Ortiz Scores Most Impressive Stoppage Among Tomorrow’s Heavyweights

In professional boxing, it’s not about how many you beat or knock out – it’s all about whom did you defeat or knockout? With the universally acknowledged heavyweight champion, Wladimir Klitschko, losing his title to Tyson Fury last month the division now appears to be wide open. In Klitschko’s last bout before fighting Fury, he was pushed to go the 12-round distance by Philidelphian Bryant Jennings 19-2 (10), a fighter who only fought 17 times as an amateur before turning pro. No, Jennings didn’t deserve the decision he lost, but he was in the fight and absorbed Wladimir’s Sunday punch repeatedly during the bout and never really flinched. And two bouts before fighting Klitschko, Jennings stopped undefeated Artur Szpilka in the 10th and final round of their bout. Incidentally, Szpilka will meet WBC heavyweight title holder Deontay Wilder 35-0 (34) this coming January 16th.

Jennings is a fighter with limited experience who was more than willing to meet other up and coming heavyweights on way up the ranks, and until this past weekend he acquitted himself well. For first time in his career Jennings lost via TKO at 2:41 of the seventh round. The fighter who recorded the first stoppage defeat over Jennings is WBA interim title holder Luis “The Real King Kong” Ortiz 24-0 (21). And based on how he looked against Jennings, he very well may be the most dangerous heavyweight in boxing because he can box and punch out of a southpaw stance. In addition to that Ortiz is very strong and knows how to apply his strength. Oh, and as he demonstrated against Jennings, he can fight both inside and outside.

During the first round of the fight it didn’t take long for Jennings to realize that Ortiz’s power was too much for him if he stayed outside and was caught at the end of his punches. In the second round Jennings smartly began pushing the action and was effective once he gathered that he was safer inside smothering the massive Cuban’s shots. However, that took a lot out of him and he was forced to regroup from outside searching for another answer, but in the process he was getting repeatedly hurt. In the fourth round Jennings again found his way on the inside and seemed to once again stem the tide out the bout. But starting in the fifth round Ortiz began moving on his toes and was starting to pot-shot Jennings who was now coming in more slowly. By the sixth round Jennings made a fundamental mistake, most likely because he was wearing down….and the mistake was being stationary in front of Ortiz on the inside without letting his hands go. This cleared the path for Ortiz’s powerful left and right uppercuts on the point of the chin of the crouching Jennings. The bout ended when Ortiz dropped Jennings with a perfect uppercut to the chin. Jennings beat the count but the bout was halted when Ortiz unloaded on an unsteady Jennings when the fight resumed.

Luis Ortiz scored a big win this past Saturday night. Bryant Jennings is a 6’3″ 229 pound strong heavyweight who has been getting better with each fight. He pushed Wladimir Klitschko like not many other challengers could at a time when Wladimir was thought to be the alpha fighter in the division. Yet the 6’4″ 239 pound Ortiz overwhelmed him with his strength, punch placement and astute boxing aptitude. This comes with having fought over three hundred times as an amateur in the Cuban boxing program. After the fight even Jennings admitted that Ortiz’s pedigree was too much for him to overcome.

As of this writing the up and coming heavyweights getting the most attention are American Deontay Wilder and the UK’s Anthony Joshua 15-0 (15) and now Ortiz. The difference is, Wilder has one meaningful win on his resume and that’s Bermane Stiverne whom he defeated via unanimous decision. As for Anthony Joshua, he has yet to beat any fighter of note to this point. Whereas Ortiz conclusively stopped a younger heavyweight by today’s standards that was coming off of his best showing. It wasn’t just the stoppage that was impressive, it was his power and versatility exhibited along the way.

Based on his showing versus Bryant Jennings, Luis Ortiz looks like the most dangerous threat to newly crowned champ Tyson Fury 25-0 (18). The only problem with Ortiz is that he’s 36 years old and seems to be a little lazy. His work-rate isn’t upper-tier but his ability is. If the guy ever shows that he’s willing to really work, he’d be a real terror. I expect Wilder and Joshua to look the other way regarding Ortiz, at least in the immediate future, which looks like a wise decision from a boxing business perspective. Ortiz exhibited outstanding technical boxing basics and fundamentals. He set up the finishing uppercut on Jennings beautifully.

Yes, a heavyweight who can box and punch is a virtual God send for fans who have been craving some action packed fights in the division for years. Hopefully, the clock won’t expire on the 36 year old Cuban talent before he gets a shot at today’s upper-tier heavyweight newcomers getting the Lion’s share of attention.

Frank Lotierzo can be contacted at GlovedFist@Gmail.com

WATCH RELATED VIDEOS ON BOXINGCHANNEL.TV

COMMENTS

-brownsugar :

Absolutley,....what Frank said.


-Radam G :

