Margarito Invades Cotto Press Conference - Rematch Inevitable? Who Wins?

First topic message reminder :

Here is a link to the cotto - mayorga post fight conference. Skip forward to 6:00 at the point manny steward is asked about margarito. Bob Arum then wastes no time in allowing margarito to materialise from thin air to join the conference. Don King can be seen and heard applauding this obvious public ploy to start fuelling the fire - a trick he himself would be proud of. Despite Arum asking cotto "I hope you dont mind miguel", Cotto looks less than impressed to see marg there.

http://thewellversed.com/2011/03/13/video-antonio-margarito-invades-miguel-cotto-post-fight-press-conference-rematch-inevitable/

It seems that these two are on an inevitable collision course. Having both been battered by manny they are second fiddle at Top Rank now, especially with rising stars like Donaire and Juanma on the books. Marg still has the notoriety, cotto has been eased back in a world champ position since manny, with two highly winnable matches put his way. Arums stunt here shows that he only has one thing in mind for them - a second fight, probably in the summer.

So who wins? Well I'd love to say Cotto, he's a classy warrior who takes on the best, excites the crowd, has great fundamental skill and is a humble guy outside the ring. I'm 100% convinced marg was using loaded gloves in the first fight, but of course that can never be proven now - redemption is all that is left for cotto and I can see him wanting this win more than any in his career. But I dont think he'll get it. I think margs relentless pressure style is all wrong for cotto, who seems to lose his gameplan under pressure and when hurt. Also marg is naturally bigger and stronger and is incredibly durable - cotto couldnt hurt him at 147 so at 154 where he looks a small fighter I dont see him being able to keep marg at bay. Both guys have lost something since that first fight, but I'd see a second going more or less the same way - cotto boxing clever early and winning rounds, only to succumb to margs pressure, workrate and physical strength as the fight wears on. It could be a fight of two halves - theres no way on earth margarito gets stopped but if cotto can hear the final bell then he could win the decision if he boxes clever enough - which with steward in his corner is more likely. But I'd edge towards another late stoppage win for marg (unfortunately). Styles make fights, and marg is just not a good opponent for cotto IMO.

So is it safe to say Chris you don't believe Marg ever intentionally had his hand wraps tampered with?

Archbritchris
------------------
The only way it could be conclusively proven is if he outright admitted it, and he was never gonna do that was he? Capitillo was made the scapegoat for the whole affair. But as I said before, everyone involved in boxing has stated that there's no way marg wouldn't have known. Manny and roach both said he would definitely have known on the 24/7 of their fight, are they wrong with all their experience? Marg is always gonna deny it, his livelihood and reputation are on the line, I don't know what else you expect from him. Presumably you still leave a glass of milk and cookies out on Christmas eve, as you seem to be as naive as you're claiming marg must be.

Its not about the nature of the crime, its irrelevant, doesn't mean he's guilty automatically. Its called the liberal democratic justice system. There are a series of rights that people have, which are fundamental to a democracy. The guilford four were mass murderers until the convictions were quashed. How terrible were those crimes? So, lets leave the vitriol aside. Its not a terrible thing to say a guilty person, may be innocent by definition. Especially, if there has not been a conviction in a court of law. We are basing a lot on guesswork and circumstancial evidence. Thats not enough for me. Somebody had to defend the guilford 4 and they were convicted.

The thing on this whole thing for me is to believe he was innocent against Cotto one has to believe he would not use illegal hand wraps against an unbeaten fighter in Miguel but would use them against a guy Cotto had already beaten. Like others I don't accept a fighter cannot tell and if you believe that the above seems something of s stretch.

Appreciate he was not caught and so we have to accept his innocence but part and parcel of doing such things is it will inevitably call into question any previous achievements, which is fine by me because potentially putting someones life at risk for your own personal glory is about as low as it gets so if Marg has to live with a nudge nudge whispering campaign for the rest of his career so be it.

Nevermind, big boys stuff. Lets just say more intellectual conversation are available on this subject. But, no lets stick to the Daily Mail logic. He's Mexican as well you know, doesn't even speak English. Of course he cheats, even though there is no evidence.

Its a different sort of webste, I suppose. I'm a guardian reader, we are a different bread. Look at the facts and the logic.

ArchBritishchris wrote:Its not about the nature of the crime, its irrelevant, doesn't mean he's guilty automatically. Its called the liberal democratic justice system. There are a series of rights that people have, which are fundamental to a democracy. The guilford four were mass murderers until the convictions were quashed. How terrible were those crimes? So, lets leave the vitriol aside. Its not a terrible thing to say a guilty person, may be innocent by definition. Especially, if there has not been a conviction in a court of law. We are basing a lot on guesswork and circumstancial evidence. Thats not enough for me. Somebody had to defend the guilford 4 and they were convicted.

We're not in a court of law and this isn't a legal issue. Rather, it is a question as to whether or not we believe a sportsman was complicit in cheating. It's a question of common sense, not a question of meeting stringent legal requirements.

I dare say the female judge, whose name escapes me, who shafted Lewis in the first Holyfield fight might win her case in a court of law, but it would be ridiculous to suggest that Holyfield really did win THAT round.

Besides, does anybody believe that O J Simpson was innocent ?

ArchBritishchris wrote:Nevermind, big boys stuff. Lets just say more intellectual conversation are available on this subject. But, no lets stick to the Daily Mail logic. He's Mexican as well you know, doesn't even speak English. Of course he cheats, even though there is no evidence.

Its a different sort of webste, I suppose. I'm a guardian reader, we are a different bread. Look at the facts and the logic.

Sure, because Cotto is Anglo Saxon, right ?

Bob Mee poses a decent question which has not really been adequately answered in all this. If we accept his trainers claim that he put the incorrect wraps- substance on the wrapping by mistake, does pose the question why did he have them in the bag?

If he knew they were illegal and knew he would not be using them, why take them, seems a reasonable question to me

Chris you say look at the facts and the logic but the two don't lend themselves to the same conclusion. If we take only the facts then it is pretty much impossible to prove that Margarito knew about the wraps. Margarito has NO REASON whatsoever to admit that he knew (if this was the case), but EVERY reason to deny all knowledge. If we follow logic then it is very reasonable to assume that there is a huge likelihood that Margarito both knew about the wraps and had used them previously.

Look at the facts and the logic.

I think they are two different issues though Chris. The facts are that Margarito's team were caught trying to load their man's hand wraps with an illegal substance designed purely to give him an unfair advantage.

The logic suggests that this unfair advantage would manifest itself as an increase in punch power which seemed to be demonstrated by the way Cotto was so badly busted up and broken down and, even before that, the way Cintron was dispatched. Now, I fully agree with you that without (excuse the pun) rock solid proof, we have to find Margarito innocent but as stated by many others, it's only natural to be suspicious.


Besides, does anybody believe that O J Simpson was innocent ?
*****************************************************************
I can think of at least 12!!!!!!!!!!!!

DAVE667 wrote:I can think of at least 12!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ha !

Can't really argue with that, can I ?

Technically OJ was not found to be innocent, but rather 'not guilty'. The difference is subtle, but it is there.

BALTIMORA wrote:Technically OJ was not found to be innocent, but rather 'not guilty'. The difference is subtle, but it is there.

Smartass.

BALTIMORA wrote:Technically OJ was not found to be innocent, but rather 'not guilty'. The difference is subtle, but it is there.

********************************************************************************
Not guilty rather than innocent implies that the defendant did actually commit the offence but that the jury could not be convinced by the prosecution that they did it. Sadly that means EVERYONE who walked out of court scott free was found not guilty but isn't actually innocent as there is no "innocent" option to choose.

Now, here's one for you and it's a true story....A school teacher was accused by a pupil of sexual assault and this case went to court. The girl stood in the dock and, under cross examination, finally cracked and admitted she had lied about the whole thing. The teacher, she claimed, had embarrassed her in front of her friends so she decided to get her own back by accusing him of indecently asaulting her.

Now, as the alleged offence NEVER TOOK PLACE, is this man INNOCENT or merely NOT GUILTY?

Archbritchris: Its a different sort of webste, I suppose. I'm a guardian reader, we are a different bread. Look at the facts and the logic.
--------
Think you mean 'breed' Mr Enormous Brain. Intellectual snobbery is very unbecoming chris. Just because some people choose to view his previous achievements with suspicion following his exposure at attempted cheating does not give you the right to patronise. It's not a case of placing marg at the scene of the crime, we know he was there. The only question is whether he knew the plaster was in the wraps. He says no, but then that is his expected, default response. Multiple other boxers and trainers with no axe to grind say he certainly would have. Choosing believe their perspective over the word of a man with everything to lose if he admits his guilt is not illogical. Marg was at least slightly culpable, hence his 1 year ban. Just because you think there's fairies at the bottom of your garden doesn't mean that other peoples cynicism is misplaced.

Who allowed archbritishboremebadly to comment on a handwrap discussion where he pretty much said they would improve boxer safety on the old 606?!?!!??!

Where's superfly to find the article when you need him!

Who wants to see a rematch between two faded stars who've had the stuffing smacked out of them......

Not sure a pressure fighter like Marg would be to hurt by being past it as he always fights the same way and has never relied on speed and movement..

Cotto has relied on his boxing ability so............Marg by late stoppage in a repeat of the first fight...

