All hail science!!! (and reductionistic materialism)

De La Hoya vs. Trinidad

On September 18, 1999, the boxing world was stunned when Felix Trinidad defeated Oscar De La Hoya by a majority decision. To this day, my friends and I still discuss whether or not the fight was fixed, since Don King had much to gain with a victory by Trinidad. While De La Hoya dominated the early rounds, he became too confident that he was up on the judges scorecards and went into defensive mode. Apparently, he did not do enough to win the decision.

After the fight, I compiled the various scorecards from boxing experts around the country. They read as follows:

• Steve Springer: 115-113 De La Hoya
• Tim Kawakami: 115-113 De La Hoya
• Associated Press: 115-113 De La Hoya
• Las Vegas Review: 116-112 De La Hoya
• SI: 115-113 De La Hoya
• ESPN: 115-113 De La Hoya
• Harold Lederman: 114-114 Draw

Thus, more than 85% of the experts declared Oscar De La Hoya the winner of the bout. However, the judges at ringside disagreed with them.

• Jerry Roth: 115-113 Trinidad
• Bob Logist: 115-114 Trinidad
• Glen Hamada: 114-114 Draw

Since the experts in the media have a consensus that Oscar De La Hoya won the fight and Don King is the exclusive promoter for Tito Trinidad, then there is no way possible that the fight could not have been fixed.

I know this is not a perfect analogy of the Gary Habermas argument that MrFreeThinker has been using, but I feel that this illustrates the example of using an argument from authority to prove a point. For some reason, people try to point to the consensus of the boxing experts to prove that De La Hoya-Trinidad was fixed by Don King, however there is no evidence at all that the judges were not fair in their decision.