[br] title="Ortiz Scores Most Impressive Stoppage Among Tomorrow's Heavyweights"[/br][br][/br] In professional boxing, it's not about how many you beat or knock out - it's all about whom did you defeat or knockout? With the universally acknowledged heavyweight champion, Wladimir Klitschko, losing his title to Tyson Fury last month the division now appears to be wide open. In Klitschko's last bout before fighting Fury, he was pushed to go the 12-round distance by Philidelphian Bryant Jennings 19-2 (10), a fighter who only fought 17 times as an amateur before turning pro. No, Jennings didn't deserve the decision he lost, but he was in the fight and absorbed Wladimir's Sunday punch repeatedly during the bout and never really flinched. And two bouts before fighting Klitschko, Jennings stopped undefeated Artur Szpilka in the 10th and final round of their bout. Incidentally, Szpilka will meet WBC heavyweight title holder Deontay Wilder 35-0 (34) this coming January 16th.[br][/br] Jennings is a fighter with limited experience who was more than willing to meet other up and coming heavyweights on way up the ranks, and until this past weekend he acquitted himself well. For first time in his career Jennings lost via TKO at 2:41 of the seventh round. The fighter who recorded the first stoppage defeat over Jennings is WBA interim title holder Luis "The Real King Kong" Ortiz 24-0 (21). And based on how he looked against Jennings, he very well may be the most dangerous heavyweight in boxing because he can box and punch out of a southpaw stance. In addition to that Ortiz is very strong and knows how to apply his strength. Oh, and as he demonstrated against Jennings, he can fight both inside and outside.[br][/br] During the first round of the fight it didn't take long for Jennings to realize that Ortiz's power was too much for him if he stayed outside and was caught at the end of his punches. In the second round Jennings smartly began pushing the action and was effective once he gathered that he was safer inside smothering the massive Cuban's shots. However, that took a lot out of him and he was forced to regroup from outside searching for another answer, but in the process he was getting repeatedly hurt. In the fourth round Jennings again found his way on the inside and seemed to once again stem the tide out the bout. But starting in the fifth round Ortiz began moving on his toes and was starting to pot-shot Jennings who was now coming in more slowly. By the sixth round Jennings made a fundamental mistake, most likely because he was wearing down....and the mistake was being stationary in front of Ortiz on the inside without letting his hands go. This cleared the path for Ortiz's powerful left and right uppercuts on the point of the chin of the crouching Jennings. The bout ended when Ortiz dropped Jennings with a perfect uppercut to the chin. Jennings beat the count but the bout was halted when Ortiz unloaded on an unsteady Jennings when the fight resumed.[br][/br] Luis Ortiz scored a big win this past Saturday night. Bryant Jennings is a 6'3" 229 pound strong heavyweight who has been getting better with each fight. He pushed Wladimir Klitschko like not many other challengers could at a time when Wladimir was thought to be the alpha fighter in the division. Yet the 6'4" 239 pound Ortiz overwhelmed him with his strength, punch placement and astute boxing aptitude. This comes with having fought over three hundred times as an amateur in the Cuban boxing program. After the fight even Jennings admitted that Ortiz's pedigree was too much for him to overcome.[br][/br] As of this writing the up and coming heavyweights getting the most attention are American Deontay Wilder and the UK's Anthony Joshua 15-0 (15) and now Ortiz. The difference is, Wilder has one meaningful win on his resume and that's Bermane Stiverne whom he defeated via unanimous decision. As for Anthony Joshua, he has yet to beat any fighter of note to this point. Whereas Ortiz conclusively stopped a younger heavyweight by today's standards that was coming off of his best showing. It wasn't just the stoppage that was impressive, it was his power and versatility exhibited along the way.[br][/br] Based on his showing versus Bryant Jennings, Luis Ortiz looks like the most dangerous threat to newly crowned champ Tyson Fury 25-0 (18). The only problem with Ortiz is that he's 36 years old and seems to be a little lazy. His work-rate isn't upper-tier but his ability is. If the guy ever shows that he's willing to really work, he'd be a real terror. I expect Wilder and Joshua to look the other way regarding Ortiz, at least in the immediate future, which looks like a wise decision from a boxing business perspective. Ortiz exhibited outstanding technical boxing basics and fundamentals. He set up the finishing uppercut on Jennings beautifully.[br][/br] Yes, a heavyweight who can box and punch is a virtual God send for fans who have been craving some action packed fights in the division for years. Hopefully, the clock won't expire on the 36 year old Cuban talent before he gets a shot at today's upper-tier heavyweight newcomers getting the Lion's share of attention.[br][/br] Frank Lotierzo can be contacted at [url=http://www.thesweetscience.com/mailto:GlovedFist@Gmail.com]GlovedFist@Gmail.com[br][/br]
"By By" Jennings went bye-bye. He was green and got his salad tossed. Being inexperience, he made Ortiz look better than the horse-eating Ortiz is. For me the jury is still out for "The Real King Kong." Holla!


-stormcentre :

De-Ja-Vu. Ortiz reminds me of - and even looks and fights (a little) like - Ramon Garbey. Whom was another Cuban fighter that fought (and lost to) James Toney in 1999. Man the similarities are almost as amazing as how a non-entertaining fighter can (on one hand) seemingly justify a year's worth of ridicule (if he beat the man whose tomatoes are in your mouth) - but then (on the other hand and if it suits) win fighter of the year; consistency. Love it !!!! Merry Xmas boys, girls, false narrative authors, and boxing aficionados.


-deepwater2 :

A boxing aficionado would surely appreciate the successful tactics Fury used in shutting out and dominating the heavyweight champ of the past decade. Nothing like insults and homophobic statements mixed in with holiday cheer. Sort of like having a vulgar uncle over for the holidays. Just put him in front of the tv in the basement and don't take him too seriously.


-stormcentre :

Basically, I was just wondering if there is a meaningful and consistent explanation (from you) explaining how (borrowing your line used for Fury here) . . . . . ""the successful tactics Floyd used in shutting out and dominating Pac (one of the greatest welterweight champions of the past decade)"" . . . . doesn't apply in the same way that, say, it does, in your above comment, for Fury; whilst - at the same time (for you) Fury's non entertaining and boring style seems to get a (fighter of the year) pass - whilst Floyd's doesn't. Especially considering that (P4P) Pac is a far, far, greater conquest for any fighter than Klit is; see below for more on that. Could it be that the Grinch liked Fury (and Gypsy fighters) but didn't back Floyd against Pac? Don't get me wrong, I don't really care whom you all nominate for fighter of the year; I'm more interested in the policy and philosophy behind it - particularly if it seems at odds with tens or hundreds of vehement and negative posts. As seems to be the case here. I mean, after all, for months and months you yourself told us all of the many negative virtues of a "non entertaining and boring style" and how that itself justifies successive, episodic, group, and mass rubbishing of Floyd. So based on all that (you said) I am just wondering; A) In the event Fury really is ""non entertaining and possessing a boring style""; if there is a rational explanation as to how the above ridicule and concerns - that were spread out over multiple months/posts - about such, don't seem to apply to Fury and the fighter of the year "award"? B) In the Fury is not ""non entertaining and possessing a boring style""; or, alternatively, if evidence exists that Fury's fight with Klit (upon which Fury appears to have earned his fighter of the year status) was not "non entertaining and boring" and/or more entertaining than other contenders for the fighter of the year "award". That's all. You know me (whilst some like to {capitalize on the interesting lack of scrutiny for such claims/actions and} round the troops and claim they're a world champion whilst at the same time {successfully} declaring the truth is the enemy) I like to check for consistency. Particularly, in the event of group, mass, and episodic negativity; such as that mentioned above. And, that's why I previously asked for some (yet to be delivered) video of Fury's entertaining style to what all the commotion was about. Personally, I think Fury is more entertaining and less boring out of the ring, than in. As in the ring, (to my eyes) he's un-coordinated, without both balance and solid fundamentals, and a bit of a mess. Even aside from the fact that he reigned in one of the weakest Heavyweight eras for a long time and ran most of his (drug-testing free) defences from Germany; Klit was probably one of the weakest Heavyweight champions we have ever had. All things considered and being critical at a historical-championship level; almost all of Klit's success and ability to retain the championship came from that mentioned above, him being the bigger/longer guy, and Klit defending against sub-par competition. Very, very few of his fights are remotely entertaining. Same for Fury. Fury just happened to have the reach, height (comparable {but below average for great Heavyweights} skills?) and confidence to beat Klit; as most of Klit's opponent's simply couldn't get past his reach and height, and even despite that Klit still rarely took risks and made the fights entertaining - a criticism of Floyd. And yes I agree Fury can play the role of a foul mouth Uncle. Anyway, I'd be happy to hear a rational explanation that doesn't disintegrate into misdirection and/or group tribal/puppy antics that explains the above conundrum related to being boring and non entertaining. That way I can mark it off in my little black note book that Minchingin says I have. :) OK, I have just been told of for punching this out on my mobile phone. Xmas lunch is served. Merry Xmas
Deep.
Storm. :) :)


-stormcentre :

