Manny whooped that ass. Beat him into submission. Brutalized Cotto like a rented mule. Floyd won a competitive decision against a much older Cotto. Everyone, including Mayweather, knows that that version of Manny Pacquiao would have flatlined Floyd. Present-day Pac would just beat him up.
What skills does Ramapge have primitive skills like body slamming hell the basic WWE fake wrestler can do that
Rampage can actually do those things against someone who doesn't want it done to him.
He could double leg any single boxer that has ever fought, in their primes, and just smash their faces with elbows/punches. In MMA, he can beat any boxer that has ever fought, period.
I don't get what is so hard to understand about that.
I never said she wouldn't in MMA rules now did I? It's honestly just a moronic and attention-whorish comment to make, it's not even worth the time or effort to entertain the dumb notion. Completely different sports. It's like Serena Williams saying she'd destroy Colin Kaepernick on a game of tennis.
She was on a radio show and was asked what her strategy would be if she fought Mayweather. It's not like she just decided to brag that she could beat Mayweather. She was asked by the radio host what her strategy would be, and when he asked her if she would win, she said yes. And that's definitely what would happen.
I normally like MMA and respect their sport, but what is up with these disgruntled UFC "stars" coming out of the woodwork and dissing boxing lately? Jon Jones said something similar not too long ago, Ronda Rousey thinks she can destroy Mayweather and now Jackson idiotically thinks boxing isn't real "fighting." Are they bitter they make slave wages compared to most top level boxers and their organization is on the decline?
Ronda Rousey would OB-LIT-ER-ATE Floyd Mayweather in MMA, and that's just common sense. She would absolutely end him. It would take maybe 40 seconds.
and what makes you believe boxers can't grapple? do there core strengths only transfer to punches? toney would b1tch slap rampage and make him walk away
So, in a grass field with no weapons or gloves or anything, who do you think wins in a no-holds-barred fight, prime Toney or Rampage?
Have you even seen rampage fight, he doesnt like to grapple.
That doesn't mean he can't grapple. It's not like MMA fighters that prefer to strike can't grappler. Any decent MMA fighter is an EXCELLENT grappler. Rampage has great takedown defence, good takedowns, and some of the best slams in MMA history.
Imagine Rampage in with a 22 year old James Toney, boxing gloves and boxing ruels :op:
Or Rampage being punched in the head with 1,000+lbs of pressure for 45 minutes and still throwing punches back. He simply wouldn't.
That's fighting.
Now imagine them in an actual fight. Rampage would just pick him up and drop him on his head.
On wiki it says none of the eye whiteness identified Artis or Carter as the murderers, so where your getting this from is far from me.
Only Artis was identified by a witness, that's all I said. That statement was later recanted (under very dubious circumstances, I might add). Still, all of the other COMPELLING evidence stands and nobody can refute it. It is fact.
He was proven innocent you fool. BAN!
No, he was not. He was not tried for a 3rd time because too much time had passed. He has never been exonerated of the crimes he was accused of.
This guy was a triple-murderer, and anyone with common sense can see this. He was a straight thug and people need to know this.
I think that either one or two of his victims were racist *******s, so I can't feel too bad for them, but Carter was also a terrible person either way.
Do U make this Sh*t Up, Amigo???
No, I say it because it's true. He hasn't played it since the mid-70s.
Anyways, I'm done arguing. It's clear as day that Carter was guilty of triple-murder.
I don't see how you could be banned, even on the grounds of disrespect or something.
This isn't a tribute thread. This is a thread for commenting on the passing of someone, someone who happened to be a piece of sh*t. It's not stupid nor inconsiderate to not have any emotional investment in a murderer.
Well, I hope the mods see it that way and that people come to realize that Carter was a triple-murderer who got off with just 20 years in prison.
Carter lived in Toronto after he was freed and lived there until his death. I am from Toronto, and am very patriotic and loyal to any of my countrymen. I believed in Carter's innocence and wanted to believe this story really badly (as it makes us Canadians look good - freeing an innocent man and all), but the facts are the facts - and this man was a murderer.
Didn't see the Movie, but Read His Book,
and like Dylan and others, believe that he was
Convicted of being an Intimidating Black Dude!!!
Oh FFS. Did you know that Dylan won't even perform that song anymore after reviewing the case? It's clear that Carter was guilty.
They didn't have a 3rd Trial, because the the States Corruption of Evidence,
convinced them that their case, was a losing Cause!!!
Honestly bro, I can tell you think Carter is innocent, and that's fine. I personally think he's guilty, and I also think that all of the evidence suggests that he is guilty. However, it's certainly within your rights to think that he's innocent.
I won't convince you that he's guilty, and you won't convince me that he's innocent, so let's just leave it at that.
Myth #1
Hurricane Carter was "wrongfully convicted of a crime he didn't commit," and he's been "exonerated."
Hurricane Carter and his co-accused, John Artis, have never been found "not guilty" of the Lafayette Grill Murders. They were twice convicted, and twice the convictions were set aside on the grounds that they didn't get a fair trial. The State of New Jersey decided not to re-try them a third time because so much time had passed, and withdrew the indictments against them.
Yeah Carter Wrote It, and I suspect U haven't Read It...Right???
No, I have not read it. While it may provide a small amount of insight into the nature of the case, Carter is clearly extremely biased and all of his opinions or assertions have to be very carefully considered because of this.
Instead of that, I'd rather rely on empirical evidence, all of which seems to suggest that Carter is guilty.