Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ronnie Nathanielsz, NSB is calling you out for your BIASED flip-flopping! [EXPOSED]

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Ronnie Nathanielsz, NSB is calling you out for your BIASED flip-flopping! [EXPOSED]

    Ronnie, you were once a great objective analyst and writer. I don't know where things went wrong. I think I speak for everyone here at NSB when I say, It's time you are called out on your biased articles you've been writing lately.

    I'm going to analyze your latest article titled: Floyd is Focused on Mosley, But Takes a Shot at Manny

    In the very first sentence, there is a contradiction.

    Rather than concentrate on Mosley, Mayweather couldn’t help but talk about his own legacy.
    First you state that Floyd is Focused on Mosley, then a moment later state that he isn't concentrating on him.

    Mayweather and his handlers led by Leonard Ellerbe suddenly brought up the issue of random drug tests to be conducted by the US Anti Doping Agency during the negotiations for a Pacquiao fight and demanded that the tests be conducted up to 14 days before the planned May 1 bout. (1) Pacquiao agreed to the random drug tests and offered a 24 day cut-off and a test immediately after the fight in his dressing room which (2) Mayweather rejected, resulting in the fight negotiations being called off.
    Both statements are false.

    1.) Pacquaio did NOT agree to random drug test. Ronnie, you seem to have confusion of what the word *random* means. Pacquaio wanted SCHEDULED dates for his testing. 24 days before the fight and 1 day immediately after. Since when is agreeing to SCHEDULED testing dates = RANDOM? Changing the USADA's standard testing procedures just for Pacquaio is ridiculous. The main reason why the USADA testing is effective is because of the RANDOM nature of the testing. Scheduled testing dates, which Pacquaio wanted, are useless because you can cycle the drugs out of your system if you know when you will be tested.

    2.) Mayweather actually wanted random testing done until the day of the fight. Which is standard USADA testing procedure. Pacquaio, claiming he's weakened by blood testing "the day before the fight" was given a 14 day cutoff offer by Mayweather. Team Pacqauio, initially lying that the 14-day cutoff was even offered in Mediation, turned down the offer and demanded a 24 day cutoff with scheduled dates. It is Team Pacqauio who canceled further negotiations.

    Mayweather also pushed the line that Pacquiao struggled twice against Juan Manuel Marquez even as he claimed “which we know he (Pacquiao) really lost, right? And we know he’s been knocked out twice. He’s been out-boxed by Eric Morales, but they still give him ‘Boxer of the Decade.’ So that’s something I don’t understand. He beat a Miguel Cotto who just got pummeled with a cast. So I mean, tell me what it really is.”

    (3) What Mayweather failed to mention was the fact that in the Morales fight Pacquiao suffered a nasty gash over his left eye due to an accidental head-butt which bled profusely and badly hampered his vision and that (4) Pacquiao mauled Morales in the rematch and knocked the Mexican legend out in three rounds to end their trilogy.
    3.) Since when is it a writers job to give a fighter an excuse why he lost the fight? Wasn't it Pacqauio who blamed his loss on the selection of gloves and the pre-fight blood test? Pacquaio was down on the scorecards and clearly getting outboxed before the cut even happened.

    4.) You forgot to mention that the "Mexican Legend" that Pacquaio "mauled" in the rematch was coming off a lop-sided loss to Zahir Raheem 6 months earlier. Morales lost every round in a fight that he the 8/1 betting favorite it.
    Morales was even coming down in weight in the rematch after being denied a fight at 135 which is the weight he wanted the fight to be at. You give Pacqauio an excuse why he lost the first fight, but don't state the fact that Morales looked like POW in the rematch at the weigh-in. A fight that the greater majority of NSB agrees that Morales was severely washed up in.

    Mayweather who had previously claimed Pacquiao who pummeled Oscar De La Hoya into quitting after seven rounds and separated Ricky Hatton from his senses in a devastating 2nd round knockout got them out after he had battered and softened them up, failed to mention that he only won a (5) decision over Marquez who had been knocked down four times in two fights by Pacquiao and was basically a finished and ageing fighter when he faced Mayweather. (6) Mayweather also failed to note that he was two pounds over the stipulated weight limit, refused to shed off the excess weight and instead paid a $600,000 penalty which gave him a huge advantage in size.
    5.) Marquez was knocked down by Freddie Norwood, knocked down by Barrera, and knocked down 4 times (in two fights) against Pacquiao. He was not a finished and aging fighter. He was coming off a controversial decision against Pacquaio just 1 year earlier (A fight YOU scored for Marquez) and two knockout wins over two fighters who had previously never been stopped before. You state it was "only a decision win", but forget that Mayweather also knocked down Marquez. Unlike Pacquaio, however, Mayweather didn't struggle after scoring the knockdown, he dominated!