It's all good
Deep. Basically, I was just wondering if there is a meaningful and consistent explanation (from you) explaining how (borrowing your line used for Fury here) . . . . . ""the successful tactics Floyd used in shutting out and dominating Pac (one of the greatest welterweight champions of the past decade)"" . . . . doesn't apply in the same way that, say, it does, in your above comment, for Fury. Whilst - at the same time (for you) Fury's non entertaining and boring style seems to get a (fighter of the year) pass - whilst Floyd's claimed ""non entertaining and boring style"" doesn't. I'm just going on what you have told us here, so please don't shoot the messenger here or round the cavalry up with a neatly designed narrative that selectively overlooks wild claims as it attacks the truth. I mean, the above comments (of yours) seem to have even more emphasis, especially if we consider that (P4P) Pac is (even by your own {and many others} accounts) a far, far, greater champion/conquest for any fighter than, say, Klit is; please see below for more on that. Could it be that the true reason for this obvious consistency glitch - related to both the fighter of the year award and also so called non entertaining fighters - comes down to subjectivity; and not any real tangible evaluation of performance and achievement? Could it be that the (true) Xmas Grinch actually liked Fury (and Gypsy fighters) but didn't back Floyd against Pac earlier this year, and therefore to select Floyd (for fighter of the year) would fly in the face of all the authored negativity (questionably {at least by Fury's fighter of the year award standards?}) heaped on Floyd immediately after he beat Pac? Don't get me wrong
Deep, I don't really care whom you all nominate for fighter of the year. You can give it (as a belated award for 2014 in Russia) to Mickey Rourke and sing, dance, and justify the supposed merits of it with the PacClan, for all I care. The reality of the exercise is that I'm actually more interested in the policy and philosophy (and their seeming in/consistencies) behind it. Particularly if - as seems to be the case here - such policy and philosophy seems at odds with tens (if not hundreds) of vehement and negative posts (from you and/or others); that all tell us how a ""non entertaining and boring style"" not only justifies not meaningfully acknowledging a (MayPac) winner (let alone fighter of the year) - but endlessly rubbishing a fighter. I mean, after all, for months and months you yourself (and others all) told us all of the many negative virtues of a ""non entertaining and boring style"" and how that itself justifies successive, episodic, group, and mass rubbishing of Floyd. So, surely, it's fair to say that there is no way many good and reliable people and boxing lovers would - over the course of almost a year - publish all that negativity without being able to explain the foundation and/or premise for doing it; especially in terms of them nominating another fighter for fighter of the year that also himself seems to - by the yardstick provided from all the above-mentioned published negativity - have a ""non entertaining and boring style"". So based on all that (you and others said) I am just politely wondering;

A) In the event Fury really
is ""non entertaining and possessing a boring style"". If there is a rational explanation as to how the above ridicule and concerns directed towards Floyd - that were published and spread out over multiple months/posts - about the seemingly negative virtues of a ""non entertaining and boring style"" and how it justifies what followed MayPac, don't seem to (in any way) apply to Fury and his interesting fighter of the year "award"? B) In the Fury
is not ""non entertaining and possessing a boring style"". Or, alternatively, if (even remote) evidence does exist that Fury's fight with Klit (upon which Fury appears to have earned his fighter of the year status) was not "non entertaining and boring" and instead was actually more entertaining than other contenders for the fighter of the year "award".

That's all. And, personally, I think that - given how often, and for how long, and from how many posters, we were (in no uncertain terms) consistently told post MayPac of the negative virtues of a ""non entertaining and boring style"" and how such a declaration justifies not just disregarding a fighter's status and/or achievements, but also consistently rubbishing him and turning a blind eye to his opponent's antics - on that basis the request for an explanation about how the application of the so called ""non entertaining and boring styles"" policy works, is not at all unreasonable or unjustified. To me it seems like, as many have perhaps circumvented nominating Floyd for the fighter of the year - due to the above reasons - they have left themselves open to the above ""non entertaining and boring styles"" policy and its consistency related conundrum; which I am sure is easy to explain, particularly for those whom invested
Deeply into the ""non entertaining and boring styles"" policy and its use over most of the months in 2015. Further proof of this suspicion will be provided within the closing stages of this post. But, you know me (whilst some like to {capitalize on the interesting and popular lack of scrutiny for truly fictitious and obviously outrageous claims/actions and} round the troops up, attack, and claim they're a world champion. whilst at the same time {successfully} declaring the truth is the enemy) I, myself, like to check for consistency. Particularly, in the event of group, mass, and episodic negativity that has been spewed forth over the course of many months; such as that mentioned above. And, that's why I previously asked for some (yet to be delivered) video of Fury's entertaining style to what all the commotion was about. Personally, I think Fury is more entertaining and less boring out of the ring, than in. As in the ring, (to my eyes) he's un-coordinated, has no defence, often punches without purpose, is without both balance and solid fundamentals, and he's also a bit of a mess. Even aside from the fact that he obviously/occasionally fought scared (in ways that betrayed a champion) and reigned in one of the weakest Heavyweight eras for a long time, and even aside from the fact that he ran most of his (drug-testing free) defences from Germany; Klit was (and is) probably one of the most successfully-weakest Heavyweight champions boxing has ever had. All things considered and being critical (at a historical-championship level); almost all of Klit's success and ability to retain the Heavyweight championship actually came from that mentioned above, and also him - when all was said/done and the "opponent" was finally selected - not only being the bigger/longer guy, but also from Klit consistently defending against sub-par competition that many previous/current era contender guys would probably also beat. Very, very few of Klits fights are remotely entertaining. Same for Fury. Fury just happened to have the reach, height (comparable {but below average for great Heavyweights} skills?) and confidence to beat Klit; as most of Klit's opponent's (despite his flawed style) simply couldn't get past his reach and height. Yet, even despite all that Klit still rarely took risks and made the fights *entertaining - a *criticism of Floyd we have received for almost a year now. In addition, Klit would often back up in a straight line, hold his head up high (even when attacked and hit; by sub par competition), and occasionally he also looked shocked as it all happened. Unless protected paper champions are the order of the day (whether or not it be in a weak Heavyweight era); and putting aside what limited fundamentals Fury really has; Fury simply had the physical dimensions/anatomy and also the knowledge of Klit's past opponent's shortfalls in that same area, to beat Klit. It's laughable that anyone beating a fighter like that and/or Klit is fighter of the year. Let alone some one beating Klit with such a ""non entertaining and boring style"", and a style that we have been effectively and conclusively advised - over the best part of 2015 - justifies downgrading, ignoring and even group-ridiculing their achievements. Hence my interest in not just how the fighter of year award and the so called ""non entertaining and boring styles"" policy works - but also their consistency related conundrums. As such, I would be happy - for Xmas - to receive (from the authors and subscribers of the ""non entertaining and boring styles"" policy) a neat and reliable explanation that covers all this. Furthermore, I will also hang from the chandeliers and cry out ""Fury is the best"" if such an explanation is also accompanied by video of Fury that shows him possessing an ""entertaining and exciting"" style that reveals how the ""non entertaining and boring styles"" policy doesn't apply to him whilst it does to others. And yes I agree Fury can play the role of a foul mouth Uncle. With respect to my above requests for a Xmas present and explanation; I'd be happy to hear rational explanations (that don't just disintegrate into misdirection and/or group tribal/puppy antics) that succinctly explains the above policy/conundrum related to fighter's styles being supposedly ""boring and non entertaining"". That way I can mark it off in my little black note book that Minchingin says I have. :) Finally, now, from above . . . remember where I said . . . ""I mean, the above comments (of yours) seem to have even more emphasis, especially if we consider that (P4P) Pac is (even by your own {and many others} accounts) a far, far, greater champion/conquest for any fighter than, say, Klit is;
please see below for more on that"". Well, here's another consideration. Since;

