I Don't Get It.....

[sigrab]

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.

[FLY TY]

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.

[Siggy]

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.

[FLY TY]

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."

[sigrab]

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.

[FLY TY]

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.

[FLY TY]

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."

[jayblack]

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?

[sigrab]

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.

[led]

because shane will fight pac, toe to toe.

if clottey plays peek-a-boo with pac, floyd will play mouse hunt with pac