Since when did God start controlling the outcome of boxing matches

Help!!!!

First Up wrote: »

Because it was ungracious, unsporting and in denial.

Really?? So when Usain Bolt does the sign of the cross before a race hes also ungracious & unsporting?

First Up

Help!!!! wrote:

Really?? So when Usain Bolt does the sign of the cross before a race hes also ungracious & unsporting?

Only if he blames losing on doing it badly.

Stealthfins

Help!!!! wrote:

Really?? So when Usain Bolt does the sign of the cross before a race hes also ungracious & unsporting?

Ask ace of base they saw the sign and it opened up their mind lol

Help!!!!

First Up wrote: »

Only if he blames losing on doing it badly.

Well maybe God used up his power on Usain & didn't have enough left for Katie. Maybe he said sorry to Katie at the end of the fight so that's the reason she said what she did

First Up

Help!!!! wrote:

Well maybe God used up his power on Usain & didn't have enough left for Katie. Maybe he said sorry to Katie at the end of the fight so that's the reason she said what she did

But surely he could intervene and change the result - the way he does with famines, floods, cancer in children....

Oh wait.......

Stealthfins

First Up wrote:

But surely he could intervene and change the result - the way he does with famines, floods, cancer in children....

First Up wrote:

Oh wait.......

Come on you don't believe he can do that, do you ?

Seriously like.....

I've heard that a million times over,sure didn't he make a big flood and Noah built an ark...

But it was too dry for the shark's....

Help!!!!

First Up wrote: »

But surely he could intervene and change the result - the way he does with famines, floods, cancer in children....

Oh wait.......

How could he intervene? It was live on tv

First Up

Help!!!! wrote:

How could he intervene? It was live on tv

I'm obviously mis-interpreting "Almighty".

twowheelsonly

First Up wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point. The issue is that she seems to be "blaming" her god for her loss. What she believes is her business but refusing to take responsibility for why she lost (which she genuinely did) is hardly the best way to do something about being better next time.

I think you may have missed my point.... He was belittling her beliefs, no more, no less. Regardless of what she said it's her opinion and she believes in it. The OP disagrees with her beliefs so he has a snide dig at her and her religion. That's all.

but thats one whopper delusion Katie Taylor is under!

georgewickstaff

I wish he'd intervene and UNCIVIL TEXT DELETED.

8-10

First Up wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point. The issue is that she seems to be "blaming" her god for her loss. What she believes is her business but refusing to take responsibility for why she lost (which she genuinely did) is hardly the best way to do something about being better next time.

Should Micheal Conlon also be taking responsibility for why he lost and not blame it on the judges?

Any man and his dog can see this week that multiple boxing matches have been bought and allowed by the corruption of the refs & judges. Some of them are calling it out blatently, Katie is taking a more diplomatic approach.

The AIBA are to blame, people who look too much into what she said are missing the overall picture of boxing at the 2016 Olympics and the sham of a competition that we've all had to witness.

First Up

8-10 wrote:

The AIBA are to blame, people who look too much into what she said are missing the overall picture of boxing at the 2016 Olympics and the sham of a competition that we've all had to witness.

Well if god gave a shoot he would be doing something about it.

8-10

First Up wrote: »

Well if god gave a shoot he would be doing something about it.

You missed my point completely. It doesn't matter what she said, I'm saying she likely knows it's AIBA's fault but she didn't want to say it in an interview because of repercussions and future fights. Conlon was blatent about it as he has no intention of fighting in AIBA fights in the future.

First Up

8-10 wrote:

You missed my point completely. It doesn't matter what she said, I'm saying she likely knows it's AIBA's fault but she didn't want to say it in an interview because of repercussions and future fights. Conlon was blatent about it as he has no intention of fighting in AIBA fights in the future.

No I didn't miss your point. Take a look at what forum you are in.

8-10

First Up wrote: »

No I didn't miss your point. Take a look at what forum you are in.

You did. Completely. I was suggesting why she may not have meant what she said. Completely relevant to this discussion.

If you think these Olympic fights have been decided on the boxers alone, and you are suggesting as you did that she needs to take personal responsibility for the loss, and you ignore any notion of wrongdoing on the part of the AIBA this week.....then I don't know who is the delusional one.

First Up

8-10 wrote:

If you think these Olympic fights have been decided on the boxers alone, and you are suggesting as you did that she needs to take personal responsibility for the loss, and you ignore any notion of wrongdoing on the part of the AIBA this week.....then I don't know who is the delusional one.

I could care even less than god seems to about the AIBA. The OP made a valid comment on what Taylor said. Nothing else.

8-10

First Up wrote: »

I could care even less than god seems to about the AIBA. The OP made a valid comment on what Taylor said. Nothing else.

And so am I, I'm trying to offer a valid explanation for her attributing the loss to God.

And I'm quoting you because you said she needs to take the responsibility for the loss and I am questioning why you think it was her fault alone, and ask you is it not the case that this could have been something other than her performance or God - i.e. corruption, based on what we have seen since in the men's heavyweight final or bantamweight quarter final?

And if that could be the case, then wouldn't that be a reasonable explanation for her not wanting to call out who is actually responsible, given that she still has a career in the sport to sustain?

martingriff

First Up wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point. The issue is that she seems to be "blaming" her god for her loss. What she believes is her business but refusing to take responsibility for why she lost (which she genuinely did) is hardly the best way to do something about being better next time.

Or maybe is was just after a match where she lost and is lost in thought had a microphone had to say something how do we know she does not take responsibility that she lost. We only have 1 interview JUST after a very hard fight.
i am sure that Katie will be determined and will try her hardest to win again.

Also as someone says is everyone who blames refs etc not taking responsibility and should they be derided.

