrf Sun May 08, 2011 6:08 am

Yeah, so he isn't going to spend hundreds of thousands to sue someone who doesn't have hundreds of thousands is he?

This is the only forum which gives Floyd anything like this amount of benefit of the doubt. I cut him more slack than most but lets not pretend he's on a good samaritan mission.

by azania Sun May 08, 2011 6:09 am

Scottrf wrote:Yeah, so he isn't going to spend hundreds of thousands to sue someone who doesn't have hundreds of thousands is he?

You never know.

by D4thincarnation Sun May 08, 2011 6:10 am

There have been no reports in the press.

Why would the press ignore this and why would Floyd keep it quiet if it is his campaign, since publicity would help his campaign.

So therefore the lack of any proof of Floyd doing such things is compelling evidence that he didn't do such things.

by D4thincarnation Sun May 08, 2011 6:11 am

Libel law also has to prove I knew about Floyd's good deeds, and sadly I don't since none of them have been reported in the press.

by azania Sun May 08, 2011 6:12 am

D4thincarnation wrote:There have been no reports in the press.

Why would the press ignore this and why would Floyd keep it quiet if it is his campaign, since publicity would help his campaign.

So therefore the lack of any proof of Floyd doing such things is compelling evidence that he didn't do such things.

So you were guessing then?

by azania Sun May 08, 2011 6:13 am

D4thincarnation wrote:Libel law also has to prove I knew about Floyd's good deeds, and sadly I don't since none of them have been reported in the press.

You cannot make a claim without the facts behind you. I'm giving another 20 minutes to produce some evidence.

by D4thincarnation Sun May 08, 2011 6:19 am

I guess logic and law are not your strong points.

Do what you have to get your agenda across, I guess that what it takes for you to win a debate.

And what facts would they be?

You are asking me to prove something to 100% that something that I say didn't happen didn't happen.

How do you suggest I go about find evidence that this didn't happen?

The zero evidence that it did happen is evidence that it didn't.

by Imperial Ghosty Sun May 08, 2011 6:21 am

It's circumstantial rather than evidence

by D4thincarnation Sun May 08, 2011 6:23 am

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&biw=1024&bih=476&q=Floyd+mayweather+anti-doping+campaign&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

Can anyone find anything on there.

by azania Sun May 08, 2011 6:26 am

D4thincarnation wrote:I guess logic and law are not your strong points.

Do what you have to get your agenda across, I guess that what it takes for you to win a debate.

And what facts would they be?

You are asking me to prove something to 100% that something that I say didn't happen didn't happen.

How do you suggest I go about find evidence that this didn't happen?

The zero evidence that it did happen is evidence that it didn't.

Your logic is flawed as you are approaching it from a prejudicial bias against Floyd.

Show the evidence of the post gets zapped. Sorry.

by D4thincarnation Sun May 08, 2011 6:28 am

Here is Sergio's Campaign

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/news/story?id=5120390

"Sergio is going to petition the different sanctioning bodies and the different boxing dignitaries to make them know he is serious in this effort," said Sampson Lewkowicz, Martinez's adviser. "We can create a foundation that makes a world of difference to women everywhere."

See how the media covered it mentioning him petitioning the sanctioning bodies and others.

by D4thincarnation Sun May 08, 2011 6:29 am

azania wrote:
D4thincarnation wrote:I guess logic and law are not your strong points.

Do what you have to get your agenda across, I guess that what it takes for you to win a debate.

And what facts would they be?

You are asking me to prove something to 100% that something that I say didn't happen didn't happen.

How do you suggest I go about find evidence that this didn't happen?

The zero evidence that it did happen is evidence that it didn't.

Your logic is flawed as you are approaching it from a prejudicial bias against Floyd.

Show the evidence of the post gets zapped. Sorry.

Answer this question, what kind of evidence would suffice?

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Sun May 08, 2011 6:30 am

Why is nowhere reliable reporting this fight with Ortiz?

by azania Sun May 08, 2011 6:32 am

D4thincarnation wrote:
azania wrote:
D4thincarnation wrote:I guess logic and law are not your strong points.

Do what you have to get your agenda across, I guess that what it takes for you to win a debate.

And what facts would they be?

You are asking me to prove something to 100% that something that I say didn't happen didn't happen.

How do you suggest I go about find evidence that this didn't happen?

The zero evidence that it did happen is evidence that it didn't.

Your logic is flawed as you are approaching it from a prejudicial bias against Floyd.

Show the evidence of the post gets zapped. Sorry.

Answer this question, what kind of evidence would suffice?

Actual evidence that he hasn't. We do not know what he has done on the quiet. You are assuming just because he is loud, brash etc he would bleat about what he has to other organisations. We do not know. And to assume that he hasn't is wrong.

The facts are that Manny refused to take random steroid tests and gave a multitude of reasons including some very dubious ones. Those are facts.

by D4thincarnation Sun May 08, 2011 6:33 am

It is not libel.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel

libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for "general damages" for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called "special damages." "Libel per se" involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune for actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U. S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement

by Imperial Ghosty Sun May 08, 2011 6:34 am

Strange how your not bleating about going off topic when it is in fact you that's causing it eh D4?

by Guest Sun May 08, 2011 6:36 am

Was just about to jump on Atom,

This article is about the possible fight, lets keep it on topic guys.

by BALTIMORA Sun May 08, 2011 6:36 am

D4thincarnation wrote:I guess logic and law are not your strong points.

Do what you have to get your agenda across, I guess that what it takes for you to win a debate.

And what facts would they be?

You are asking me to prove something to 100% that something that I say didn't happen didn't happen.

How do you suggest I go about find evidence that this didn't happen?

The zero evidence that it did happen is evidence that it didn't.

If this is genuinely what you believe then I seriously suggest you stop posting before you land yourself in a very actionable position.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Sun May 08, 2011 6:37 am

Why is nowhere reliable reporting an upcoming fight with Ortiz.

by D4thincarnation Sun May 08, 2011 6:37 am

azania wrote:
D4thincarnation wrote:
azania wrote:
D4thincarnation wrote:I guess logic and law are not your strong points.

Do what you have to get your agenda across, I guess that what it takes for you to win a debate.

And what facts would they be?

You are asking me to prove something to 100% that something that I say didn't happen didn't happen.

How do you suggest I go about find evidence that this didn't happen?

The zero evidence that it did happen is evidence that it didn't.

Your logic is flawed as you are approaching it from a prejudicial bias against Floyd.

Show the evidence of the post gets zapped. Sorry.

Answer this question, what kind of evidence would suffice?

Actual evidence that he hasn't. We do not know what he has done on the quiet. You are assuming just because he is loud, brash etc he would bleat about what he has to other organisations. We do not know. And to assume that he hasn't is wrong.

The facts are that Manny refused to take random steroid tests and gave a multitude of reasons including some very dubious ones. Those are facts.

Actual evidence that he has not done something?

Like I asked before what would that be?

Anybody else find it ironic that you are calling what I say is libel when people are facing court on defamation charges for less.

by Guest Sun May 08, 2011 6:39 am

Last chance, keep the article on topic guys.

by Sponsored content