nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Fight Time From 4am-McGregor vs MayweatherMOD Warning in 1st Post

degsie

So, this is looking more likely to be on the cards sooner rather than later...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/38591420

Any opinion on who would win this potential fight?

MOD Warning:

1- Anyone that posts or request the whereabouts of illegal streams for this fight, will result in a ban.

2- IF YOU CAN'T DEBATE WITHOUT ACTING LIKE A CHILD AND RESORTING TO INSULTS, THEN WE WILL BAN PEOPLE.

3- PLEASE KEEP THE THREAD ON-TOPIC

4 - To watch sign up for an account here: https://skyboxoffice.neulion.com

:sign into your account

:buy the event here
https://skyboxoffice.neulion.com/vid...her-v-mcgregor

Then you stream it through that same link on your browser on your laptop/desktop, or HDMI to your TV from it.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Burial.

Gamebred wrote: »

Eubank is a real clone of McGregor alright pmsl orthodox pressure fighter absolute nothing like Conor's style.

They must have ran out of punch bags to use as clones.

Eyes Down Field

Gamebred wrote:

Eubank is a real clone of McGregor alright pmsl orthodox pressure fighter absolute nothing like Conor's style.

Conor has no style in the sport of boxing. He's going to have to come up with some kind of boxing stance or else Floyd decks him quickly. There's a reason boxers approach other boxers in a certain way. If they don't have their stance and guard right they leave themselves open taking shots. Floyd doesn't need much of an opening to land accurate shots and Conor will be wide open. He will land at will, there's nothing Conor can do defensively, other than try to clinch, and getting that close to Floyd is leave him open to Floyds sharp left hook, and then it's lights out for McGregor

hbhook

While trying to find out if Alvarez v GGG will be available as a once off PPV for various cable subscribers I found this on fightsports which I've never visited before now.. 'the Sky Sports Box Office pay-per-view will be available to UK fans for £19.95 ($26.31 in U.S.), and to Irish fans for €24.95 ($29.47 in U.S.)'.

Is this confirmed, is it old news? I'm just asking because Sky still haven't been talking about the price and they usually have it placed under their lil ticker poster on SSNews.

Muahahaha

A Little Pony wrote: »

The whole Paulie thing is just a publicity stunt, the sparring is probably a joke. A professional boxer is never going to get beat up by a person who has never boxed a professional bout in his life. It's beyond a joke at how many people actually believe this nonsense.

That doesnt make sense. By that logic all amateurs moving up to their first pro fight will lose.

Eyes Down Field

Burial. wrote:

They must have ran out of punch bags to use as clones.

It might be hard to tell the difference between a punching bag and McGregor on Aug 26.

Eyes Down Field

hbhook wrote:

While trying to find out if Alvarez v GGG will be available as a once off PPV for various cable subscribers I found this on fightsports which I've never visited before now.. 'the Sky Sports Box Office pay-per-view will be available to UK fans for Â£19.95 ($26.31 in U.S.), and to Irish fans for â‚¬24.95 ($29.47 in U.S.)'.

Much to Oscar De La Hoya's frustration. Canelo/GGG is being completely overshadowed by the MayMac circus.

What should be the biggest middleweight championship fight in the modern era is playing 2nd fiddle to a joke fight.

walshb

Muahahaha wrote: »

That doesnt make sense. By that logic all amateurs moving up to their first pro fight will lose.

Don't think he meant exactly that.

wonderfullife

Muahahaha wrote: »

That doesnt make sense. By that logic all amateurs moving up to their first pro fight will lose.

Yeah that internal logic is flawed obviously because you have Olympic gold-medalists in amateur boxing with an 0-0 record who could very easily beat world champions in their first pro fight.

The logic is pretty simple in my book. No pro boxer has beaten Floyd *officially*, anyway - Castillo CLEARLY beat Floyd in their first fight but we can only go by the official scorecards - so Conor's lack of pro boxing experience isn't something to point to as a negative.

If Floyd had 10 defeats on his pro record, then we could point to being a pro boxer as being beneficial to beating him.

