Aaron Pryor vs Alexis Arguello I (Highlights) скачать в хорошем качестве

Aaron Pryor vs Alexis Arguello I (Highlights)

Pryor had signed to face Sugar Ray Leonard in the fall of 1982 for the Undisputed World Welterweight Championship, but Leonard suffered a detached retina and retired, paving the way for Pryor vs. Arguello. Arguello was attempting become the first boxer to win world titles in four weight divisions. Arguello was a 12-5 favorite. Pryor's purse was $1.6 million, while Arguello's was $1.5 million. Arguello suffered a cut over his left eye in round six. After the fight, there was controversy over a water bottle used by Pryor's trainer, Panama Lewis, between rounds 13 and 14. Microphones caught Lewis telling cutman Artie Curley, "Give me the other bottle, the one I mixed." It seemed to revive Pryor. Coming out quickly for the 14th round, Pryor landed a barrage of unanswered blows before the referee stopped the fight. Many speculated that there was something illegal in the bottle, but nobody checked the contents and the Miami Boxing Commission failed to administer post-fight urine tests to the boxers. Lewis and Pryor steadfastly denied that there was anything illegal in the bottle. Curley said the bottle contained peppermint schnapps to settle Pryor's upset stomach. In the 2008 documentary Assault in the Ring, former Lewis-trained boxer Luis Resto revealed that Lewis would break apart antihistamine pills and pour the medicine into his water, giving him greater lung capacity in the later rounds of a fight. Named "Fight of the Decade" by The Ring in 1990. Named the 8th greatest title fight of all-time by The Ring in 1996. Boxrec. Uploaded for easier viewing - Mobile phones etc and for fight fans who perhaps don't have the time to watch these great fights in full. FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use Fair use Additionally, the fair use defense to copyright infringement was codified for the first time in section 107 of the 1976 Act. Fair use was not a novel proposition in 1976, however, as federal courts had been using a common law form of the doctrine since the 1840s (an English version of fair use appeared much earlier). The Act codified this common law doctrine with little modification. Under section 107, the fair use of a copyrighted work is not copyright infringement, even if such use technically violates section 106. While fair use explicitly applies to use of copyrighted work for criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research purposes, the defense is not limited to these areas. The Act gives four factors to be considered to determine whether a particular use is a fair use: the purpose and character of the use (commercial or educational, transformative or reproductive); the nature of the copyrighted work (fictional or factual, the degree of creativity); the amount and substantiality of the portion of the original work used; and the effect of the use upon the market (or potential market) for the original work.