I love Prince Naseem but I don't think you can call him an ATG.
"Victory has defeated you." pretty much sums up Nas' career.
By the end he'd fallen out of love with the sport, he hated the training camps and being away from his family, and lost all discipline.
A very sucessful career but very much a waste of potential.
I've followed that Froch rematch "issue" in the U.K.
Ward wanted Wembley Stadium as venue... Froch proposed Nottingham Stadium instead... Ward refused...
... That's how it was... :)
To be fair, he had a point. The City Ground has half the capacity. But still, regardless of whether it was London or Nottingham it still would have been a big pay day for him and an easy win assuming the judges are honest. If anything, Froch would have been able to pack more of his fans into Wembley than the City Ground.
For years it was Ward fans claiming GGG was ducking. My thread and opening post poses a legit question to those doubters and haters, one that hasn't been answered sufficiently except to say that there was more money in fighting Floyd. Ok fine, more money, BUT, if you are willing to come down to 160 for Floyd money (which still would find Ward on the short end of that pay day), then you should be willing to come down to 160 for the MW champion of the world. Ward still would have earned his biggest pay day fighting GGG at 160. He just didn't want it.
Ward would have probably earned a bigger pay day rematching Froch in England, but his ego and his sense of entitlement got in the way. He's always felt he was far too important to concede anything to these "lesser" fighters. He's always believed he should be earning Mayweather money. Mayweather is the only fight he's been willing to concede to being the "B" side.
However the difference between a GGG pay day and a Mayweather pay day can be an entire magnitude if marketed right and the man is stupid enough to think he could drag Mayweather up to 168.
Ward isn't afraid of GGG anymore than GGG is of him. There's no doubt in my mind that both believe they can take the other but Ward's got his ego and GGG has a team carrying out the same reward / risk calculations almost everyone is doing these days.
The fact is once Cotto became middleweight champion the chance of GGG fighting Ward pretty much evapourated. GGG's team wouldn't jepardize a potential big money fight with Cotto / Alverez unless they could tip the scales in their favour by bringing Ward down and Ward has long proven himself not willing to concede anything for anything less than Mayweather money.
Hell, I'd cut off my own foot if it meant earning the sort of pay day you'd get from fighting Mayweather. I might deliberately sprain my ankle for GGG but even that's pushing it.
All trolling aside, anyone claiming that either fighter was ducking is just being a silly fanboy / hater. There's two reasons why this fight was never made. Money and ego.
I mean he's got a point. There are many similarities.
Mayweather and Pacquiao are boxers. Kell Brook and Amir Khan are also boxers of sorts.
Mayweather and Pacquiao fought in a ring watched by many people. Kell Brook and Amir Khan will also fight in a ring and I assume at least the referee and the judges will be watching it.
Mayweather and Pacquiao finally fought after years of blame and excuses thrown around by both sides. Kell Brook and Amir Khan are the same except no one really cares.
I mean, there's 3 similarities just off the top of my head..
Seriously?
The only people who care about this he says/she says nonsense are the kind of blind fanboys who have so little in their lives that they have to live vicariously through others and those emasculated haters with smudged mascara who act like Golovkin stole their prom date.
Canelo, then Ward.
Ward seriously, needs his tune-ups and decent ones at that.. Perhaps he could take a couple of years off, fight the likes of GGG/ Kovalev and win but he's got to be at his best to beat these guys. I think the Ward of old outpoints both GGG and Kovalev but whether or not that guy still exists we won't know until he finds a decent opponent.
DeGale comes across as very bitter here.
Kicking a man while he is down isn't a great look for a champion.
Are you not familiar with the man? One of the reason Groves had so many fans was due to DeGale being such a d!ck that it obscured just how much of a tw@t Groves is. Neither have much class.
Money.
Simple as.
Ward will still be there when Golovkin has concluded his business at middleweight and the boxing media will make sure those two names will continue to be mentioned in the same sentence.
It benefits Ward as much as Golovkin to let him go about his business. It's much better to beat a unified middleweight champion than an unproven, overhyped bum as his haters like to say.
Ward's just got to get out there more, perhaps try and get some of the other champions in his division in the ring. By late 2016/ early 2017 people will be desperate for this fight and when Ward wins he won't have to worry about people making catchweight demands to leverage more money out of him.
