I Don't Get It.....

why do people say, "it's more beneficial to the sport," if mosley beats floyd? :thinking: keep it real, and say it's more beneficial to mosley fans and pacquiao fans. mayweather-pacquiao is the fight EVERYONE wants to see, including the casuals, and those that don't follow the sport.....meaning no other boxing match would generate as much interest. fact is, i've heard noone, but the dummies on this site, calling for mosley-pacquiao instead of mayweather-pacquiao, so how is that "more beneficial" to the sport of boxing? :dunno: the people that say they want mosley vs pac instead of floyd know that floyd will outbox pac plain and simple. i never liked floyd but the truth is the truth.

For some reason i thought this was called boxing. Why stand in front of a fighter and give them their only chance to win, instead of using your GOD given attributes to make the fight easy? Ok genius. Scroll back and see what the argument was about. Don't make the same mistake I made by just skimmin thru the posts.

It's beneficial for those who want to see an action packed fight. You really believe that Floyd's trading with Pac? There's your answer. For some reason i thought this was called boxing. Why stand in front of a fighter and give them their only chance to win, instead of using your GOD given attributes to make the fight easy?

My bad. I didn't realize that your argument was based on that. nah... i'm not going to argue which fight is more "visually pleasing." like i said, depending on what you look for in fights, that's going to determine which fight you enjoy the most. my only point was that EVERYBODY wants to see mayweather-pacquiao. even though they both have other opponents, the general consensus is that those fights are "appetizers," leading up to the main course. even though they're fighting different opponents, EVERYBODY keeps talking mayweather-pacquiao, even on these forums. you may personally prefer a mosley-pacquiao matchup, b/c they both will go "balls out," but the mayweather-pacquiao fight is what is generating all the interest, so it is better for the sport. i'm not gonna knock or argue anybody's opinion on which fight they'd rather see, i'm just arguing which fight is better "for the sport."

exactly. interest cant only be generated prior to a fight. interest can also be generated after entertaining fights b/t visible fighters. exciting fights create shock waves. floyd/dlh did 2.5 mill, but what lasting effect did that fight have? it was boring as fck and was ridiculed by mainstream media. opinion held by many. but it also helped turn mayweather into a bonafida "star." it created a personality to help carry the sport whenever oscar left..... just like oscar did for manny. stars may not produce the most "crowd pleasing" matchups when they compete against one another, as i stated in my NBA analogy..... but every sport does better, when the biggest stars compete against one another.

nah.... and if you've been reading and following my posts, i keep saying it's perfectly fine for anybody to say mosley-pacquiao is potentially more "action-packed," and therefore more interesting to them, than mayweather-pacquiao. if that's your opinion, cool....i'm not knocking ANYBODY for having that opinion. my problem is you dudes having that opinion, and therefore assuming that fight is better for the sport, when everybody else wants a different fight..... it's really not that hard to understand: Fight A generates more interest in the sport. Fight B happens to be more interesting to you. Fight A is better for the sport overall, b/c that's what everybody else wants. My bad. I didn't realize that your argument was based on that.

the title of this thread does apply. i'm just politely pointing out, not everybody wants to see a brawl. like i just posted, pacquiao-hatton was supposed to be a great fight, and look what happened....i see the same potential in a mosley-pacquiao fight, being that both guys have been hurt by lesser fighters..... the point of this thread is just to point out that b/c a few of you would rather see a brawl, don't overgeneralize it, and say it's better for the sport. it's better for you. boxing is a struggling sport, and any fight that can be put together to generate an estimated 3 million buys, is definitely great for it. put your personal preferences and biases aside, and acknowledge as much. you can still say YOU'D be more excited about shane-pacquiao, but don't say that fight is better for the sport. end of the day, what's best for the sport, is what generates the most interest in it. fixed t. i meant "can," not "can't."

the title of this thread does apply. i'm just politely pointing out, not everybody wants to see a brawl. like i just posted, pacquiao-hatton was supposed to be a great fight, and look what happened....i see the same potential in a mosley-pacquiao fight, being that both guys have been hurt by lesser fighters..... the point of this thread is just to point out that b/c a few of you would rather see a brawl, don't overgeneralize it, and say it's better for the sport. it's better for you. boxing is a struggling sport, and any fight that can be put together to generate an estimated 3 million buys, is definitely great for it. put your personal preferences and biases aside, and acknowledge as much. you can't still say YOU'D be more excited about shane-pacquiao, but don't say that fight is better for the sport. end of the day, what's best for the sport, is what generates the most interest in it. exactly. interest cant only be generated prior to a fight. interest can also be generated after entertaining fights b/t visible fighters. exciting fights create shock waves. floyd/dlh did 2.5 mill, but what lasting effect did that fight have? it was boring as fck and was ridiculed by mainstream media.

