- Joined
- Jan 22, 2015
- Messages
- 23,345
- Reaction score
- 26,607
Why would you think that?
Maybe.
If u think for 5 seconds u d know how stupid that was
Why would you think that?
Maybe.
Please explain what is stupid about my post..If u think for 5 seconds u d know how stupid that was
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.That's not the same as training 3 months for boxing. Someone who is making his pro debut has boxed longer than 3 months usually
Oh, this Oly gold?Park Si-Hun still has Roy Jones' gold medal doesn't he?
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.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.
-----
Thechically yeah, but for me it looked too boring, I watched not all fight and only relatively long time after fight was done.Nor will the fact that McGregor is Floyd's 50th pro win.
IOC does have appelation rules, earlier to appeal was more easier than recently and now it is not like recently but even more impossible.The point I am making is the result will never change.
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.But Floyd was a calculated guy, not a guy taking on all comers.
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.
Julio Cesar Chavez is technically within last 20 yearsBullshit, 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.
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.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).