1) There was no rule with the "fighter of the year award" that stated the fighter had to officially win. 2) Mayweather is surely one of the best modern day welterweights there ever is/was. 3) Pacquaio was considered by many (especially the authors and subscribers of the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy used to - for almost a year straight - consistently rubbish Floyd) to have beaten Floyd. 4) Pacquaio was considered by many (especially the authors and subscribers of the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy used to - for almost a year straight - consistently rubbish Floyd) to have acquitted himself very well against Floyd; win or lose. 5) Pacquaio was considered by many (especially the authors and subscribers of the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy used to - for almost a year straight - consistently rubbish Floyd) to have beaten and/or acquitted himself very well against Floyd (win or lose); whilst supporting a legitimate injury. 6) Only Floyd - not Pacquaio - was responsible for how supposedly ""non-entertaining and boring"" the MayPac fight was; never before has an such an injured and sternly pre-fight-tested participant been given such leeway as to be deemed entirely un-responsible for what was (after Pac lost) deemed to be a ""non-entertaining and boring"" fight. 7) Pacquaio has - in many ways - been a far greater champion than Klit.

Pacquaio "easily" deserves fighter of the year more than Fury. And, unless the above points 1 to 7 are in anyway wrong and unless all we have been episodically told about them over the course of 2015, is unreliable and fictitious; how can Pacquaio not deserve the fighter of the year award more than Fury? The real question is why those whom have;

A) Selected Fury. B) Invented and extensively used and subscribed to the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy. C) Normally backed PacMan.

Have failed to successfully nominate him for the fighter of the year award. My bet is that no-one dared nominate him due to the fact they were too busy thinking about;

A) How to not nominate Floyd. B) How to avoid conundrums associated with not nominating Floyd and how Floyd was treated pre/post MayPac; if Pacquaio was nominated for the fighter of the year award.

Therefore, (particularly whilst we are without a meaningful explanation about the operation of the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy and it's abovementioned Floyd/Fury consistency-conundrum) the fighter of the year award is - as I previously stated - subjective; rather than a true assessment on all worthy fighter's achievements, performances, and abilities. This logic applies whether or not those aforementioned points (1 to 7) and/or any assessments/claims of Pacquaio's achievements, performances, and abilities come directly from the mouths of many PacFans over the course of years; as is the case here. To disagree is akin to (not only raising more issues pertaining to the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy, but also) conflicting with what you, Queens, and many others have previously claimed about Pacquaio, his standing as an all time great, and also his MayPac performance. My bet is that FloydHate and the fact that he officially beat Pac and proved many wrong has been left unabated and to run it's own course to the extent that it has, ironically, even deprived Pacquaio of a prize that he - even by the standards and claims of PacQueens and also the authors of the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy - deserves; the fighter of the year for 2015.
How can he not? In 2015 Pacquaio fought one of the most skillful and best welterweight fighters out there. In Floyd Mayweather, Pacquaio fought an unbeaten welterweight champion whom is almost unequalled defensively. Furthermore - for many that subjectively participated in the fighter of the year selection process - Pacquaio was said to have fought Mayweather so well that it gave rise to the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy. A policy that (aside from being unexplained in its application and operation) itself justified not only disregarding Floyd and his official achievements, but also ignoring all Pacquaio suspicion whilst utterly rubbishing Floyd at every chance for almost a year. If Pacquaio does not deserve the fighter of the year for 2015 (and Fury really trumps him) can someone please explain why not, and how that logic sits with all we have - here within this forum - been told about Pacquaio and Floyd; post MayPac? Therefore,
StormCentre is going on record as saying that;

A) He truly believes that (if not Floyd, then) Pacquaio (not Fury) deserves the fighter of the year for 2015 award. B) That the above reasons (as at odds with . . . those whom have selected Fury, invented the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy, and those that normally back PacMan . . that they may be) are the real subjective PacHypocriticalQueen reasons why Pacquaio has not been selected the fighter of the year for 2015 award.

This is a good example of PacQueenHypocrisy gone mad, turning in on itself, and shooting itself in the foot. Everyone's so busy excluding and rubbishing Floyd, that in the act of doing so they have all f.ucked over Pacquaio (the very guy they pledged blind faith allegiance to support without question and/or scrutiny) for the fighter of the year for 2015 award; instead they crowned a monkey like Fury - someone that is without half of the fighting attributes that Pacman has. What an insult to Pacquaio; by Pacquaio fans and supporters. As even if you put to one side all the above-mentioned reasons PacQueenHysteria has given us to select Pacquaio as the fighter of the year; even by
StormCentre's non hysterical, reliable, and substantiated standards, Pacquaio is still far more deserving of the award than Fury ever possibly could be. As Pacquaio fought one of the genuinely best welterweights of this era and (whether it was with a questionable injury and/or without PEDS or not) he still didn't really get supremely dominated.

Furthermore, Pacquaio used Jesus and salt water to heal himself; that's the modern day biblical equivalent to the red sea parting and it didn't involve Donkey magic.

OK, I'll be serious. Seriously though, and furthermore; Floyd is far more accomplished and entertaining than Klit; or Fury - more evidence for Pacquaio's worthiness. Some may remember a little ("Amayzzing school is in session") lesson I stepped a pretending, shallow, but well supported friend of mine (let's just call him Silly Sam) through earlier this year? The morale of the story is that the truth doesn't change, only fiction does. And I suspect that all the above-mentioned inconsistencies and conundrums - including those related to the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy - are not in existence and at odds with the fighter of the year award, due to any direct relationship they may have with the truth and/or how easy it is to remember and reuse. Some (Minchingin?) would be unable to resist the temptation to gloat and insert a ""LMAO[at my own jokes/I]" comment in here at this point, but not me; that's for "no brainers" and amateurs. Perhaps now is a good time for someone to say . . . ""Miguel, on the basis of all that's been reliably written/said about Pacquaio (by most that participated in the fighter of the year award selection process) please anoint Pacquaio (not Fury) as the fighter of the year"". As with the explanation of how the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy works, I assume you
Deep will also be responsible for explaining to Miguel how Pacquaio (not Fury) is actually the fighter of the year? OK, I have just been told off for punching this out on my mobile phone. Xmas lunch is served. Merry Xmas
Deep.
Storm. :) :)


-stormcentre :