ThinkProgress

wonderfullife wrote: »

Yeah that internal logic is flawed obviously because you have Olympic gold-medalists in amateur boxing with an 0-0 record who could very easily beat world champions in their first pro fight.

The logic is pretty simple in my book. No pro boxer has beaten Floyd *officially*, anyway - Castillo CLEARLY beat Floyd in their first fight but we can only go by the official scorecards - so Conor's lack of pro boxing experience isn't something to point to as a negative.

If Floyd had 10 defeats on his pro record, then we could point to being a pro boxer as being beneficial to beating him.

lol... I really am never surprised by how high you can manage to stack your BS... it appears you will literally twist and misapply anything, just to suit your agenda! (no matter how ludicrous it is) :pac:

At the end of the day, a professional is just someone who gets paid to do a particular thing. It usually indicates that this individual is more experienced or skilled at what they're doing... but this is not always the case!

Clearly, boxers can have 100's of amateur fights under their belts... and countless hours of training... so it can be said that they are experienced at the skills of boxing!

Conor would undoubtedly benefit from having more experience in the sport of boxing... whether that be at amateur level... pro level... or even just more time in the gym to practice the sport.

You are trying to suggest that Conor's lack of pro experience is not a negative... by pointing out that amateurs can walk in to the pros and do well right away...

But this line could only be legitimately argued, if you could point to Conor's vast amateur experience as some kind of substitute. Which you obviously can't... so your point is complete and utter nonsense!! (as usual)...

Lacking any kind of substantial experience in the sport of boxing, ABSOLUTELY IS a negative for Conor in this fight... no two ways about that. He is at a major disadvantage going into this fight!!

If you want to be good at a sport, you have to practice it... if you want any chance of beating one of the best practitioners of that sport, you need to practice ALOT...

Anything else is really just pie in the sky logic!

begbysback

wonderfullife wrote: »

Yeah that internal logic is flawed obviously because you have Olympic gold-medalists in amateur boxing with an 0-0 record who could very easily beat world champions in their first pro fight.

Not so sure about "easily" but there are exceptions - some amateur gold medalists are very talented boxers....

wonderfullife wrote: »

The logic is pretty simple in my book.

Excellent - some clarity at last - please proceed...

wonderfullife wrote: »

No pro boxer has beaten Floyd *officially*,

Ok, quick check of the history books and yes this seems to be true..

wonderfullife wrote: »

anyway - Castillo CLEARLY beat Floyd in their first fight

But doesn't Aristotle's law of contradiction state "something cannot be, and not be at the same time"?

Anyway screw him, but where do we go?

wonderfullife wrote: »

but we can only go by the official scorecards

damn those scorecards...

wonderfullife wrote: »

- so Conor's lack of pro boxing experience isn't something to point to as a negative.

wait... because of scorecards?, or because Castillo beat him, or because Castillo didn't beat him... I'm now a little lost, and I find myself trying to bite my own teeth... :eek:

wonderfullife wrote: »

If Floyd had 10 defeats on his pro record, then we could point to being a pro boxer as being beneficial to beating him.

well its a start anyhows.... :pac::pac::pac::pac:

Danzy

This is the things if Conor was the MMA champ he is but had also been a serious contender years earlier for a World Boxing Title, then he would be viewed as having an even chance.

In an MMA fight McGregor would have Mayweather beaten within a minute, there are people who will never make the UFC who would as well and they would never even let Floyd have a chance.

It is not though.

wonderfullife

ThinkProgress wrote: »

But this line could only be legitimately argued, if you could point to Conor's vast amateur experience as some kind of substitute. Which you obviously can't... so your point is complete and utter nonsense!! (as usual)...

Conor's substitute isn't vast amateur boxing experience, it's vast professional MMA experience.

He's not going to try box Floyd using traditional orthodox boxing fundamentals, he's going to try win using MMA fundamentals in a boxing ring under boxing rules.

Wait and see Round 1, I'm very confident his stance, range, distance, faints, set-ups will look like they do in MMA which is very different to boxing.

Whether that works or not is up to Conor.