8-10

martingriff wrote: »

Or maybe is was just after a match where she lost and is lost in thought had a microphone had to say something how do we know she does not take responsibility that she lost. We only have 1 interview JUST after a very hard fight.
i am sure that Katie will be determined and will try her hardest to win again.

Also as someone says is everyone who blames refs etc not taking responsibility and should they be derided.

Exactly, listen we all know from her coaches and other fighter's comments that she must believe deep down that she was screwed over by the ref and judges. And even more so given what's happened since.

So that gives her 3 options:

1. Outright blame the judges and risk reprimand by the association
2. Blame herself - hard to do when you actually believe you were the better fighter and were hard done by
3. Blame some completely external force, such as God

It is perfectly reasonable not to blame 1 or 2 in an interview. It is also perfectly reasonable to blame God while actually believing that it was the judges, given the repercussions of calling them out.

And for me given all we know that's what I truly believe is going on here. If there's no microphone and she's speaking in private to her family or coach, I would put money on her blaming the officials to them and not God alone. Common sense here people

First Up

8-10 wrote:

And I'm quoting you because you said she needs to take the responsibility for the loss and I am questioning why you think it was her fault alone, and ask you is it not the case that this could have been something other than her performance or God - i.e. corruption, based on what we have seen since in the men's heavyweight final or bantamweight quarter final?

I didn't say it was her fault alone. She said it was god alone. She could have said she wasn't at her best (she wasn't), she could have given her opponent some credit and she could have taken some issue with the judging, without doing a Michael Conlon over it.

She did none of that.

First Up

8-10 wrote:

And for me given all we know that's what I truly believe is going on here. If there's no microphone and she's speaking in private to her family or coach, I would put money on her blaming the officials to them and not God alone. Common sense here people

Possibly but the OP merely commented on what she said. If she wants to amend, clarify, expand or retract any of it, there will be no shortage of microphones.

In the meantime, the record stands

8-10

First Up wrote: »

Possibly but the OP merely commented on what she said. If she wants to amend, clarify, expand or retract any of it, there will be no shortage of microphones.

In the meantime, the record stands

I'm just saying that with a statement like that I'd expect more pinches of salt and less theological discussion

Giacomo McGubbin

It's seems the real sin Katie committed as far as some Stalinists are concerned is she dared to mention the word God.
I wonder how many Olympic Gold medals her critics here have won ?
Katie Taylor owes nobody anything

Fleawuss

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

It's seems the real sin Katie committed as far as some Stalinists are concerned is she dared to mention the word God.
I wonder how many Olympic Gold medals her critics here have won ?
Katie Taylor owes nobody anything

I suspect they have the same amount of gold medals as those here who think that when she mentions god it is somehow an enormous victory for common sense, reason and themselves.

sbsquarepants

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I'd venture it's very rare that you'll find yourself in a position where you have to disabuse someone of the notion that their god exists so you don't really have to go about proving anything to anyone. .

Just as well I suppose, what with it being impossible and all!

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

you can look under the bed with them and show them there is nothing there. .

Proves nothing, every one knows you can't see the invisible bogey men, the house could still be full of them, and I don't want to worry you - but they are the worst kind!

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So you think that anyone with any religious belief can never be truly benign? Behave.

That's not what I said, I said the belief can't truly be benign. Just by virtue of the fact that you allow that kind of thought to take root in your brain, it affects how you behave, how you think, how you feel.
We've all heard of catholic guilt for example - it may not be the worlds most pressing mental health problem, but it's hardly benign now is it?

looksee

I think it is wholly unreasonable to take a comment made under extreme emotional stress and try and make any sort of argument about it. And even leaving aside the stress, she is a boxer, not a theologian.

It reminds me of Sinead O'Conner's interviews - she can sing, she has a lovely voice, that does not make her a worthwhile interviewee. Same with Katie Taylor, she is a boxer, why does anyone think anything useful will come out of sticking a microphone in her face seconds after a losing match? Does nit-picking her comments change her ability as a boxer?

The Bishop Basher

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I said the belief can't truly be benign. Just by virtue of the fact that you allow that kind of thought to take root in your brain, it affects how you behave, how you think, how you feel.

You say that belief can't truly be benign..

So are you saying that all belief is malignant in nature ?

sbsquarepants

Not necessarily no. We all believe something - you more or less have to by default.
Belief that is based on evidence AND open to change should that evidence be found to be wrong (ie based on scientific principles) is fine in my opinion. You should be able to change what you "believe" when evidence or new information says your old belief probably isn't right. That's healthy, that's what drives progress.
You simply can't do that with religious beliefs however, you must start with the answer and then you must then batter the evidence into submission until it agrees with the answer - that's malignant, always.
Now it's very much a matter of degree, sometimes it's catholic guilt, cock-blocking with that hot girl you met out that night. Sometimes it's the vengeance of allah forcing you to blow up a street full of schoolkids, or choke your sister for the honour of your family. It's not black and white by any means but it is always negative to some degree - in my opinion.

The Bishop Basher

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Belief that is based on evidence AND open to change should that evidence be found to be wrong (ie based on scientific principles) is fine in my opinion. You should be able to change what you "believe" when evidence or new information says your old belief probably isn't right. That's healthy, that's what drives progress.

Agreed.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You simply can't do that with religious beliefs however, you must start with the answer and then you must then batter the evidence into submission until it agrees with the answer - that's malignant, always.

This very much depends on your definition of religion..

Do you mean religion as a prescriptive set of rules for worship of a deity or do you mean any kind of worship of a deity ?

Bristolscale7

looksee wrote: »

Does nit-picking her comments change her ability as a boxer?

But does prayer?