It's all good
Deep.
Pacquaio; Deserving Of - But Shafted For - Fighter Of The Year Award. Basically, I was just wondering if there is a meaningful and consistent explanation (from you) explaining how (borrowing your line used for Fury here) . . . . . ""the successful tactics Floyd used in shutting out and dominating Pac (one of the greatest welterweight champions of the past decade)"" . . . . doesn't apply in the same way that, say, it does, in your above comment, for Fury. Whilst - at the same time (for you) Fury's non entertaining and boring style seems to get a (fighter of the year) pass - whilst Floyd's claimed ""non entertaining and boring style"" doesn't. I'm just going on what you have told us here, so please don't shoot the messenger here or round the cavalry up with a neatly designed narrative that selectively overlooks wild claims as it attacks the truth. I mean, the above comments (of yours) seem to have even more emphasis, especially if we consider that (P4P) Pac is (even by your own {and many others} accounts) a far, far, greater champion/conquest for any fighter than, say, Klit is; please see below for more on that. Could it be that the true reason for this obvious consistency glitch - related to both the fighter of the year award and also so called non entertaining fighters - comes down to subjectivity; and not any real tangible evaluation of performance and achievement? Could it be that the (true) Xmas Grinch actually liked Fury (and Gypsy fighters) but didn't back Floyd against Pac earlier this year, and therefore to select Floyd (for fighter of the year) would fly in the face of all the authored negativity (questionably {at least by Fury's fighter of the year award standards?}) heaped on Floyd immediately after he beat Pac? Don't get me wrong
Deep, I don't really care whom you all nominate for fighter of the year. You can give it (as a belated award for 2014 in Russia) to Mickey Rourke and sing, dance, and justify the supposed merits of it with the PacClan, for all I care. The reality of the exercise is that I'm actually more interested in the policy and philosophy (and their seeming in/consistencies) behind it. Particularly if - as seems to be the case here - such policy and philosophy seems at odds with tens (if not hundreds) of vehement and negative posts (from you and/or others); that all tell us how a ""non entertaining and boring style"" not only justifies not meaningfully acknowledging a (MayPac) winner (let alone fighter of the year) - but endlessly rubbishing a fighter. I mean, after all, for months and months you yourself (and others all) told us all of the many negative virtues of a ""non entertaining and boring style"" and how that itself justifies successive, episodic, group, and mass rubbishing of Floyd. So, surely, it's fair to say that there is no way many good and reliable people and boxing lovers would - over the course of almost a year - publish all that negativity without being able to explain the foundation and/or premise for doing it; especially in terms of them nominating another fighter for fighter of the year that also himself seems to - by the yardstick provided from all the above-mentioned published negativity - have a ""non entertaining and boring style"". So based on all that (you and others said) I am just politely wondering;

A) In the event Fury really
is ""non entertaining and possessing a boring style"". If there is a rational explanation as to how the above ridicule and concerns directed towards Floyd - that were published and spread out over multiple months/posts - about the seemingly negative virtues of a ""non entertaining and boring style"" and how it justifies what followed MayPac, don't seem to (in any way) apply to Fury and his interesting fighter of the year "award"? B) In the Fury
is not ""non entertaining and possessing a boring style"". Or, alternatively, if (even remote) evidence does exist that Fury's fight with Klit (upon which Fury appears to have earned his fighter of the year status) was not "non entertaining and boring" and instead was actually more entertaining than other contenders for the fighter of the year "award".

That's all. And, personally, I think that - given how often, and for how long, and from how many posters, we were (in no uncertain terms) consistently told post MayPac of the negative virtues of a ""non entertaining and boring style"" and how such a declaration justifies not just disregarding a fighter's status and/or achievements, but also consistently rubbishing him and turning a blind eye to his opponent's antics - on that basis the request for an explanation about how the application of the so called ""non entertaining and boring styles"" policy works, is not at all unreasonable or unjustified. To me it seems like, as many have perhaps circumvented nominating Floyd for the fighter of the year - due to the above reasons - they have left themselves open to the above ""non entertaining and boring styles"" policy and its consistency related conundrum; which I am sure is easy to explain, particularly for those whom invested
Deeply into the ""non entertaining and boring styles"" policy and its use over most of the months in 2015. Further proof of this suspicion will be provided within the closing stages of this post. But, you know me (whilst some like to {capitalize on the interesting and popular lack of scrutiny for truly fictitious and obviously outrageous claims/actions and} round the troops up, attack, and claim they're a world champion. whilst at the same time {successfully} declaring the truth is the enemy) I, myself, like to check for consistency. Particularly, in the event of group, mass, and episodic negativity that has been spewed forth over the course of many months; such as that mentioned above. And, that's why I previously asked for some (yet to be delivered) video of Fury's entertaining style to what all the commotion was about. Personally, I think Fury is more entertaining and less boring out of the ring, than in. As in the ring, (to my eyes) he's un-coordinated, has no defence, often punches without purpose, is without both balance and solid fundamentals, and he's also a bit of a mess. Even aside from the fact that he obviously/occasionally fought scared (in ways that betrayed a champion) and reigned in one of the weakest Heavyweight eras for a long time, and even aside from the fact that he ran most of his (drug-testing free) defences from Germany; Klit was (and is) probably one of the most successfully-weakest Heavyweight champions boxing has ever had. All things considered and being critical (at a historical-championship level); almost all of Klit's success and ability to retain the Heavyweight championship actually came from that mentioned above, and also him - when all was said/done and the "opponent" was finally selected - not only being the bigger/longer guy, but also from Klit consistently defending against sub-par competition that many previous/current era contender guys would probably also beat. Very, very few of Klits fights are remotely entertaining. Same for Fury. Fury just happened to have the reach, height (comparable {but below average for great Heavyweights} skills?) and confidence to beat Klit; as most of Klit's opponent's (despite his flawed style) simply couldn't get past his reach and height. Yet, even despite all that Klit still rarely took risks and made the fights *entertaining - a *criticism of Floyd we have received for almost a year now. In addition, Klit would often back up in a straight line, hold his head up high (even when attacked and hit; by sub par competition), and occasionally he also looked shocked as it all happened. Unless protected paper champions are the order of the day (whether or not it be in a weak Heavyweight era); and putting aside what limited fundamentals Fury really has; Fury simply had the physical dimensions/anatomy and also the knowledge of Klit's past opponent's shortfalls in that same area, to beat Klit. It's laughable that (whilst Pacquaio is available) anyone beating a fighter like that and/or Klit is fighter of the year. Let alone some one beating Klit with such a ""non entertaining and boring style"", and a style that we have been effectively and conclusively advised - over the best part of 2015 - justifies downgrading, ignoring and even group-ridiculing their achievements. Hence my interest in not just how the fighter of year award and the so called ""non entertaining and boring styles"" policy works - but also their consistency related conundrums. As such, I would be happy - for Xmas - to receive (from the authors and subscribers of the ""non entertaining and boring styles"" policy) a neat and reliable explanation that covers all this. Furthermore, I will also hang from the chandeliers and cry out ""Fury is the best"" if such an explanation is also accompanied by video of Fury that shows him possessing an ""entertaining and exciting"" style that reveals how the ""non entertaining and boring styles"" policy doesn't apply to him whilst it does to others. And yes I agree Fury can play the role of a foul mouth Uncle. With respect to my above requests for a Xmas present and explanation; I'd be happy to hear rational explanations (that don't just disintegrate into misdirection and/or group tribal/puppy antics) that succinctly explains the above policy/conundrum related to fighter's styles being supposedly ""boring and non entertaining"". That way I can mark it off in my little black note book that Minchingin says I have. :) Finally, now, from above . . . remember where I said . . . ""I mean, the above comments (of yours) seem to have even more emphasis, especially if we consider that (P4P) Pac is (even by your own {and many others} accounts) a far, far, greater champion/conquest for any fighter than, say, Klit is;
please see below for more on that"". Well, here's another consideration. Since;

