>Mosley could dominate Junior Welterweight or Lightweight, but Trinidad,
>Quartey, or De La Hoya are simply BETTER than him at Welterweight.

>Oscar De La Hoya has been in these BIG fights before. (Quartey, Whitaker,
>Trinidad). All of those fights were close, but De La Hoya hung in there and
>made them VERY close fights. What big fight has Shane Mosley been in before?
>Golden Johnson or John-John Molina? Please!

>Like I said, Oscar De La Hoya will WIN!!!!!!!

>Scar TKO

>Mosley has an average chance. He will get beat because he will not be the
>better fighter in the ring. Plain and Simple!!!!

>And to answer your question about Felix Trinidad in big fights.Pernell Whitaker
>was a big fight for Felix. Watch the way he beat Oba Carr and Yori Boy Campas
>when both fighters were *very* GOOD. Those were 2 Big Fights for Trinidad.
>Trinidad also got big time experience when he dominated Hector Camacho.
>Comparing Mosley to Trinidad when it comes to opposition is insane my friend.

>Keeping thinking Mosley has a chance, and your setting yourself up for an
>upsetting night when De La Hoya and Mosley clash   :-)

>Scar TKO

> >> I think Mosley has a very good chance,

> >Mosley has an average chance. He will get beat because he will not be the
> >better fighter in the ring. Plain and Simple!!!!

> >And to answer your question about Felix Trinidad in big fights.Pernell Whitaker
> >was a big fight for Felix. Watch the way he beat Oba Carr and Yori Boy Campas
> >when both fighters were *very* GOOD. Those were 2 Big Fights for Trinidad.
> >Trinidad also got big time experience when he dominated Hector Camacho.
> >Comparing Mosley to Trinidad when it comes to opposition is insane my friend.

> >Keeping thinking Mosley has a chance, and your setting yourself up for an
> >upsetting night when De La Hoya and Mosley clash   :-)

> >Scar TKO

> Well IMO Oscar has never lost so he will possibly be tough for Mosley
> to beat. I also think Oscar is an okay guy, so I won't be upset if
> Mosley doesn't beat him. I will be dissapointed though because Shane
> Mosley is one of the nicest, and the most exciting fighter fighting
> today. He's also my favorite fighter and this is probably the first
> time that my favorite fighter hasn't been a heavyweight. So I am
> really pulling for him to win, and I think he is an incredible talent
> and has anywhere from a 30%-80% chance of winning, depending on just
> how good he really is. I lean towards him having around a 55-60%
> chance, but I am hoping to see him dominate similar to the way Vargas
> domnated Quartey.

>><yawn>

>You must realise how utterly unconvincing this repeated, repeated,
>repeated, repeated, repeated <yawn> is. It speaks unfortunate volumes
>about your sorry contribution to this forum. Either it is dogmatic
>defence of incoherence, or it is a pre-literate defence of the
>incomprehensible. I have concluded that (a) you are not what you have
>said you are, because, as far as I know, there is no institute of
>higher learning on the planet that would sanction such loose reason as
>yours; or (b) you are what you have said you are and our hopes for
>future learning are truly lost.

>I post this reluctantly, Pie, but only after your last spate of
>postings on this Jefferson topic. You are incomprehensible. You are
>incoherent. Your protestations directed at other posters make utterly,
>100% no sense. You have crested the threshold of physical pain. Stop.
>Please.

> Taylor wrote:

> >   I'm not
> > talking about Brian and TSC's comments above. I'm talking about those
> > 80-post threads, where the arguments get so unbelievably convoluted
> > with assertions and denials and cross-denials and re-assertions and
> > challenges and Deja-News searches and finally acrimony and
> > name-calling. After you spend a few years in a newsgroup like this
> > one, enjoying the conversation and the analysis, these twisted threads
> > are like people screaming at each other. They quickly cease to have
> > anything to do with (a) the original theory, or (b) boxing.

> In this case, I stayed on the topic.  What annoyed *me* were the posts by
> people who clearly hadn't bothered to read my actual "theory(s)" and yet
> still felt qualified to judge them ("What?  Pie thinks he faked the
> injury??")  They're not obligated to follow the thread and they're not
> obligated to read what I write on any topic.  But to enter into a debate
> without knowing what is being argued and what has already been said is
> just foolish and adds nothing but noise to a thread.  I've very little
> patience with those who operate at such a lower level of discourse.  If
> I'm looking for a grade-school level of argumentation, I'll start teaching
> grade-school.  That smacks of arrogance, but there it is.
> (Disclaimer for the grade-schoolers and slow readers:  I do not think
> Jefferson faked the injury.)

> Interesting.  You give your reaction here to the thread.  You *did*
> anticipate that I would respond, didn't you?  If you didn't, you should
> have.  And yet that's exactly how the threads you criticize develop.  You
> see, it's not ALL my fault.  ;)  And I was not in Dallas in 1963, either.

> Pie

> Hmmm Pie, I think us grade-schoolers might be confused by your statement
> that you "think he either faked...whatever ankle/leg injury he
> sustained..."