Discussion in 'Boxing Discussion' started by User89, Sep 2, 2020.
If u think for 5 seconds u d know how stupid that was
Please explain what is stupid about my post..
I think writing "u" and "u d" is more stupid.
If Mike DiBiase's fight with Archie Moore counts, then Conor's fight with Floyd counts.
that doesn't matter. most debutants have very little pro boxing experience, they're used as resume padders. it counts, it doesn't mean it adds much to his legacy.
It will always count regardless of how worthy or otherwise people rate it.
Park Si-Hun still has Roy Jones' gold medal doesn't he?
Oh, this Oly gold?
Yeah, but everyone knows how this fight looked.
Amazing that hungarian and soviet judges scored for RJ win but 2 judges from capitalistic countries for Si-Hun, another : 5 th........ducked?
Everyone does know that this guy did not won.
Even soviet folk was surprised when results had been announced.
If compare with pro boxe, in ammy boxe usually worst judges are from less well known countries + these countries also without enough long heritage in boxing. british ammy boxing judges usually are OK.
Roy was blatantly and unmistakably robbed. The point I am making is the result will never change. Nor will the fact that McGregor is Floyd's 50th pro win.
Thechically yeah, but for me it looked too boring, I watched not all fight and only relatively long time after fight was done.
I initially assumed who will won and was not wrong.
Btw I think Floyd Sr if was some 40 y.o too had won Conor, I have little doubts about this.
IOC does have appelation rules, earlier to appeal was more easier than recently and now it is not like recently but even more impossible.
If wished, IOC then did their stuff and re evalued fight because videos from multiple cameras always are recorded in the Games since 60 ies.
Why for me this announced Conor - Floyd Jr fight was not interesting?
He was not too old then and still definitely was TOP10 material, despite retired.
Yeah, from technical point this fight counts as valid for record.
Plus this still doesn't looks that bad as some other boxers did had, for example a guy with 16-0-0 vs 0-2-0 etc..........
It will be counted as a win on his record, but anybody who knows jackshit about boxing history, won't count that win as having contributed to anything as far as his legacy goes. Except his legacy as a celebrity, maybe.
It's a bit of an embarrassment for the sport that Conor was even licensed to fight against the greatest boxer of the era.
It's one thing to fight a tune-up can to stay busy like fighters did in the old days, another to pretend like the guy with 0 pro fights is some kind of a threat.
Bullshit, name one fighter in the last 20 years outside of maybe Manny Pacquiao, who has more title holders, lineal champs or hall of fame shoeins on his resume.
If the victory had taken place near the start of his career, I probably wouldn't count it. But after proving himself repeatedly against the best, I didn't see a problem with such a skill mismatch being tossed in for good measure. He beat everyone.
Since I can't edit my posts, I need to add this: I couldn't stand Mayweather and his reign. He was always playing games about fighting Pacquiao in his prime, a much smaller man who he still rightly worried about. But, overall, I acknowledge his record and greatness.
The Pacquiao fight would have far better if it took place in 2010.
Before you say "oh one fight".
A guy who would "take on all comers" would have been a guy who would have made that fight happen (which wouldn't have been hard for a fat pile of cash).
He "calculated" that Pacquiao was past his prime when he fought him. Same with De La Hoya.
I don't think he has a leg to stand on with the PED's thing considering he used an IV himself when the fight took place.
As far as a guy who had a "take on all comers" mentality, I'd look to De La Hoya who never fought an opponent with a losing record in his record (unlike Floyd fighting a guy with a 1-9 record).
Julio Cesar Chavez is technically within last 20 years
At the time I thought much the way you did, that Floyd waited until Manny was shot in order to pick him off. But looking back I see that despite my better instincts I was looking for an excuse for Pacquiao’s loss. When should they have fought? When Pacquiao was in his prime? Pacquiao’s best days were at feather and super featherweight, Floyd was at light welterweight during much of that period. Should they have fought after Manny beat Cotto? Yeah, I think that would have been the best time to make that fight, but it didn’t happen that way. If it had I seriously doubt that the fight would have played out much differently. As far as Floyd fighting a guy with a 1-9 record, I wouldn’t hold that against anyone definitely not a guy like Floyd when you take in the scope of his achievements. It may look bad from the outside looking in, but its just what’s done in boxing. When you have a prospect coming up promoters will feed him bums and club fights until he’s 12 or 15 fights in, at that point you’ll start seeing him against journeyman and gatekeepers.
Although the McGregor/Mayweather fight is a scam. A guy with no previous boxing experience fighting Floyd probably the greatest boxer of his generation and considered one of the greatest of all-time. So, yes it was certainly a fraudulent fight, but it's still an official boxing match so it has to count on the record.
Separate names with a comma.