1) There was no rule with the "fighter of the year award" that stated the fighter had to officially win. 2) Mayweather is surely one of the best modern day welterweights there ever is/was. 3) Pacquaio was considered by many (especially the authors and subscribers of the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy used to - for almost a year straight - consistently rubbish Floyd) to have beaten Floyd. 4) Pacquaio was considered by many (especially the authors and subscribers of the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy used to - for almost a year straight - consistently rubbish Floyd) to have acquitted himself very well against Floyd; win or lose. 5) Pacquaio was considered by many (especially the authors and subscribers of the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy used to - for almost a year straight - consistently rubbish Floyd) to have beaten and/or acquitted himself very well against Floyd (win or lose); whilst supporting a legitimate injury. 6) Only Floyd - not Pacquaio - was responsible for how supposedly ""non-entertaining and boring"" the MayPac fight was; never before has an such an injured and sternly pre-fight-tested participant been given such leeway as to be deemed entirely un-responsible for what was (after Pac lost) deemed to be a ""non-entertaining and boring"" fight. 7) Pacquaio has - in many ways - been a far greater champion than Klit.

Pacquaio "easily" deserves fighter of the year more than Fury. And, unless the above points 1 to 7 are in anyway wrong and unless all we have been episodically told about them over the course of 2015, is unreliable and fictitious; how can Pacquaio not deserve the fighter of the year award more than Fury? The real question is why those whom have;

A) Selected Fury. B) Invented and extensively used and subscribed to the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy. C) Normally backed PacMan.

Have failed to successfully nominate him for the fighter of the year award. My bet is that no-one dared nominate him due to the fact they were too busy thinking about;

A) How to not nominate Floyd. B) How to avoid conundrums associated with not nominating Floyd and how Floyd was treated pre/post MayPac; if Pacquaio was nominated for the fighter of the year award.

Therefore, (particularly whilst we are without a meaningful explanation about the operation of the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy and it's abovementioned Floyd/Fury consistency-conundrum) the fighter of the year award is - as I previously stated - subjective; rather than a true assessment on all worthy fighter's achievements, performances, and abilities. This logic applies whether or not those aforementioned points (1 to 7) and/or any assessments/claims of Pacquaio's achievements, performances, and abilities come directly from the mouths of many PacFans over the course of years; as is the case here. To disagree is akin to (not only raising more issues pertaining to the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy, but also) conflicting with what you, Queens, and many others have previously claimed about Pacquaio, his standing as an all time great, and also his MayPac performance. My bet is that FloydHate and the fact that he officially beat Pac and proved many wrong has been left unabated and to run it's own course to the extent that it has, ironically, even deprived Pacquaio of a prize that he - even by the standards and claims of PacQueens and also the authors of the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy - deserves; the fighter of the year for 2015.
How can he not? In 2015 Pacquaio fought one of the most skillful and best welterweight fighters out there. In Floyd Mayweather, Pacquaio fought an unbeaten welterweight champion whom is almost unequalled defensively. Furthermore - for many that subjectively participated in the fighter of the year selection process - Pacquaio was said to have fought Mayweather so well that it gave rise to the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy. A policy that (aside from being unexplained in its application and operation) itself justified not only disregarding Floyd and his official achievements, but also ignoring all Pacquaio suspicion whilst utterly rubbishing Floyd at every chance for almost a year. If Pacquaio does not deserve the fighter of the year for 2015 (and Fury really trumps him) can someone please explain why not, and how that logic sits with all we have - here within this forum - been told about Pacquaio and Floyd; post MayPac? Therefore,
StormCentre is going on record as saying that;

A) He truly believes that (if not Floyd, then) Pacquaio (not Fury) deserves the fighter of the year for 2015 award. B) That the above reasons (as at odds with . . . those whom have selected Fury, invented the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy, and those that normally back PacMan . . that they may be) are the real subjective PacHypocriticalQueen reasons why Pacquaio has not been selected the fighter of the year for 2015 award.

This is a good example of PacQueenHypocrisy gone mad, turning in on itself, and shooting itself in the foot. Everyone's so busy excluding and rubbishing Floyd, that in the act of doing so they have all f.ucked over Pacquaio (the very guy they pledged blind faith allegiance to support without question and/or scrutiny) for the fighter of the year for 2015 award; instead they crowned a monkey like Fury - someone that is without half of the fighting attributes that Pacman has. What an insult to Pacquaio; by Pacquaio fans and supporters. As even if you put to one side all the above-mentioned reasons PacQueenHysteria has given us to select Pacquaio as the fighter of the year; even by
StormCentre's non hysterical, reliable, and substantiated standards, Pacquaio is still far more deserving of the award than Fury ever possibly could be. As Pacquaio fought one of the genuinely best welterweights of this era and (whether it was with a questionable injury and/or without PEDS or not) he still didn't really get supremely dominated.

Furthermore, Pacquaio used Jesus and salt water to heal himself; that's the modern day biblical equivalent to the red sea parting and it didn't involve Donkey magic. OK, I'll be serious.

Seriously though, and furthermore; Floyd is far more accomplished and entertaining than Klit; or Fury - more evidence for Pacquaio's worthiness. Some may remember a little ("Amayzzing school is in session") lesson I stepped a pretending, shallow, but well supported friend of mine (let's just call him Silly Sam) through earlier this year? The morale of the story is that the truth doesn't change, only fiction does. And I suspect that all the above-mentioned inconsistencies and conundrums - including those related to the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy - are not in existence and at odds with the fighter of the year award, due to any direct relationship they may have with the truth and/or how easy it is to remember and reuse. Some (Minchingin?) would be unable to resist the temptation to gloat and insert a ""LMAO at my own jokes"" comment in here at this point, but not me; that's for "no brainers" and amateurs. Perhaps now is a good time for someone to say . . . ""Miguel, on the basis of all that's been reliably written/said about Pacquaio (by most that participated in the fighter of the year award selection process) please anoint Pacquaio (not Fury) as the fighter of the year"". As with the explanation of how the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy works, I assume you
Deep will also be responsible for explaining to Miguel how Pacquaio (not Fury) is actually the fighter of the year?
After all, given all the above, and given what Pacquaio has done and all that has been justified/said by you and others about Pacquaio this year; what is Fury's achievements by comparison? I mean, surely I'm not about to get told that Pacquaio didn't beat Floyd and/or didn't perform admirably, entertainingly, and excitingly enough within the MayPac fight (biggest boxing fight in history), and therefore - on those counts - he doesn't deserve the fighter of the year award? Love it !!!!! OK
Weep, I have just been told off for punching this out on my mobile phone. Xmas lunch is served, and I want at least one leg of the turkey; so I must dash. Merry Xmas
Deep.
Storm. :) :)


-stormcentre :