No.
While I still think Degale is a cnut in the nicest possible way I admire his bravery. However fighting GGG at 160 is suicide.
I know it's a controversial position to take on this forum especially how a lot of people are against the idea but I like to see the best fighters fight each other at their best. Degale is dead at 160.
GGG can wait. He'll come up eventually. In the meantime if Degale thinks he's really that good he has his own division to clean out. He can start by getting revenge on the ugly kid. He'd probably make more money doing that than fighting GGG anyway.
Why is he a cunt you sound like a big time hater
Here's the thing.. The man went over to America and took earned his belt the hard way and then for his first defence dared to fight a faded but still dangerous Bute in Canada when most guys find themselves an easy touch for their first defence. Something neither Froch nor Ward dared to do. Out of all those currently holding a world title he's one of the few who currently acts like a champion. I'm not questioning his talent and if he continues like he is I won't question whether he is the best at super middle weight.
However, the man can not open his mouth without coming across as a massive c0ck. Not as much as a c0ck as Groves but still..
Thinking about it Froch is bit of a d!ck as is Eubank Jr. not to mention that entitled diva Ward so perhaps it's something to do with that division that makes people chat ish and act like tw@ts.
Look at this guy! This -Kev- fellow can look at your weight on a scale, look at you and tell you exactly how much of your body mass is muscle and how much is water!
Dude, you are wasted posting nonsense on some inconsequential boxing forum. You should take this act on the road! There are carnivals all across the country that would pay you at least minimum wages plus left-over stuffed toyes and cotton candy for such immense talent!
Vacant.....
How'd you figure?
Surely it's got to be Kovalev or Gonzales?
Ward and Rigondeaux would be in with a shout if they could find a couple of decent opponents.
This is a big step up for Wilder but I hope to all the gods I don't believe in that Wilder knocks Povetkin out and I hope you haters drown in your own tears.
While Froch is not exactly the most objective person when it comes to Ward I do find it hard to believe Ward ever wanted to fight Golovkin. Don't get me wrong, I don't for a second believe Ward fears Golovkin. I just think Ward's ego prevents him from making any kind of concession to this unproven middleweight that would allow the fight to be made. I don't believe Ward would have compromised on the choice of venue, or officials, or the purse. I mean, the man could have called Froch's bluff and had Froch taken him up on it made easy money beating someone he already beat with one hand but he didn't.
Of course this is moot since Golovkin's team also don't want it. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe for a second that Golovkin fears Ward. I just think Golovkin's team are worried about damaging the marketability of their cash cow and I can understand Golovkin going along with that even if I don't agree with it. After all, these are the people who took him from relative obscurity to one of the biggest names in boxing and a little loyalty is warranted.
As for Kovalev, I'll believe Ward intends to fight him when he climbs through the ropes. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe for a second that Ward fears Kovalev. I just don't think Ward has the passion to compete anymore. Nothing about his last fight or the fighters he's tried to get in the ring makes me believe that while. physically capable of beating both Golovkin and Kovalev, he wants to be in the ring. I think mentally he's retired. I think, in his mind, he's already achieved greatness and has nothing left to prove and is merely going through the motions. Honestly, I think he could do with a little kick in the arse. He has the talent to be an ATG. I only doubt his motivation.
I can only speculate on your views. As I said they're two options here;
One, Pacquiao has the right to his views and those that disagree have a right to protest and disassociate with him which mean he loses his sponsorship deals and his sources of income. I agree with this...i stated in my posts pac did wrong in his "animal" snafu...lgbt has right to air grievances...but airing grievances should not be equated to full hate vengeance....more so pac apologized for it and such overkill a retaliation will not also reflect back well for the lgbt...
Or two, Pacquiao has the right to his views and those that disagree should keep quiet and keep giving him money. i never said that...
By criticising those opposed to Pacquiao's views you inadvertently lend support to option two. not necessarily...read again above...
Of course, if there's a third option here where no one's freedom is infringed upon then let me know.
now consider this;
equality, no doubt, is paradise on earth...it is a very noble idea....that man must pursue to realization...a very sweet aspiration...a dream.....
but it is something beset by man having different beliefs, culture, ;religion, laws, way of life, national interests, etc etc etc...
what rights one can enjoy in say, usa most likely you will not get everywhere....
the prevailing conditions on earth is making that dream an impossible dream...
