wasted Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 They need to just fight to knockout. Points is like settling a football game on corners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magisme Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 So how many of you were duped into spending your money on that thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) No one duped me for shit, i been predicting ALL the way up to this fight it'd be exactly like it was and i got what i paid for. Im on record in this thread multiple times saying the fight'd be this way.Furthermore, how tight must you guys be, its only fuckin 20 quid, i spend that in two days on cigarettes, or one bag of weed Edited May 5, 2015 by Len B'stard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magisme Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 No one duped me for shit, i been predicting ALL the way up to this fight it'd be exactly like it was and i got what i paid for.Furthermore, how tight must you guys be, its only fuckin 20 quid, i spend that in two days on cigarettes, or one bag of weed I wasn't counting you. I figured you'd know Floyd would be Floyd. Everyone else, though, with their whole, "Will this fight save boxing?!" PPV was $90 from my cable provider. Looks like my freedom costs a little more than yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 Anyone that knows boxing, actual fighters and people not predicting with their heart were saying the shit too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magisme Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Anyone that knows boxing, actual fighters and people not predicting with their heart were saying the shit too.Yeah, all 10 of 'em. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 My man Paul Maligniaggi (who is blatantly on coke ) was saying it constantly, that it'd be a boring fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 It'll never happen, but GGG is onboard for a Mayweather bout it appears. He's been retweeting some fans and articles saying Mayweather should fight him next. No way Mayweather takes that chance though.That is one fight in which Mayweather would be the underdog. He would go up high in my estimation by agreeing to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) It'll never happen, but GGG is onboard for a Mayweather bout it appears. He's been retweeting some fans and articles saying Mayweather should fight him next. No way Mayweather takes that chance though.That is one fight in which Mayweather would be the underdog. He would go up high in my estimation by agreeing to that.I think he would handle GGG. And reasonably easily at that. And it would be very similar to the Pacman fight, maybe he'd win a round or so more but no better than that. GGG fights straight, textbook stuff, he ain't gonna touch Floyd, just another potshot and move night for Floyd. Edited May 5, 2015 by Len B'stard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron MikeyJ Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) I knew neither guy would score a knockout. I was expecting a closer fight, with Pac winning a close desicion, but no way would we see a knockout. Today it's been reported that Pac is having rotated cuff surgery and will be out for a year. So that's the big news story here in America, should the public been made aware, etc. I can't blame the guy, Shit that's a lot of money to potentially walk away from. The only thing that bothers me is that the money is clearly why this fight even happened. Pac wasn't smiling and happy because he is a good guy, he was happy because win or lose he was making ridiculous money and he knew Mayweather couldn't hurt him. I will say this though, if Pac got Floyd on the ropes a few more times in that fight, than he could have win it. Did the injury prevent that from happening? Possibly. But the people bitching about a knockout obviously didn't know what they were getting into. Even one of my good buddies was saying things like "Floyd is going to destroy Pac, etc" before the fight. Now after the fight he is like wtf was that Shit. I even told him before the fight, that if Floyd wins, it will be a boring ass desicion fight. Thats just plain how he fights. It was up to Manny to make it exciting, and the few times he got Floyd on the ropes, were the best parts of the fight. He just didn't do that enough to win the fight IMO. But even if he had, Manny wouldn't of knocked Floyd out, probably not even down. I just don't think either guy has enough left in the tank for that kind of fight. People wanted a Rocky movie, and instead got a boxing tutorial. I understand the frustration, but honestly I wasn't disappointed, because that's what I and guys like Lenny expected. I thought it was a pretty entertaining fight overall, especially for Floyd. It's not a fight that I care to rewatch like some of my favs, but that's how sports are, you never know what you are going to get. Edited May 5, 2015 by Iron MikeyJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 It'll never happen, but GGG is onboard for a Mayweather bout it appears. He's been retweeting some fans and articles saying Mayweather should fight him next. No way Mayweather takes that chance though.That is one fight in which Mayweather would be the underdog. He would go up high in my estimation by agreeing to that.I think he would handle GGG. And reasonably easily at that. And it would be very similar to the Pacman fight, maybe he'd win a round or so more but no better than that. GGG fights straight, textbook stuff, he ain't gonna touch Floyd, just another potshot and move night for Floyd.Even moving up two divisions from his natural weight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 It'll never happen, but GGG is onboard for a Mayweather bout it appears. He's been retweeting some fans and articles saying Mayweather should fight him next. No way Mayweather takes that chance though. That is one fight in which Mayweather would be the underdog. He would go up high in my estimation by agreeing to that. I think he would handle GGG. And reasonably easily at that. And it would be very similar to the Pacman fight, maybe he'd win a round or so more but no better than that. GGG fights straight, textbook stuff, he ain't gonna touch Floyd, just another potshot and move night for Floyd. Even moving up two divisions from his natural weight?Well he made it up to light middle to fight Canelo and seemed perfectly comfortable in his skin. I realise this is more than Light Middle but he managed that and dealt with Canelo handily. And hey, if you wannabe TBE, Henry Armstrong did it, why can't you?I knew