wonderfullife wrote: » That's probably true. But we're in a situation where he is one clean left hand to the chin away from beating the best boxer of the last 25 years. Pretty good spot to find himself in because if he was fighting the 37th ranked WBO boxer he'd have very little upside - against Floyd there's very little downside.
Gintonious wrote: » Thats because fighting the 37th best WBO fighter wouldn't come with a payday like this, win, lose or draw.
darced wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Inviere wrote: » So it's fine to be 'racist' from the sidelines then?
wonderfullife wrote: I'm guessing they'll be squared off in the ring.
ERG89 wrote: » Likely a pull apart brawl with a load of "this is awesome" chants
Zero-Cool wrote: » Watching the NY show now, Conor has between talking for 2 minutes and I feel like turning it off. Laaaaads
wonderfullife wrote: » Write NY off and forget it, nothing worth seeing and it'll put you in bad form. London starts in less than an hour
wonderfullife wrote: » Well you quantify publicity quite easily. You can use google search to see the amount of articles written about each this week. You can use google search analytics and search their names to see search trends. You can search their names on youtube and count up the view counts on their individual interviews this week. You can use twitter and instagram to see how many mentions a fighter gets. You can look at tweet impressions on their tweets. You can look at the net +/- on followers this week on facebook/twitter/instagram. Conor is beating him (easily) in every category. As for the records, I'm saying: 1. It's much more difficult, borderline impossible, to go undefeated in MMA. If we start there, that's almost enough reason in itself why it's stupid to compare records. 2. Floyd's 49-0 record is more padded than Conor's 21-3 record. Floyd's first 16 pro opponents don't even have a wikipedia page and his next 5 opponents were journeymen at super-featherweight. 3. Conor was 19 when he fought Sitenkov and had only been doing MMA months.... even though it's technically a "Pro fight", to my mind given his age and skillset it was an amateur contest in all-but-name. It *counts* but my personal opinion is it's misleading. 4. Floyd isn't undefeated in his boxing career. That's just a fact. He's merely undefeated in his pro career. He wasn't playing tiddlywinks as an amateur, he competed in the Olympics. I think it's foolish for that poster to point to Conor's 3 losses, it makes him look clueless about MMA. Jon Jones is undefeated because he's a freak and even then many people think Alex beat him.
wonderfullife wrote: » Not sure if anyone posted it above - There will be a full boxing ring in the staging area for the presser this evening. I'm guessing they'll be squared off in the ring.
ricero wrote: » Has the special guest referee been announced yet ?
willowthewisp wrote: » Trump?
pone2012 wrote: » Jon is undefeated because he is the best at his respective sport....Just like Floyd is the best at his....Stop trying to make excuses when there are none
The other fella wrote: Vince Mcmahon. And i heard rumours Stone Cold Steve Austin is going to interfere with a steel chair.
Paully D wrote: » "You don't see heels that like much these days" "You can still find 'em"