It's all good
Deep.
Pacquaio; Deserving Of - But Shafted For - Fighter Of The Year Award. Basically, I was just wondering if there is a meaningful and consistent explanation (from you) explaining how (borrowing your line used for Fury here) . . . . . ""the successful tactics Floyd used in shutting out and dominating Pac (one of the greatest welterweight champions of the past decade)"" . . . . doesn't apply in the same way that, say, it does, in your above comment, for Fury. Whilst - at the same time (for you) Fury's non entertaining and boring style seems to get a (fighter of the year) pass - whilst Floyd's claimed ""non entertaining and boring style"" doesn't. I'm just going on what you have told us here, so please don't shoot the messenger here or round the cavalry up with a neatly designed narrative that selectively overlooks wild claims as it attacks the truth. I mean, the above comments (of yours) seem to have even more emphasis, especially if we consider that (P4P) Pac is (even by your own {and many others} accounts) a far, far, greater champion/conquest for any fighter than, say, Klit is; please see below for more on that. Could it be that the true reason for this obvious consistency glitch - related to both the fighter of the year award and also so called non entertaining fighters - comes down to subjectivity; and not any real tangible evaluation of performance and achievement? Could it be that the (true) Xmas Grinch actually liked Fury (and Gypsy fighters) but didn't back Floyd against Pac earlier this year, and therefore to select Floyd (for fighter of the year) would fly in the face of all the authored negativity (questionably {at least by Fury's fighter of the year award standards?}) heaped on Floyd immediately after he beat Pac? Don't get me wrong
Deep, I don't really care whom you all nominate for fighter of the year. You can give it (as a belated award for 2014 in Russia) to Mickey Rourke and sing, dance, and justify the supposed merits of it with the PacClan, for all I care. The reality of the exercise is that I'm actually more interested in the policy and philosophy (and their seeming in/consistencies) behind it. Particularly if - as seems to be the case here - such policy and philosophy seems at odds with tens (if not hundreds) of vehement and negative posts (from you and/or others); that all tell us how a ""non entertaining and boring style"" not only justifies not meaningfully acknowledging a (MayPac) winner (let alone fighter of the year) - but endlessly rubbishing a fighter. I mean, after all, for months and months you yourself (and others all) told us all of the many negative virtues of a ""non entertaining and boring style"" and how that itself justifies successive, episodic, group, and mass rubbishing of Floyd. So, surely, it's fair to say that there is no way many good and reliable people and boxing lovers would - over the course of almost a year - publish all that negativity without being able to explain the foundation and/or premise for doing it; especially in terms of them nominating another fighter for fighter of the year that also himself seems to - by the yardstick provided from all the above-mentioned published negativity - have a ""non entertaining and boring style"". So based on all that (you and others said) I am just politely wondering;

A) In the event Fury really
is ""non entertaining and possessing a boring style"". If there is a rational explanation as to how the above ridicule and concerns directed towards Floyd - that were published and spread out over multiple months/posts - about the seemingly negative virtues of a ""non entertaining and boring style"" and how it justifies what followed MayPac, don't seem to (in any way) apply to Fury and his interesting fighter of the year "award"? B) In the Fury
is not ""non entertaining and possessing a boring style"". Or, alternatively, if (even remote) evidence does exist that Fury's fight with Klit (upon which Fury appears to have earned his fighter of the year status) was not "non entertaining and boring" and instead was actually more entertaining than other contenders for the fighter of the year "award".

That's all. And, personally, I think that - given how often, and for how long, and from how many posters, we were (in no uncertain terms) consistently told post MayPac of the negative virtues of a ""non entertaining and boring style"" and how such a declaration justifies not just disregarding a fighter's status and/or achievements, but also consistently rubbishing him and turning a blind eye to his opponent's antics - on that basis the request for an explanation about how the application of the so called ""non entertaining and boring styles"" policy works, is not at all unreasonable or unjustified. To me it seems like, as many have perhaps circumvented nominating Floyd for the fighter of the year - due to the above reasons - they have left themselves open to the above ""non entertaining and boring styles"" policy and its consistency related conundrum; which I am sure is easy to explain, particularly for those whom invested
Deeply into the ""non entertaining and boring styles"" policy and its use over most of the months in 2015. Further proof of this suspicion will be provided within the closing stages of this post. But, you know me (whilst some like to {capitalize on the interesting and popular lack of scrutiny for truly fictitious and obviously outrageous claims/actions and} round the troops up, attack, and claim they're a world champion. whilst at the same time {successfully} declaring the truth is the enemy) I, myself, like to check for consistency. Particularly, in the event of group, mass, and episodic negativity that has been spewed forth over the course of many months; such as that mentioned above. And, that's why I previously asked for some (yet to be delivered) video of Fury's entertaining style to what all the commotion was about. Personally, I think Fury is more entertaining and less boring out of the ring, than in. As in the ring, (to my eyes) he's un-coordinated, has no defence, often punches without purpose, is without both balance and solid fundamentals, and he's also a bit of a mess. Even aside from the fact that he obviously/occasionally fought scared (in ways that betrayed a champion) and reigned in one of the weakest Heavyweight eras for a long time, and even aside from the fact that he ran most of his (drug-testing free) defences from Germany; Klit was (and is) probably one of the most successfully-weakest Heavyweight champions boxing has ever had. All things considered and being critical (at a historical-championship level); almost all of Klit's success and ability to retain the Heavyweight championship actually came from that mentioned above, and also him - when all was said/done and the "opponent" was finally selected - not only being the bigger/longer guy, but also from Klit consistently defending against sub-par competition that many previous/current era contender guys would probably also beat. Very, very few of Klits fights are remotely entertaining. Same for Fury. Fury just happened to have the reach, height (comparable {but below average for great Heavyweights} skills?) and confidence to beat Klit; as most of Klit's opponent's (despite his flawed style) simply couldn't get past his reach and height. Yet, even despite all that Klit still rarely took risks and made the fights *entertaining - a *criticism of Floyd we have received for almost a year now. In addition, Klit would often back up in a straight line, hold his head up high (even when attacked and hit; by sub par competition), and occasionally he also looked shocked as it all happened. Unless protected paper champions are the order of the day (whether or not it be in a weak Heavyweight era); and putting aside what limited fundamentals Fury really has; Fury simply had the physical dimensions/anatomy and also the knowledge of Klit's past opponent's shortfalls in that same area, to beat Klit. It's laughable that (whilst Pacquaio is available) anyone beating a fighter like that and/or Klit is fighter of the year. Let alone some one beating Klit with such a ""non entertaining and boring style"", and a style that we have been effectively and conclusively advised - over the best part of 2015 - justifies downgrading, ignoring and even group-ridiculing their achievements. Hence my interest in not just how the fighter of year award and the so called ""non entertaining and boring styles"" policy works - but also their consistency related conundrums. As such, I would be happy - for Xmas - to receive (from the authors and subscribers of the ""non entertaining and boring styles"" policy) a neat and reliable explanation that covers all this. Furthermore, I will also hang from the chandeliers and cry out ""Fury is the best"" if such an explanation is also accompanied by video of Fury that shows him possessing an ""entertaining and exciting"" style that reveals how the ""non entertaining and boring styles"" policy doesn't apply to him whilst it does to others. And yes I agree Fury can play the role of a foul mouth Uncle. With respect to my above requests for a Xmas present and explanation; I'd be happy to hear rational explanations (that don't just disintegrate into misdirection and/or group tribal/puppy antics) that succinctly explains the above policy/conundrum related to fighter's styles being supposedly ""boring and non entertaining"". That way I can mark it off in my little black note book that Minchingin says I have. :) Finally, now, from above . . . remember where I said . . . ""I mean, the above comments (of yours) seem to have even more emphasis, especially if we consider that (P4P) Pac is (even by your own {and many others} accounts) a far, far, greater champion/conquest for any fighter than, say, Klit is;
please see below for more on that"". Well, here's another consideration. Since;