neither guy would score a knockout. I was expecting a closer fight, with Pac winning a close desicion, but no way would we see a knockout. Today it's been reported that Pac is having rotated cuff surgery and will be out for a year. So that's the big news story here in America, should the public been made aware, etc. I can't blame the guy, Shit that's a lot of money to potentially walk away from. The only thing that bothers me is that the money is clearly why this fight even happened. Pac wasn't smiling and happy because he is a good guy, he was happy because win or lose he was making ridiculous money and he knew Mayweather couldn't hurt him. I will say this though, if Pac got Floyd on the ropes a few more times in that fight, than he could have win it. Did the injury prevent that from happening? Possibly. But the people bitching about a knockout obviously didn't know what they were getting into. Even one of my good buddies was saying things like "Floyd is going to destroy Pac, etc" before the fight. Now after the fight he is like wtf was that Shit. I even told him before the fight, that if Floyd wins, it will be a boring ass desicion fight. Thats just plain how he fights. It was up to Manny to make it exciting, and the few times he got Floyd on the ropes, were the best parts of the fight. He just didn't do that enough to win the fight IMO. But even if he had, Manny wouldn't of knocked Floyd out, probably not even down. I just don't think either guy has enough left in the tank for that kind of fight. People wanted a Rocky movie, and instead got a boxing tutorial. I understand the frustration, but honestly I wasn't disappointed, because that's what I and guys like Lenny expected. I thought it was a pretty entertaining fight overall, especially for Floyd. It's not a fight that I care to rewatch like some of my favs, but that's how sports are, you never know what you are going to get.The public were made aware, there was talk early in the training camp of Pacman being injured and needed anti-inflammatory shots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Dude Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Pacquia showed his true colors with that bogus injury claim imo. Its probably all just set-up for the rematch though.Anyone that knows boxing, actual fighters and people not predicting with their heart were saying the shit too.The fact that the public was like 70/30 in favor of Pacquiao just shows how deeply out of touch the general public is from boxing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 Pacquia showed his true colors with that bogus injury claim imo.Thats some fuckin' indictment The guy does umpteen things for charity, gives tons and tons of his money away to good causes, is nothing but a positive influence in his poverty stricken stricken country and this one little thing suddenly exposes his 'true colours', why are they truer than the colours exposed by his any number of good deeds man? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 He is Jesus, Mother Teresa, Princess Di, JFK, Martin Luther King rolled into one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Dude Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Pacquia showed his true colors with that bogus injury claim imo.Thats some fuckin' indictment The guy does umpteen things for charity, gives tons and tons of his money away to good causes, is nothing but a positive influence in his poverty stricken stricken country and this one little thing suddenly exposes his 'true colours', why are they truer than the colours exposed by his any number of good deeds man? Spare me the bleeding heart. I was obviously referring to Pacquiao as a fighter.He is Jesus, Mother Teresa, Princess Di, JFK, Martin Luther King rolled into one. I actually think that's a pretty reasonable measure of his cult of personality outside the ring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) Spare me the bleeding heart. I was obviously referring to Pacquiao as a fighter.No you weren't, not until you say you are, without that it sounds like you're suggesting he's a deeply immoral person...whilst Mayweather stands on the other side sticking 100 dollar notes in strippers arses and claiming he has it worse than those in the civil rights movement Saying someone has shown their 'true colours' means their veneer of respectability has been peeled away and you are being presented with the real person, if you meant that in a pugilistic sense then it's at very least poor use of the English language, so don't get stroppy with me young man Edited May 5, 2015 by Len B'stard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Mayweather's Axl to Pacquiao's, Slash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Dude Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) Spare me the bleeding heart. I was obviously referring to Pacquiao as a fighter.No you weren't, not until you say you are, without that it sounds like you're suggesting he's a deeply immoral person...whilst Mayweather stands on the other side sticking 100 dollar notes in strippers arses and claiming he has it worse than those in the civil rights movement Saying someone has shown their 'true colours' means their veneer of respectability has been peeled away and you are being presented with the real person, if you meant that in a pugilistic sense then it's at very least poor use of the English language, so don't get stroppy with me young man Holy pedantics! Thanks for telling me what I meant. There is a paragraph of words I didn't say, think, or mean. If I wanted to read posts that read too much into things I'd read my own posts in the Chinese Democracy threads.Mayweather's Axl to Pacquiao's, Slash. I'll give you that.Pacquia showed his true colors with that bogus injury claim imo.Thats some fuckin' indictment The guy does umpteen things for charity, gives tons and tons of his money away to good causes, is nothing but a positive influence in his poverty stricken stricken country and this one little thing suddenly exposes his 'true colours', why are they truer than the colours exposed by his any number of good deeds man? I like how you exclude the second sentence. Its okay though. Its always to intentionally exclude the context. Edited May 5, 2015 by Mr. Dude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) Spare me the bleeding heart. I was obviously referring to Pacquiao as a fighter.No you weren't, not until you say you are, without that it sounds like you're suggesting he's a deeply immoral person...whilst Mayweather stands on the other side sticking 100 dollar notes in strippers arses and claiming he has it worse than those in the civil