upsets, by their very definition, are upsets because no one believed. nobody done thunk it. upsets aren't methodically arrived at through a compilation of supporting facts.
LOL, come on. You're either saying that a "true upset" can't have any believers/supporters, or that the existence of a believer in the less possible outcome somehow negates the "upset" status.
I'm not "arriving" at anything. I've given my logic in deciding to cross over to the Rahman side. When compiled, they indicate - in my opinion - that Rahman might be far better off than anyone thinks.
I certainly think a 6:1 ratio is more in line than 12:1 or 20:1.
When Douglas beat Tyson, it was said - in fact, an article I recently posted said - that the "clues" were there, in retrospect. Recent divorce, out of shape, fired trainer, etc.
In fact, Donald Trump won millions of dollars betting on Douglas. And I hardly think he was the only one.
So I guess someone had to believe, right?
that isn't that great of a prediction, in my opinion, LP, to be honest with you.
The prediction is Rahman, no round. If you don't like that, well, what can I tell you?
I recognize that the odds are against Rahman, as they were against Botha, Grant, Tua, etc. In fact, I'm quite sure that the odds are greatest, of all those, versus Rahman.
And that, added to the tidbits of controversy surrounding Rahman and Lewis' preparation, the fortes' of the two fighters, etc., is what makes this one interesting; compelling enough so for me to pick Rahman, simultaneously recognizing him as a long shot and realizing that more likely than not I'm sabotaging my already-scarred fight record for 2001.
That doesn't dilute my pick: Rahman, no round.
Besides, you have until tomorrow to change your mind.
:)
LPS5 |