    You pretend to disagree with Mayweather that Pacquaio struggled with Marquez. You give the impression that you believe Pacqauio really won those fights. Well Ronnie, then why did you also score the fight for Marquez?

    In the video below, you're on film stating that you (just like Mayweather) thought Pacqauio lost the fight.



    Ronnie is at 5:44

    6.) Yes, Mayweather weighed in 2lbs more than Marquez, but I fail to see how that gave him a "huge advantage in size". Mayweather has never hydrated beyond 149 at WW in his entire career. Pacqauio entered the ring at 145 against Marquez, who was only 141. Marquez was 146 against Mayweather, who was 149. Both fighters had a weight advantage over Marquez. Let's not be biased, Okay?

    I noticed how you failed to mention that Mayweather fought a healthy Oscar at 154 , while Pacqauio fought a drained Oscar at 147. Freddie Roach himself states that Mayweather fought a superior version of Oscar and Hatton, as well. Which is shown in the video below:



    In the case of the knockouts, (7) Pacquiao was a raw kid when he got decked by a lucky punch from bull-strong Rustico Torrecampo in only (8) Pacquiao’s eleventh fight and his knockout against Medgoen Singsurat or 3K Battery happened after the Filipino starved for days to reduce weight but still failed to do so and was utterly exhausted and dehydrated when he entered the ring with some (9) su****ion that the Thais had tampered with the scales.
    7.) Lucky Punch? So you want us to believe that Pacqauio lost because of a lucky punch. Do you also think that Hatton lost to Pacqauio because of a lucky punch as well? Somehow, I don't think so...

    8.) Pacquiao starved for days and entered the ring dehydrated, as you claim. Let's pretend this is true. Would you agree that the only reason Oscar lost to Pacqauio was for the same reasons, then?

    9.) Which is it Ronnie? Did he starve for days or was it a rigged scale?

    Your biased reporting has led to many here at NSB being turned away by your post. Here are some quotes from readers here at NSB after reading your latest "story".

    "Ronnie's pieces are so cute. They're like a good fiction novel."

    "His articles are more idyllic and masturbatory than the damn Twilight saga"

    "Booooring....."

    "this ronnie guy has got have a crush on manny I would go as far as saying he wants jinkee's status.lol !!!!!!!!!!!! this guy"

    "excuses, excuses, excuses"

    "Damn the pac nut huggers are getting jobs as writers??"

    "Biggest piece of **** article Ive ever read

    One is supposed to keep a high level of professionalism and objectivity when writing an article not quote a fighter and downplay everything he says even if you like the other fighter more

    Ronnie youre a disgrace"

    "lmaol is this a pac nuthugger writing this article or a writer??? I mean seriously this writer is on pacs nuts all the way to his throat."

    "Funny and ironic considering Ronnie had Marques beating Pac in their seconmeeting. Either way, i cant stand the guy. Very horrible and biased writer."
    Ronnie, we used to respect you as a writer, but your articles of late are turning every non-biased fan away from you and severely degrading the quality reporting this site used to have. We would all like for you to explain yourself here, in this thread.


    #2
    dont u know that ronnie is one of this site's moderator? i see u getting banned soon.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Squirt View Post
      dont u know that ronnie is one of this site's moderator? i see u getting banned soon.
      I said nothing negative towards Ronnie, period.

      I respectfully debated his statements without any hate or prejudice.

      The responses to his latest article are very heated and some posters even attack him, something I have never done.

      As I said, I used to be a fan of Ronnie. I don't understand why he's writing this way lately, though.
      Last edited by PureBoxer; 04-27-2010, 10:47 PM.

      Comment


        #4
        HOLY **** dude

        how long did it take you to do all that??????

        Comment


          #5
          HOLY **** dude

          how long did it take you to do all that??????

          Comment


            #6
            what a loser, he must have alotta time on his hands to do all that.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Rolling Stone View Post
              HOLY **** dude

              how long did it take you to do all that??????
              I'm very fast at writing, so to be honest it took about 12 minutes to put it altogether.

              Comment


                #8
                Hi I am Ronnie. You have been warned!

                Comment


                  #9
                  He got you there Ronnie

                  Comment


                    #10
                    naw n*gga "your" calling him out... not me, and i'm pretty sure no one else lol
                    Last edited by Ekscape; 04-27-2010, 10:54 PM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP