[QUOTE=HazeFyer23;38765454]He's not even a good politician either. The only reason why he got in was because of his "national hero" status[/QUOTE]
Obviously. We voted an action star, and a retard who still lives in his dead mum's house as our presidents. I never got the chance to vote (not a Filipino citizen anymore), but meh.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;38761645]A true national tragedy for filipinos[/QUOTE]
I'm a Filipino, everyone at my house was dead silent right after.
[editline]9th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=redhaven;38764301]Good. I can't stand the "Proud to be Pinoy" crowd. I'm probably one of the rare ones who stop giving a damn about Manny when he entered politics.[/QUOTE]
Same here.
[QUOTE=lum1naire;38768029]He HAS fought some of the best, and if you look back on those fights they were easily the ones he had the most trouble with. Look around the internet, its no secret that Mayweather has problems fighting southpaws, and I'm saying he started avoiding them recently because he wants to keep his 'legacy' in tact, which means picking the battles he knows he can dominate.
Too bad his legacy won't mean shit if he never fights and beats manny.
And he was never ROBBED out of those 3 fights, they were scored close by a lot of people. The first fight he definitely was not.[/QUOTE]
Had trouble with who exactly? And uh, show me one fighter in this game who doesn't struggle with southpaws, southpaws make for terrible fights because the angles encourage brawling and infighting. Considering everything else, Mayweather has been remarkably dominant his fights against southpaws.
Zab Judah was the last time Mayweather even remotely looked like he was struggling initially, and he still managed to pull off a dominating performance against a stud of a fighter.
How has he avoided southpaws recently? Lmao, victor ortiz was a tune up fight for Manny.
And please, take the rose colored glasses off, the only people who say Mayweathers legacy won't mean anything if he doesn';t fight pacman are the haters who let their personal bullshit blind them. I don't like Mayweather as a person, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant of his skills and his place in boxing history. His legacy, as it stands, is far and above more impressive than Pacquiao's.
[QUOTE=BLOODGA$M;38766272]How many mexicans does it take to knock out Pacquiao?
[sp]Just Juan.[/sp][/QUOTE]
How many Mexicans have been knocked out by Pacquiao?
[sp]Manny![/sp]
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38762605]
i'm honestly surprised so many people in this thread are up to date on boxing. not in a "boxing is stupid" way i just didn't know it was still so popular?[/QUOTE]
Boxing has shot itself in the foot more than anything. People like to say MMA is taking over, but I disagree with that notion, it's the fact boxing is so ridiculously hard to follow nowadays. I mean I'm a boxer myself and a die hard boxing fan, but fuck me if I tried to follow everything that is happening I'd go insane. So I tend to follow the superstars and only pay attention when there's a big fight on.
MMA on the other hand, specifically the UFC, you have a single self contained organization (rather than the clusterfuck of multiple organizations, WBC, IBF, WBO, WBA etc etc.....) that is very easy to follow and very easy to get behind the sport's stars. Not to mention they have a structure where fighters are forced to fight the next contender, rather than play behind the scene politics. The trade off of that I suppose is a lot of time young and underdeveloped fighters are thrown to the wolves so to speak. But at any rate, it's easy to see why it's growing in popularity so fast, and IMO it's very little to do with it being a "more exciting" sport.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;38774914]Boxing has shot itself in the foot more than anything. People like to say MMA is taking over, but I disagree with that notion, it's the fact boxing is so ridiculously hard to follow nowadays. I mean I'm a boxer myself and a die hard boxing fan, but fuck me if I tried to follow everything that is happening I'd go insane. So I tend to follow the superstars and only pay attention when there's a big fight on.
MMA on the other hand, specifically the UFC, you have a single self contained organization (rather than the clusterfuck of multiple organizations, WBC, IBF, WBO, WBA etc etc.....) that is very easy to follow and very easy to get behind the sport's stars. Not to mention they have a structure where fighters are forced to fight the next contender, rather than play behind the scene politics. The trade off of that I suppose is a lot of time young and underdeveloped fighters are thrown to the wolves so to speak. But at any rate, it's easy to see why it's growing in popularity so fast, and IMO it's very little to do with it being a "more exciting" sport.[/QUOTE]
MMA has more than one organization. Dream and Strikeforce for example.
The politics behind boxing are depressing though.
[QUOTE=borisvdb;38776066]MMA has more than one organization. Dream and Strikeforce for example.
The politics behind boxing are depressing though.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget the amount of fucking weight divisions in Boxing,17 really? Why can't they stick with 8?
[QUOTE=borisvdb;38776066]MMA has more than one organization. Dream and Strikeforce for example.
The politics behind boxing are depressing though.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but ask yourself how much attention is payed to either of those. Very little by the casual fans.
Having one central organization that is the primary focus and is synonymous with MMA in the mind of the general public is a huge boon to the business. The UFC is the most successful organization thus far and will continue to be so.
Self contained organizations at this point means they don't suffer from the bullshit in boxing as fighters/managers don't get to dictate anything more than their contracts. I guess in the end it means MMA fighters still aren't going to reach the levels of pay thats present for the elite in boxing (i mean where else can you earn 30-40 million $ in one night of work?) but it also means more compelling fights, more often for us.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
