let's be honest, how good are the irish fighters?

Well, Paul Felder is very good. Norman Parke is OK. Holohan is hard to judge unless he faces adversity. Pendred is the worst one of them. McGregor is in reality a top-10 fighter, and would get eaten alive by everyone in the top 5.

I agree that they, like Brazilians on Brazilian cards, get favourable match-ups, but this is inevitable.

Felder is an american lol
 
I forgot to add Tyson Fury.

A joke in a lot of peoples eyes but a highly skilled/technical heavyweight and he's enormous. He has the potential to be a HW champion. I know I'll get s*** on for this but he's a serious boxer.

He's not really Irish, though
 
The only ones I care even remotely about at this point are Conor and Duffy. Holohan is fun to watch but I doubt he'll ever get anywhere near a belt.
 
Yes, French people are caucasian. Who told you different?

Pet peeve. The Dagestanis, as an example, are caucasian. Those of Celtic/Gallic/Norman ancestry are not from the Caucasus.

Using caucasian is like using "asian" for both Sri Lankans and Japanese. Use another word to lump them together; "white" will do. Although I don't see the utility in it. Filet Mignon and a Big Mac are more similar than either and sushi, but what good does it do to group them like that?

On topic: agree with those saying McGregor, Seery, Duffy. Pendred and Daly will have to sharpen up or get cut. Given the hype behind McGregor, I think we'll see a lot more talent coming out of Ireland in the next few years.
 
McGregor is being gimme fights...

... Scheduled to face arguably the number 1 P4P fighter in the world next.

What a can crusher.

I understand and agree with the argument that McGregor has not faced any top grapplers and did not have to fight Mendes or Frankie for a TS and in that sense was protected.

But to call him a can crusher is blatantly stupid.
 
Pet peeve. The Dagestanis, as an example, are caucasian. Those of Celtic/Gallic/Norman ancestry are not from the Caucasus.

Well actually, a lot of historians think they are, which is why they call them Caucasians.

Also, all of the Gauls were Celts, but Normans were not, so using Celtic/Gallic/Norman as a category is an odd choice.
 
I am a big Neil Seery fan ever since the beating he gave Brad Pickett.
 
Well actually, a lot of historians think they are, which is why they call them Caucasians.

Also, all of the Gauls were Celts, but Normans were not, so using Celtic/Gallic/Norman as a category is an odd choice.

A lot of historians would also agree with the theory that homo sapiens came out of Africa but nobody uses the term Negro when describing people from Ireland.

I'm not debating the caucasian lineage. My problem is that the term caucasian is most often used to describe ethnicity or, even more commonly, appearance. Both of which are wrong.

I used Celtic/Gallic/Norman because the person I was quoting was describing the people thought of to be native to France - it's not "Celtic and Gallic and Norman", it's and/or.
 
I'm not debating the caucasian lineage. My problem is that the term caucasian is most often used to describe ethnicity or, even more commonly, appearance. Both of which are wrong.

Sure, it is wrong in the sense that anthropologists who have been using the term for a few centuries now do not mean white when they say Caucasian. They mean one of a large number of culture and language groups that seemed to have migrated out of the region over the course of thousands of years.

However, the various races that we consider white today, whether from Celtic, Germanic, or Slavic stock all seem to have migrated from the Caucasus region in the dim margins of history. So it is unsurprising that it is often used synonymously with white.

The geographical and cultural meanings of the word are quite different, as you pointed out, but frankly, outside of a few Sherdoggers talking about Daghestan, there is not much need to ever use the word in that strict sense when speaking English.
 
Back
Top