However it would be a poor imitation of the first fight..

Windy - I know, I couldn't help myself. 8)

Dave - wouldn't the charges be dropped? Therefore no need for jury deliberation, no verdict, etc. So...innocent, surely?

As for Marg...there's a lot of circumstantial evidence which would leave an impartial viewer to be very suspicious, and not unreasonably so.

He also lost a civil case; which basically found him guilty, although it wasn't a criminal trial.

archBritishboreme

What do you make of Resto saying for years he had no knowledge of the dodgy gloves and concrete in his gloves, and then it all coming out in the HBO docu many - many years later?

You think just because Marg says he didn't do any wrong is enough to convince you? Fact is he's responsible for what goes into his body and he's responsible for how his hands are wrapped.

Isn't it funny how after how that all imploded he's looked absolutely terrible against a journeyman and lost every minute of every round against Manny?

Stop sticking up for a massive disgrace to the sport, isn't it time you said handwraps would IMPROVE safety?!!!? Don't worry, we haven't forgotten that one.

Guess the impartial jury in the civil case weren't that suspicious...

Must have been plenty there to convict...

Guy is a disgrace to the sport......Boxing is dangerous enough.

Think Sam's right, basically he wasn't imprisoned (or had the threat of that) but rather he got done for every single liquid asset he had.

From memory the judge banned any mention of using the race card in the civil trial, but it was years ago.

As per good old America he had to cough up something like $8trillionsquillion, don't think he's bothered to pay much back so far!

Kind of funny how only people with press passes are allowed to enter the se press conferences and yet Marg just happens to invade it....

Ho hum I guess the PR people are working overtime....

OJ declared bankruptcy.didn't he? It was about 30 million dollars he was done for in the civil case if memory serves, but I don't think he paid a penny.

Truss - in allowing Margarito into the post-fight press conference Arum in one fell swoop dragged boxing down to the same pantomime level as WWE. He's an embarrassment to the sport of late.

Yeah I believe you are right.

He is probably senile though; wouldn't be surprised considering some of the matches he signs off on.

He didn't pay a penny because he relocated to a State different from the one he was convicted in...

Different States have different laws and jurisdictions hence they couldn't freeze his assets as they couldn't touch him as he had rights under State law.....

Unfortunately it's not like England..

Reason why people take so long to die on death row because they petition different courts in different states!

He didn't pay a penny because he relocated to a State different from the one he was convicted in...

Different States have different laws and jurisdictions hence they couldn't freeze his assets as they couldn't touch him as he had rights under State law.....

Unfortunately it's not like England..

Reason why people take so long to die on death row because they petition different courts in different states!

You can say that again Truss

nice one...nice one

How can anyone give a convicted cheat the benefit of the doubt? Margarito was only caught because of Naazim Richardson. If it wasn't for him, Margarito would have had loaded gloves against Mosley. The NSAC had approved Margarito wraps! Hello? If it wasn't for Richardson, Margarito wouldn't have been caught.

Who else had suspicisions? Kermit Cintron suspected Margarito of cheating before he was caught. Mayweather said there wasn't something right when Margarito was on the scene. You have guys like Roach, Showtime's Al B, Max K from HBO, Jim Lampley ... these are guys who firmly believe Margarito was cheating throughout his career.

Had it been Hatton or Calzaghe who was battered by a Margarito scandal, I have a funny feeling you boys would have a completely different approach to this.

Isn't it funny how Margarito looked good against Cotto but then got destroyed by Mosley, then looked terrible in his comeback fight in Mexico and then took colossal damage against Pac?

To those who are 100% convinced Marg cheated first time around against Cotto and thus dismiss this loss, can I ask at what point Do you believe 100% he started using illegal handwraps?

Does Clottey have a case for a rematch? Or Cintron? Maybe he was using them way back when he beat Martinez....and he forgot to put them on against Williams?

Bob I don't think anyone believes 100% that Margarito was using loaded gloves against Cotto, but the incriminating circumstantial evidence is plain for all to see. The fact that there's enough doubt there for people to not simply dismiss such claims as fantasy is quite compelling.

Ok. One guy. You understand my point though.

BALTIMORA wrote:Ok. One guy. You understand my point though.

Not really, no. It doesn't really matter whether you are 100% sure, or only 90. The question to those who doubt the legitimacy of the Cotto victory still stands.

Well in that case, given that there is no conclusive evidence for any fight other than Mosley, no-one has anything other than their own opinion upon which to base their suspicions. Therefore no-one can be 100% sure while there is still any even remotely viable case for the defence.

Had a huge post written there and one slip of a button and it's gone, can't be bothered now!

Gutted. I've don't that before, so you have my sympathy!!