Fair enough.. two things, though..
Firstly, freedom isn't always pretty. Pacquiao's comments and the resulting backlash to them is testament to that.
Secondly, it's a very thin line between criticising and attempting to curtail someone's rights. If not you then many people in this thread have advocated that those opposed to Pacquiao stay silent and indeed many of those opposed to Pacquiao have done the same. Ironically, the only way to stay consistent is to allow both sides the right to advocate stripping others of their rights but point out the inconsistency and hypocrisy of taking such a position which is what I've tried to do. Whether I've succeeded is another issue entirely.
in your view, then, knocking off one's teeth is more aggravating than taking out one by one a man's source of livelihood....
the hatred pac got himself into is like a train gone berserk....
pac has to answer for his mistake...
but some people are stretching this issue near breaking point...
for their own agenda....
In my view no but then what's the alternative here? You either accept free speech or you don't. What you're advocating here is allowing one man free speech and then stripping it from millions of others. Furthermore you're advocating forcing private institutions to associate with a man and in doing so harming they're business and reputation stripping them of their right to freedom of association.
It's unfortunate for Pacquiao but the fact is he is not entitled to a living. Just like you should not be able to force me to give you a job or a business should not be able to force you to buy it's products, Nike and others should not be forced to give Pacquiao money nor should people be forced to pay to watch him fight.
Obviously, you're free to disagree but understand that you're advocating elevating one man's right above the rights of others and as such arguing against the very idea of freedom.
"would you argue that I should be able to do so without fear of having my teeth knocked out?"
do you consider knocking out one's teeth a freedom of speech, too?
No, perhaps I was being a little unfair. In my hypothetical situation I insulted one person and got illegally assaulted for it when in the case of Pacquiao insulted millions of people some of which, and those who sympathise, are exerting their legal right to voice their objection to his speech. If the guy I insulted behaved like most of those currently protesting against Pacquiao, calling for boycotts and pressuring his sponsors and what not, the most I would expect of him would be to find him standing outside my house with a banner saying "zerosixthree is really quite rude!".
I know it's been this way for quite some time now but when exactly was it decided that the more popular fighter should be able to decide how fair a fight should be.
Exactly when was it decided that if a fighter had the leverage he should be able to deicide what weight class, what ring size, what glove size, who officiates and who carries out drug testing and whatever else he could think of to give an unfair advantage to himself.
Exactly when did you guys decide that you don't want to see the best fighters fight the best at their best?
This isn't two fighters from different weight classes trying to find a middle ground in order for the fight to be made. This is two fighters in the same division, one of which is trying to weaken another fighter because he can and he does not want a fair fight.
Why do you support this? Because one boxer has obnoxious fans and you guys got all emotional about it? Why do you think this is okay?
Agreed, freedom isn't always pretty, it rarely is, and comes in stages! I agree that both sides need to be allowed to speak the truth that they understand, without limitation
Gimme a few examples of this thin line between criticism & curtailment. I don't think PAC interfered with one gay couple getting busy tonight. I want those in opposition to PAC to share their views from the deepest valley's to the highest mountains, all voices of opposition are welcomed every day, all the time.
I don't agree with stripping or curtailing anyone's point of view, ever. Please explain in detail the irony of removing free speech to enhance open discussions???
Best Regards,
Zaroku
The irony is this; some people hold opinions that others find abhorrent and are often subject to attempts to censor them. Freedom of speech protects both those who hold opinions and ironically those whose speech is a call for censorship. My freedom of speech allows me to say that you should not be allowed to voice your opinion however if I go beyond speech to force my intolerance and censorship on you then that's a problem. As of now, I am not aware of any attempt, either by Pacquiao or those currently protesting his comments to actually curtail anyone's freedom of speech but there's been plenty of people on both sides advocating censorship.
It is his right to believe whatever crazy things his imaginary friends tell him to believe.
It is his right to state them publicly if he so chooses.
It is the right of others to agree with him.
It is also the right of others to criticise and condemn him for it.
It is also the right of others to pressure his promoters, sponsors and the like if they so choose.
That's freedom of speech.