Oh we get it. You're trying to impose your opinion upon us by starting a thread saying "I don't get it..." as if ppl who expressed their views about wanting to see a potentially more action packed fight is somewhat inferior to yours. Do you get it? nah.... and if you've been reading and following my posts, i keep saying it's perfectly fine for anybody to say mosley-pacquiao is potentially more "action-packed," and therefore more interesting to them, than mayweather-pacquiao. if that's your opinion, cool....i'm not knocking ANYBODY for having that opinion. my problem is you dudes having that opinion, and therefore assuming that fight is better for the sport, when everybody else wants a different fight..... it's really not that hard to understand: Fight A generates more interest in the sport. Fight B happens to be more interesting to you. Fight A is better for the sport overall, b/c that's what everybody else wants.

the title of this thread does apply. i'm just politely pointing out, not everybody wants to see a brawl. like i just posted, pacquiao-hatton was supposed to be a great fight, and look what happened....i see the same potential in a mosley-pacquiao fight, being that both guys have been hurt by lesser fighters..... the point of this thread is just to point out that b/c a few of you would rather see a brawl, don't overgeneralize it, and say it's better for the sport. it's better for you. boxing is a struggling sport, and any fight that can be put together to generate an estimated 3 million buys, is definitely great for it. put your personal preferences and biases aside, and acknowledge as much. you can't still say YOU'D be more excited about shane-pacquiao, but don't say that fight is better for the sport. end of the day, what's best for the sport, is what generates the most interest in it. Ok. This is better. Fair enough.

DLT, you know I have mad respect for you homie but... you got nothing on this guy. It's like expecting to read a novel every time he posts.

the title of this thread still applies.... you're trying to over-analyze this. if a floyd/pac fight comes off there is a greater chance of the fight being boring since floyd is involved. even if the fight reaches 3 million homes and it flops or turns out to be another mayweather/dlh, that does not help the sport. a mosley fight has a better chance of living up to the hype, even if it only reached 2 mill homes, if it turned out to be an entertaining fight it would create buzz among the casual viewers AFTER the fight. seems like you're forgetting about the buzz that could be generated in the aftermath of an entertaining event. now if the pac/mayweather fight pops off and it lives up to the hype then that'd surpass anything a pac/mosley could do for the sport. i just personally dont think that'll happen. the title of this thread does apply. i'm just politely pointing out, not everybody wants to see a brawl. like i just posted, pacquiao-hatton was supposed to be a great fight, and look what happened....i see the same potential in a mosley-pacquiao fight, being that both guys have been hurt by lesser fighters..... the point of this thread is just to point out that b/c a few of you would rather see a brawl, don't overgeneralize it, and say it's better for the sport. it's better for you. boxing is a struggling sport, and any fight that can be put together to generate an estimated 3 million buys, is definitely great for it. put your personal preferences and biases aside, and acknowledge as much. you can still say YOU'D be more excited about shane-pacquiao, but don't say that fight is better for the sport. end of the day, what's best for the sport, is what generates the most interest in it.

i keep repeating it, and i post full pages b/c you don't get it..... you pretty much just killed your own argument. now you're talking about "potential." mayweather-pacquiao has the "potential" to be tactical fight, or it has the potential of ppl witnessing manny make floyd throw a helluva lot more punches than he's used to.....meaning after all is said and done, it has the potential to be a great fight. however it turns out, we won't be getting another pacquiao-clottey. mosley-pacquiao has the POTENTIAL to be gatti-ward, but there also lies the potential for somebody to get "hattoned." i sure as hell didn't get my money's worth from pacquiao-hatton, and i think most ppl thought that would be a really good fight..... so since we're talking "potential," and nobody on this site is a psychic, and both fights could end up really good, or really bad, how about we go with the fight at least 2X as many ppl want to see. Oh we get it. You're trying to impose your opinion upon us by starting a thread saying "I don't get it..." as if ppl who expressed their views about wanting to see a potentially more action packed fight is somewhat inferior to yours. Do you get it?