rights movement Saying someone has shown their 'true colours' means their veneer of respectability has been peeled away and you are being presented with the real person, if you meant that in a pugilistic sense then it's at very least poor use of the English language, so don't get stroppy with me young man Holy pedantics! Thanks for telling me what I meant. There is a paragraph of words I didn't say, think, or mean. If I wanted to read posts that read too much into things I'd read my own posts in the Chinese Democracy threads.Holy victim complex! Holy imagined impositions! I wasn't telling you what you meant, i was telling you what you said was unclear until such time as you cleared it up.At any rate, what you said is a load of bollocks so there we are. The guy fought wars in the ring, his true colours as a fighter have been clear for a long long time.I like how you exclude the second sentence. Its okay though. Its always to intentionally exclude the context.So the second part of that post provided context that alters the playing field? What, that it was a set up for a rematch? Surely that would corroborate what i was led to believe was your negative assessment of Pacquiaos integrity as a fighter, how does that make the point any better, that he sets up phoney shit for the sake of a rematch and conversely, profiteering? If you're gonna accuse me of trying to pull a stroke or something at least see if it actually makes sense first So you see, that aspect was left out for a reason, cuz it has fuck all bearing on the overall point. I hope this has gone some way to remedying the injustice of my impinging on the exact letter of your self expression sir There you go, context all included now? Good! Edited May 5, 2015 by Len B'stard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Dude Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) Holy pedantics! Thanks for telling me what I meant. There is a paragraph of words I didn't say, think, or mean. If I wanted to read posts that read too much into things I'd read my own posts in the Chinese Democracy threads.Holy victim complex! Holy imagined impositions! I wasn't telling you what you meant, i was telling you what you said was unclear until such time as you cleared it up.At any rate, what you said is a load of bollocks so there we are. The guy fought wars in the ring, his true colours as a fighter have been clear for a long long time.I like how you exclude the second sentence. Its okay though. Its always to intentionally exclude the context.So the second part of that post provided context that alters the playing field? What, that it was a set up for a rematch? Surely that was corroborate what i was led to believe was your negative assessment of Pacquiaos integrity as a fighter, how does that make the point any better,Guy, they are fighters- of course profiteering has something to do with it. Why do you suppose two guys get in the ring at that level? For sheer kicks? You are getting closer to the point in that I initially made- which yes did question his integrity as a fighter. So I do appreciate that you've revised your stance to that point.Pacquia showed his true colors with that bogus injury claim imo. Its probably all just set-up for the rematch though. This is what I said which is merely an innocous, personally subjective comment about the recent fight that we're all subjectively commenting on in one way or another. You're the one who made it out to be more. You're drawing all kinds of conclusions that simply are not inferred. Edited May 5, 2015 by Mr. Dude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 This is what I said which is merely an innocous, personally subjective comment about the recent fight that we're all subjectively commenting on in one way or another. You're the one who made it out to be more. You're drawing all kinds of conclusions that simply are not inferred.Thats the point, i feel they were inferred, hence my responding like i did, and had you been more clearer there wouldn't've been a misunderstanding. Observe:Pacquia showed his true colors with that bogus injury claim imo.Whats does that mean? It appears to be a slight on the mans integrity. And being a man who presents himself as a man of grace and integrity in his life through all his God stuff and charitable work how am I supposed to know it meant just as a fighter until you say so? Furthermore, integrity is an all encompassing concept, is it not? I mean you either have integrity or you don't, thats how it works. For example, Dude says 'x' is a man of integrity, Len says 'no he's not, he slept with his brothers wife!' to which Dude replies 'No, i meant at work, the two things have nothing to do with each other'...well it's still fucking him, isn't it so how does it not apply?Hence my initial response which was how can you claim that one act to define his integrity to the exclusion of the 100 million ways in which he has proved before now that he is a man of great integrity? So even my initial point is totally applicable.Guy, they are fighters- of course profiteering has something to do with it. Why do you suppose two guys get in the ring at that level? For sheer kicks? You are getting closer to the point in that I initially made- which yes did question his integrity as a fighter.Yeah but the only reason i said that was because you said the addition of that last bit of the sentence would totally change the basis of the discussion, which it doesn't, it's still you pointing at a lack of integrity on Pacmans part, a revelation on the actual nature of his character (which is what showing ones true colours means, before you start going 'i didn't say that!') so what difference does it make that i added that bit? Nothing about your original point was misunderstood, that he's a lying bastard involved in a stitch up for the purposes of obtaining a rematch, an indictment on his integrity which i was arguing against.And no profiteering is not the reason people get into the ring, profiteering does not mean just making money or getting a fair whack for your work, profiteering means making money unfairly or illegally, which is what you are inferring when you say that he was lying to set up a rematch, so you see I'm not 'getting closer' to your point, I've been there and back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 There is far too much money in boxing. $80 mill for losing!! It is obscene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 There is far too much money in boxing. $80 mill for losing!! It is obscene. thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Y'all need a translator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.