1) There was no rule with the "fighter of the year award" that stated the fighter had to officially win. 2) Mayweather is surely one of the best modern day welterweights there ever is/was. 3) Pacquaio was considered by many (especially the authors and subscribers of the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy used to - for almost a year straight - consistently rubbish Floyd) to have beaten Floyd. 4) Pacquaio was considered by many (especially the authors and subscribers of the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy used to - for almost a year straight - consistently rubbish Floyd) to have acquitted himself very well against Floyd; win or lose. 5) Pacquaio was considered by many (especially the authors and subscribers of the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy used to - for almost a year straight - consistently rubbish Floyd) to have beaten and/or acquitted himself very well against Floyd (win or lose); whilst supporting a legitimate injury. 6) Only Floyd - not Pacquaio - was responsible for how supposedly ""non-entertaining and boring"" the MayPac fight was; never before has an such an injured and sternly pre-fight-tested participant been given such leeway as to be deemed entirely un-responsible for what was (after Pac lost) deemed to be a ""non-entertaining and boring"" fight. 7) Pacquaio has - in many ways - been a far greater champion than Klit.

Pacquaio "easily" deserves fighter of the year more than Fury. And, unless the above points 1 to 7 are in anyway wrong and unless all we have been episodically told about them over the course of 2015, is unreliable and fictitious; how can Pacquaio not deserve the fighter of the year award more than Fury? The real question is why those whom have;

A) Selected Fury. B) Invented and extensively used and subscribed to the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy. C) Normally backed PacMan.

Have failed to successfully nominate him for the fighter of the year award. My bet is that no-one dared nominate him due to the fact they were too busy thinking about;

A) How to not nominate Floyd. B) How to avoid conundrums associated with not nominating Floyd and how Floyd was treated pre/post MayPac; if Pacquaio was nominated for the fighter of the year award.

Therefore, (particularly whilst we are without a meaningful explanation about the operation of the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy and it's abovementioned Floyd/Fury consistency-conundrum) the fighter of the year award is - as I previously stated - subjective; rather than a true assessment on all worthy fighter's achievements, performances, and abilities. This logic applies whether or not those aforementioned points (1 to 7) and/or any assessments/claims of Pacquaio's achievements, performances, and abilities come directly from the mouths of many PacFans over the course of years; as is the case here. To disagree is akin to (not only raising more issues pertaining to the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy, but also) conflicting with what you, Queens, and many others have previously claimed about Pacquaio, his standing as an all time great, and also his MayPac performance. My bet is that FloydHate and the fact that he officially beat Pac and proved many wrong has been left unabated and to run it's own course to the extent that it has, ironically, even deprived Pacquaio of a prize that he - even by the standards and claims of PacQueens and also the authors of the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy - deserves; the fighter of the year for 2015.
How can he not? In 2015 Pacquaio fought one of the most skillful and best welterweight fighters out there. In Floyd Mayweather, Pacquaio fought an unbeaten welterweight champion whom is almost unequalled defensively. Furthermore - for many that subjectively participated in the fighter of the year selection process - Pacquaio was said to have fought Mayweather so well that it gave rise to the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy. A policy that (aside from being unexplained in its application and operation) itself justified not only disregarding Floyd and his official achievements, but also ignoring all Pacquaio suspicion whilst utterly rubbishing Floyd at every chance for almost a year. If Pacquaio does not deserve the fighter of the year for 2015 (and Fury really trumps him) can someone please explain why not, and how that logic sits with all we have - here within this forum - been told about Pacquaio and Floyd; post MayPac? Therefore,
StormCentre is going on record as saying that;

A) He truly believes that (if not Floyd, then) Pacquaio (not Fury) deserves the fighter of the year for 2015 award. B) That the above reasons (as at odds with . . . those whom have selected Fury, invented the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy, and those that normally back PacMan . . that they may be) are the real subjective PacHypocriticalQueen reasons why Pacquaio has not been selected the fighter of the year for 2015 award.

This is a good example of PacQueenHypocrisy gone mad, turning in on itself, and shooting itself in the foot. Everyone's so busy excluding and rubbishing Floyd, that in the act of doing so they have all f.ucked over Pacquaio (the very guy they pledged blind faith allegiance to support without question and/or scrutiny) for the fighter of the year for 2015 award; instead they crowned a monkey like Fury - someone that is without half of the fighting attributes that Pacman has. What an insult to Pacquaio; by Pacquaio fans and supporters. As even if you put to one side all the above-mentioned reasons PacQueenHysteria has given us to select Pacquaio as the fighter of the year; even by
StormCentre's non hysterical, reliable, and substantiated standards, Pacquaio is still far more deserving of the award than Fury ever possibly could be. As Pacquaio fought one of the genuinely best welterweights of this era and (whether it was with a questionable injury and/or without PEDS or not) he still didn't really get supremely dominated.

Furthermore, Pacquaio used Jesus and salt water to heal himself; that's the modern day biblical equivalent to the red sea parting and it didn't involve Donkey magic. OK, I'll be serious.

Seriously though, and furthermore; Floyd is far more accomplished and entertaining than Klit; or Fury - more evidence for Pacquaio's worthiness. Some may remember a little ("Amayzzing school is in session") lesson I stepped a pretending, shallow, but well supported friend of mine (let's just call him Silly Sam) through earlier this year? The morale of the story is that the truth doesn't change, only fiction does. And I suspect that all the above-mentioned inconsistencies and conundrums - including those related to the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy - are not in existence and at odds with the fighter of the year award, due to any direct relationship they may have with the truth and/or how easy it is to remember and reuse. Some (Minchingin?) would be unable to resist the temptation to gloat and insert a ""LMAO at my own jokes"" comment in here at this point, but not me; that's for "no brainers" and amateurs. Perhaps now is a good time for someone to say . . . ""Miguel, on the basis of all that's been reliably written/said about Pacquaio (by most that participated in the fighter of the year award selection process) please anoint Pacquaio (not Fury) as the fighter of the year"". As with the explanation of how the so called ""non-entertaining and boring style"" policy works, I assume you
Deep will also be responsible for explaining to Miguel how Pacquaio (not Fury) is actually the fighter of the year?
After all, given all the above, and given what Pacquaio has done and all that has been justified/said by you and others about Pacquaio this year; what is Fury's achievements by comparison? I mean, surely I'm not about to get told that Pacquaio didn't beat Floyd and/or didn't perform admirably, entertainingly, and excitingly enough within the MayPac fight (biggest boxing fight in history), and therefore - on those counts - he doesn't deserve the fighter of the year award? Love it !!!!! OK
Weep, I have just been told off for punching this out on my mobile phone. Xmas lunch is served, and I want at least one leg of the turkey; so I must dash. Merry Xmas
Deep.
Storm. :) :)


-Kid Blast :

Agreed. Ortiz is the MAN