Pac and Floyd are the 2 biggest stars. We get that. No need for a full page post to repeat that message to us. Hindsight is 20/20 so if history is a good reference, what fight do you think has the chance to mimic Hearns-Hagler, Gatti-Ward, Pryor-Arguello or even Pac-JMM? I know it isn't going to be the Floyd-Pac fight. You think those ppl who saw those fights I mentioned are scratching their heads hoping to get their money back? That's what ppl are saying on here. The Pac-Mosley war has more potential to be a greater fight than the alternative. i keep repeating it, and i post full pages b/c you don't get it..... you pretty much just killed your own argument. now you're talking about "potential." mayweather-pacquiao has the "potential" to be tactical fight, or it has the potential of ppl witnessing manny make floyd throw a helluva lot more punches than he's used to.....meaning after all is said and done, it has the potential to be a great fight. however it turns out, we won't be getting another pacquiao-clottey. mosley-pacquiao has the POTENTIAL to be gatti-ward, but there also lies the potential for somebody to get "hattoned." i sure as hell didn't get my money's worth from pacquiao-hatton, and i think most ppl thought that would be a really good fight..... so since we're talking "potential," and nobody on this site is a psychic, and both fights could end up really good, or really bad, how about we go with the fight at least 2X as many ppl want to see.

then that's what they should say. i know ppl's hate for floyd blindly fuels some of their thoughts, and most of their posts, but just be real about it. say you don't want mayweather to win, b/c you don't like his style personally, or you don't personally like the way he conducts himself. but ppl on here try to generalize the shit, and say "it's better for the sport" if floyd loses, b/c they PERSONALLY don't like his style. :nonono: it's better for THEM if he loses....but the vast majority of the public want to see mayweather-pacquiao, and its no secret, the sport of boxing has seen better days. if it can produce a fight at this stage, that is said to be the biggest in history, how is giving ppl anything else besides that, good for a struggling sport? it's not. and ppl should put their personal opinions and feelings aside, and quit saying completely idiotic shit, like mosley-pacquiao is better for the "sport." mosley fought margarito in california, mosley's home state, yet it was margarito who packed the damn arena with his fans. mosley versus nobody, is better for the sport, than mayweather versus that same opponent. the title of this thread still applies.... you're trying to over-analyze this. if a floyd/pac fight comes off there is a greater chance of the fight being boring since floyd is involved. even if the fight reaches 3 million homes and it flops or turns out to be another mayweather/dlh, that does not help the sport. a mosley fight has a better chance of living up to the hype, even if it only reached 2 mill homes, if it turned out to be an entertaining fight it would create buzz among the casual viewers AFTER the fight. seems like you're forgetting about the buzz that could be generated in the aftermath of an entertaining event. now if the pac/mayweather fight pops off and it lives up to the hype then that'd surpass anything a pac/mosley could do for the sport. i just personally dont think that'll happen.

all that said.... you tell me, what fight has a bigger chance of converting "casual fans"..... fights that are hyped, that draw in large amounts of viewers or fights that many ppl won't see, b/c they won't be as hyped. bottom line is mayweather-pacquiao has the biggest chance of drawing more fans to the sport b/c its a fight most ppl are interested in. anybody who owns a business and hopes to expand it, will tell you, you give the ppl what they want, NOT what you'd prefer they have. you seem intent on doing things backwards. idk if you watch NBA ball, but i'll use it as an example here. the phoenix suns are one of the highest scoring teams in the league......that's what ppl like, a fast-paced game, lots of action, high scores. in today's game, that's what ppl like. the cleveland cavaliers have lebron james, but if you watch the cavs play, they're a defensive oriented team, and really not exciting at all to watch, as a team. bottom line is, if the cavaliers end up playing the lakers in the finals, it'll probably be the highest rated finals in years, b/c you'll have the 2 greatest, and most popular players in the league going against one another.... if phoenix makes it to the conference finals, and plays LA, it'll be exciting, b/c the styles would make for a very entertaining series, but the ratings for that series would pale in comparison to what they'd be if cleveland played LA. why? b/c ppl want lebron and kobe at the end of the day, whether it'll be an uglier game or not. ask anybody on this forum that watches the sport, which team plays more exciting ball, phoenix or cleveland, and they'll tell you phoenix. ask those same ppl which would be bigger for the NBA, phoenix-LA or cleveland-LA, and they'll say cleveland-LA. why? b/c those teams boast the 2 biggest stars, and ppl want to see them compete against one another. Pac and Floyd are the 2 biggest stars. We get that. No need for a full page post to repeat that message to us. Hindsight is 20/20 so if history is a good reference, what fight do you think has the chance to mimic Hearns-Hagler, Gatti-Ward, Pryor-Arguello or even Pac-JMM? I know it isn't going to be the Floyd-Pac fight. You think those ppl who saw those fights I mentioned are scratching their heads hoping to get their money back? That's what ppl are saying on here. The Pac-Mosley war has more potential to be a greater fight than the alternative.

