Funny how people want Floyd to fight at 54 but never demanded it of PAC like they do Floyd. Floyd still schools the ginger
Because it just wouldn't be realistic. He started his career just over 100lbs, for f**k sake.
Mayweather, on the other hand, has fought and won legit belts at the weight twice and wouldn't look out of place there.
Come on TS, let's stop playing "Floyd Mayweather - always the victim" and cut the bulls**t. The guy is ranked #1 at the same weight Canelo fights, why would he not fight him should be the question asked.
If he's not gonna fight at 154 then he shouldn't be ranked #1 in said weight class. Simple as.
I think Roy was trained by Papa too for a long time.
Also, all of the examples above are Father Son training relationships. Nothing wrong with that but are there any others where the trainer is no relation?
I'll try to think but I'm a little befuddled by wine right now.
Ahh okay, thanks for enlightening me. :)
All you people are classic boxing fans, including myself. But everyone has to realize the spotlight of boxing is somewhat going downhill. I just thought this approach would shed light back to boxing not bore the new spectators.
I disagree. I don't think boxing should sell out just to attract a few more people. If people are really interested in it, they'd watch it even if fights lasted 20 rounds again.
Similar to tennis. The most popular events in that particular sport are the 'slams, which last for five sets, rather than 3, like in any other event.
Regardless, if a certain fighter is a top class, world level athlete, they'll be able to compete over 12 rounds just as they would over 9.
Just an awful idea.
Personally, I'd like to see the return of 15 rounds. It's after the 10th round where you usually get to see who's the better man both physically and mentally. Didn't people still weigh in on the same day when it was reduced to 12 rounds? Now that fighters have 24 hours+ to hydrate, I wouldn't imagine that there'd be as big of a health risk because you're not going in there completely drained.
Bring back 15 round fights, I say! :boxing:
But guys, Paulie has won 2 of his last 5 fights by stoppage! He's a new man now! A one-man wrecking machine who's on the up! What a fight this will be!!!1!!1!
There's nothing wrong with being a die hard supporter of a particular fighter at all. Some people just really take it to the extreme on here though, to the point where in their eyes, the fighter they're fanatical about can seemingly do no wrong. That is wrong IMO.
I had it closer than some people at 115-112.
I gave Donaire the 2nd, a couple of middle rounds when Rigo wasn't doing anything, and of course the 10-8 round.
Rigo won the last two rounds and so clearly won the fight.
Exactly the same as you, mate.
I had it 115-112 Rigondeaux, although I thought Rigo evidently won the fight.
Rigo controlled the tempo of the fight from start to finish, more or less, but his running and reluctance to throw in the mid to late rounds, added to the fact that Donaire was putting on decent pressure and looked like he was trying to make something happen more than Rigondeaux, made sure that he lost rounds that he could easily have won, had he thrown punches and engaged in a fight. It's one thing to control the momentum of the fight with your speed and movement, but if you don't actually throw punches to make the most of owning the ring then you can't win rounds.
The judges scored the fight correctly, IMO.
You have more confidence in Ward than he has in himself. He knows those wrestling tactics won't work at 175.
Who's to say he'd fight in that manner at 175, if he ever fights there? If it works for him at 168 then why shouldn't he do what it takes to win?
Is this legit? Or just another Twitter rumour?
I'd be very surprised if this is actually true, as Marquez has said numerous times over the past few weeks that there definitely will not be a fifth fight, no matter what.
Damn, I thought this one might've been earlier since it's happening on the east coast. I'll not be missing this one though, regardless of the time of the fight. :boxing:
Well you obviously know more than mike.
???
You'll find that >90% of anyone that knows how to score fights will have given Pacquiao the decision, and the majority of those people will have given him it by several rounds.
Seems like GP has been a victim of his own success, so to speak, and people's expectations of him are too high. I thought the video was excellent - best editor out there, bar none.
I still had it 10-2 Pacquiao, and quite comfortably at that.
Strange that Mike thinks Bradley beat Pacquiao considering his boxing knowledge is so vast. No way in hell was that even close to the right decision.
I don't really care what 90% of people say you said yourself you scored it 10-2. Which either shows an extreme bias (PACquiaoifyable) or that you just aren't very good at scoring fights. I'm almost positive you scored the 10th for Bradley and if I had to guess you may have scored the 11th or 1st for Bradley also. What did pacquiao do to win these rounds ? 1,2,7,9,10,11,12 ?
Ive scored the fight for pacquiao and ive also scored it a draw Here's one of my scorecards.
1. Bradley
2. Bradley?
3. PAC
4. PAC
5. PAC.
6. PAC ?
7. PAC ?
8. PAC
9. Bradley ?
10. Bradley
11. Bradley
12. Bradley ?
All the rounds with question marks were close and could've went either way. To have it 10-2 is much more ridiculous than any statement mike Tyson has made.
I can't remember the rounds I gave to Bradley off the top of my head, but I find it amusing that you can give Bradley 5 rounds and then tell ME that I'm not very good at scoring fights.
It's the same story with Mayweather-Cotto. How people thought that was a close fight is beyond me. Off the top of my head, I gave Mayweather 9 rounds, quite possibly even 10, I'm not sure. Quite a few people had it a draw and some even had Cotto winning the fight. Just as ridiculous as anyone that scored the Pacquiao-Bradley fight a draw or a win for Bradley, IMO.
As for my username, yeah my favourite current fighter is Pacquiao so there might be a little bias there, but I like to think that when I score a fight that I don't show any favouritism. I know that some people are such huge fans of fighters they support them more than they support the actual sport, which is just ridiculous and definitely not the case with me.
You didn't even post a scorecard and your telling me that "giving" Bradley 5 rounds (6 by the way) means I don't know how to score. Watch the fight and answer this question honestly. What did pacquiao do to win any of the last 4 rounds ?
Firstly, I didn't say you don't know how to score fights. What I did say was that I found it comical how you questioned my scoring when you seem to be trying to justify that utter farce of a decision.
Secondly, he done enough to win two of the last four rounds IMO. He wasn't really active, yet he still managed to outscore Bradley and land the bigger punches. Bradley may have moved more and threw more punches, but it was mostly in vein. Pacquiao showed better defence in that fight than any other in recent memory. He managed to block most of Bradley's attacks with his arms and gloves.
I detest everything about it with every fibre of my being. Takes the whole excitement away from the decision from everybody. It will suck the drama out of the sport.
I obviously didn't enjoy it because I'm a fan of Pacquiao, but I don't blame those who did. The reason we love the sport is because we're all blood-thirsty animals, so who wouldn't enjoy seeing a great knockout?
Didn't someone post something about this game a few months ago? Pretty sure they were something to do with the developing of the game.
Can't wait for it, if true.