Nah people who have never watched a fight in their life thought it was cool to call it there so it must be okay.
There's an original Xbox for sale at the thrift store I'm in $20 with two controllers and original wiring
If you're talking about me I've watched the last 40 or so UFC fight cards and the past dozen mayweather fights so
What a stupid response. Let's talk to people who have never watched a fight before and ask them if they think it's fair. That's anything but a fallacy.
You literally just said that "I've watched a lot of fights" as a justification for your stance. That's a textbook fallacy.
This isn't appealing to an authority figure, this is speaking based on experiences. This is essentially what data is.
The stupid never ends with you does it? I'm still waiting for someone to justify their position with reasoning other than "it was a big fight" There is absolutely no reason to treat any two fights differently from a referee's perspective. The size of the fight has literally nothing to do with any of this.
You made some passive aggressive comment about how people "are experts at everything". I said I've watched at least 40 UFC card fights and a good amount of boxing. What else could possibly entitle someone to an opinion on a match between a boxer and an MMA fighter? Do I literally need to go to fight in the UFC to speak from any level of authority? Or maybe because I've watched so many fights I might know a bit more than the average person who watched this fight because of the hype. Read, you. But I could easily just label your response as a red herring fallacy since you didn't actually respond to anything.
Again, the amount of fights you've watched means nothing. If that were a valid argument I could just bring up the ref and say "who is more qualified that the ref? Not only has he seen more fights, but he's a professional ref!" and nobody could say anything. This is all assuming that I haven't watched any fights like you suggest, which just isn't true. I won't go any further than that, because again, the amount of fights I or anyone else has watched has absolutely no value in the assessment of an opinion and holds no water in an argument. Also, my comments weren't passive aggressive or at least I didn't mean for them to come off that way. You are extremely opinionated on every topic I've seen come up and act like all other perspectives are a joke. I happen to agree with you most of the time, so it never really annoyed me like it does other people, but I'm starting to understand why other people think you're so brash. EDIT: Just to entertain this silly thought-process, here's a quote from my brother in law who practices jiu jitsu and has likely watched way, way more fights than you. "I think it was borderline. Not a terrible call, but probably a little early" So. I think it was a fine call, you don't, my brother is on the fence, and the professional referee obviously thinks it's fine because he made the call. Do we just default to whomever has the most experience like you suggest? If that's what we decide to do, then your perspective is eclipsed by the person with more experience and is no longer valid without a single argument having been made in the process. See what I mean by silly? Not everything is so cut and dry. Is his opinion magically more valuable than yours or mine because he has seen more fights? No. However, this proves that experience, even at a high level, does not always yield the same perspective. If everyone with experience arrived at the same conclusion, then sure, we could roll with it. However, that just isn't the case.
I happen to have been in many fights. Does this mean I qualify as a better observer than both of you?