It's because they hope and pray, every night without fail, that Floyd loses. After Floyd beats Shane and then Pac I honestly believe some of these users here might do something horrible to themselves, god forbid. then that's what they should say. i know ppl's hate for floyd blindly fuels some of their thoughts, and most of their posts, but just be real about it. say you don't want mayweather to win, b/c you don't like his style personally, or you don't personally like the way he conducts himself. but ppl on here try to generalize the shit, and say "it's better for the sport" if floyd loses, b/c they PERSONALLY don't like his style. :nonono: it's better for THEM if he loses....but the vast majority of the public want to see mayweather-pacquiao, and its no secret, the sport of boxing has seen better days. if it can produce a fight at this stage, that is said to be the biggest in history, how is giving ppl anything else besides that, good for a struggling sport? it's not. and ppl should put their personal opinions and feelings aside, and quit saying completely idiotic shit, like mosley-pacquiao is better for the "sport." mosley fought margarito in california, mosley's home state, yet it was margarito who packed the damn arena with his fans. mosley versus nobody, is better for the sport, than mayweather versus that same opponent.

-yes. all it could take is one fight to get a fan hooked. it is entirely possible. you mustve missed the thread a couple days ago about which single fight converted posters on this site into boxing fans. -i think i know the difference b/t casual fans, regular boxing fans and hardcore boxing fans. -p.will and margarito arent marketed and, more importantly, dont market themselves to casual fans. - theres a difference b/t hype and fights justifying that hype. fights that justify the hype (in entertainment value, drama, etc) will make the sport more attractive. if a fight does not live up to the hype (dlh/mayweather) you get a bunch of people who are turned off by the sport. all that said.... you tell me, what fight has a bigger chance of converting "casual fans"..... fights that are hyped, that draw in large amounts of viewers or fights that many ppl won't see, b/c they won't be as hyped. bottom line is mayweather-pacquiao has the biggest chance of drawing more fans to the sport b/c its a fight most ppl are interested in. anybody who owns a business and hopes to expand it, will tell you, you give the ppl what they want, NOT what you'd prefer they have. you seem intent on doing things backwards. idk if you watch NBA ball, but i'll use it as an example here. the phoenix suns are one of the highest scoring teams in the league......that's what ppl like, a fast-paced game, lots of action, high scores. in today's game, that's what ppl like. the cleveland cavaliers have lebron james, but if you watch the cavs play, they're a defensive oriented team, and really not exciting at all to watch, as a team. bottom line is, if the cavaliers end up playing the lakers in the finals, it'll probably be the highest rated finals in years, b/c you'll have the 2 greatest, and most popular players in the league going against one another.... if phoenix makes it to the conference finals, and plays LA, it'll be exciting, b/c the styles would make for a very entertaining series, but the ratings for that series would pale in comparison to what they'd be if cleveland played LA. why? b/c ppl want lebron and kobe at the end of the day, whether it'll be an uglier game or not. ask anybody on this forum that watches the sport, which team plays more exciting ball, phoenix or cleveland, and they'll tell you phoenix. ask those same ppl which would be bigger for the NBA, phoenix-LA or cleveland-LA, and they'll say cleveland-LA. why? b/c those teams boast the 2 biggest stars, and ppl want to see them compete against one another.

It's because they hope and pray, every night without fail, that Floyd loses. After Floyd beats Shane and then Pac I honestly believe some of these users here might do something horrible to themselves, god forbid.

there is no such thing as "converting" a causal fan into a hardcore fan, and i can assure you, if there was, ONE FIGHT wouldn't do the trick. you seem to be confused about what a "casual" fan and what a hardcore fan actually is. casual fans are not "clueless," and blood-thirsty, as you believe, but instead of being excited everytime there's a boxing after dark card on HBO, most casual fans find a fighter or 2 that they like, and they pay attention when their favorites fight. hardcore fans are looking at showtime and hbo every saturday, and watching espn 2 nights during the week. the casual fan doesn't care about that shit, which is why those things aren't marketed on the whole. if all casual fans wanted was action, why aren't the Paul Williams' and the Antonio Margarito's and the Ricardo Mayorga's the money makers in the sport? come on dude. some of the so-called "hard core" fans, seem to be the most clueless to me.... go to the mall, and ask random ppl what boxing fight they want to see, and what fight they'd be more excited about; mayweather-pacquiao or mosley-pacquiao? then you tell me what they say..... -yes. all it could take is one fight to get a fan hooked. it is entirely possible. you mustve missed the thread a couple days ago about which single fight converted posters on this site into boxing fans. -i think i know the difference b/t casual fans, regular boxing fans and hardcore boxing fans. -p.will and margarito arent marketed and, more importantly, dont market themselves to casual fans. - theres a difference b/t hype and fights justifying that hype. fights that justify the hype (in entertainment value, drama, etc) will make the sport more attractive. if a fight does not live up to the hype (dlh/mayweather) you get a bunch of people who are turned off by the sport.