Tweet
read again, i addressed all of the three discernible points you made (which were somewhat lacking in substance).
they were as follows - Mitchell beat Murray up first, people are making excuses for Rios (rather than astutely noting the circumstances) when they mention him struggling/failing to make 135 in his final two LW fights (the second of which should have never been agreed to, allow me to say) and Rios is "garbage". some real science there, buddy.
the significance of Murray being down in the dumps is doubtful. if he couldn't raise himself mentally for an opportunity like that -- and i'm sure he did, as he gave the best account of himself he could possibly have given -- he wouldn't belong in a ring. Rios' problems were physical, and they were very perceptible in the fight to those who can understand what they're looking at. i perceived them before i was even aware that he'd left all his gas on the scales, but could only put them down to an 'off night' or careless preparation before i read about his troubles with the weight.
Acosta was a big, legitimate career LW with skills and (covetable for a fighter of his style) punching power. Peterson is a technically solid guy, not small, he was taking a beating and fouled his way out of being KO'd.
so Rios was reared on cannon-fodder and guys who had been stopped more than once before. gee, that's unheard of. lolol
now, when it comes to his real competition, so what if guys have been knocked out before? Manny Pacquiao had been knocked out before, by guys who couldn't carry his jock ultimately, but it took over a decade's worth of fights against world class opponents for him to be knocked out again. it's interesting that you neglect to note when a guy like Acosta was knocked out (almost a decade previously).
when will fools realize that a man having lost fights or having been knocked out in fights is not the be-all and end-all? it's not where you're from, it's where you're at. not every fighter can have a smooth passage to the top.
are you serious? do you have all night?
btw, is that what passes for a well-argued point in your world? demanding lists from your correspondent?
read the post again, Charlie Big Potatoes. the point was more to clarify my position re. Mitchell, lest my comments be interpreted as disdainful of him.
that said, Murray was favoured by the majority of observers and oddsmakers.
looked for your prediction, but your first post on this forum was made after the fight happened. here's mine.
they were as follows - Mitchell beat Murray up first, people are making excuses for Rios (rather than astutely noting the circumstances) when they mention him struggling/failing to make 135 in his final two LW fights (the second of which should have never been agreed to, allow me to say) and Rios is "garbage". some real science there, buddy.
the significance of Murray being down in the dumps is doubtful. if he couldn't raise himself mentally for an opportunity like that -- and i'm sure he did, as he gave the best account of himself he could possibly have given -- he wouldn't belong in a ring. Rios' problems were physical, and they were very perceptible in the fight to those who can understand what they're looking at. i perceived them before i was even aware that he'd left all his gas on the scales, but could only put them down to an 'off night' or careless preparation before i read about his troubles with the weight.
Acosta was a big, legitimate career LW with skills and (covetable for a fighter of his style) punching power. Peterson is a technically solid guy, not small, he was taking a beating and fouled his way out of being KO'd.
so Rios was reared on cannon-fodder and guys who had been stopped more than once before. gee, that's unheard of. lolol
now, when it comes to his real competition, so what if guys have been knocked out before? Manny Pacquiao had been knocked out before, by guys who couldn't carry his jock ultimately, but it took over a decade's worth of fights against world class opponents for him to be knocked out again. it's interesting that you neglect to note when a guy like Acosta was knocked out (almost a decade previously).
when will fools realize that a man having lost fights or having been knocked out in fights is not the be-all and end-all? it's not where you're from, it's where you're at. not every fighter can have a smooth passage to the top.
are you serious? do you have all night?
btw, is that what passes for a well-argued point in your world? demanding lists from your correspondent?
read the post again, Charlie Big Potatoes. the point was more to clarify my position re. Mitchell, lest my comments be interpreted as disdainful of him.
that said, Murray was favoured by the majority of observers and oddsmakers.
looked for your prediction, but your first post on this forum was made after the fight happened. here's mine.
Comment