Erik Shin

Whether that works or not is up to Mayweather

begbysback

wonderfullife wrote: »

Conor's substitute isn't vast amateur boxing experience, it's vast professional MMA experience.

He's not going to try box Floyd using traditional orthodox boxing fundamentals, he's going to try win using MMA fundamentals in a boxing ring under boxing rules.

Wait and see Round 1, I'm very confident his stance, range, distance, faints, set-ups will look like they do in MMA which is very different to boxing.

Whether that works or not is up to Conor.

Ok so you're saying Conor is going to try something a bit different than the other 47 boxers floyd has fought, then I have just one question - why hasn't any other boxer come up with this same plan?

wonderfullife

begbysback wrote: »

Ok so you're saying Conor is going to try something a bit different than the other 47 boxers floyd has fought, then I have just one question - why hasn't any other boxer come up with this same plan?

Yeah that's exactly it. Well, boxers usually start boxing at 4 or 5 in many cases and by the time they fought Floyd they'd been doing the same things for 20, 30 years. It's very difficult to throw out 20 years of traditional boxing practices (like stance, footwork etc) to try a new plan.

On the other hand, Conor has been fighting out of a karate stance at kicking-range for over a decade. He knows how to attack and how to defend at that range. It's easier for Conor to fight out of a karate stance than it would have been for Oscar de la Hoya to try it.

normanoffside

Wonder, fair play for calling out McGregor's camp and their behaviour over the apulie sarring on the MMA forum. Shows you are not a blinkered 'fanboy'.
I respect your opinion even if I think it is totally wrong :pac:.

begbysback

wonderfullife wrote: »

Yeah that's exactly it. Well, boxers usually start boxing at 4 or 5 in many cases and by the time they fought Floyd they'd been doing the same things for 20, 30 years. It's very difficult to throw out 20 years of traditional boxing practices (like stance, footwork etc) to try a new plan.

On the other hand, Conor has been fighting out of a karate stance at kicking-range for over a decade. He knows how to attack and how to defend at that range. It's easier for Conor to fight out of a karate stance than it would have been for Oscar de la Hoya to try it.

So you're saying past generation boxers have got it wrong, and would be better off using a karate stance?

Gamebred

begbysback wrote: »

So you're saying past generation boxers have got it wrong, and would be better off using a karate stance?

No but trying to out box Floyd hasnt worked, attacking him on the inside like Maidana worked to a certain extent but still lost, Im not sure he will fight Karate wild stance tbh but theres zero chance of him winning via out boxing him as a normal southpaw counter striker, creating some madness in exchanges with feints might give Floyd some trouble understanding the range early on, thats his plan imo.

weldoninhio

ThinkProgress wrote: »

lol... I really am never surprised by how high you can manage to stack your BS... it appears you will literally twist and misapply anything, just to suit your agenda! (no matter how ludicrous it is) :pac:

At the end of the day, a professional is just someone who gets paid to do a particular thing. It usually indicates that this individual is more experienced or skilled at what they're doing... but this is not always the case!

Clearly, boxers can have 100's of amateur fights under their belts... and countless hours of training... so it can be said that they are experienced at the skills of boxing!

Conor would undoubtedly benefit from having more experience in the sport of boxing... whether that be at amateur level... pro level... or even just more time in the gym to practice the sport.

You are trying to suggest that Conor's lack of pro experience is not a negative... by pointing out that amateurs can walk in to the pros and do well right away...

But this line could only be legitimately argued, if you could point to Conor's vast amateur experience as some kind of substitute. Which you obviously can't... so your point is complete and utter nonsense!! (as usual)...

Lacking any kind of substantial experience in the sport of boxing, ABSOLUTELY IS a negative for Conor in this fight... no two ways about that. He is at a major disadvantage going into this fight!!

If you want to be good at a sport, you have to practice it... if you want any chance of beating one of the best practitioners of that sport, you need to practice ALOT...

Anything else is really just pie in the sky logic!

But, but, but remember the Fosbury flop!! Hahahaha

hbhook

Mayweather v McGregor is gonna be like when Floyd rematches somebody......x1000

walshb

I heard Eubank's been sacked by Floyd in favor of Jackie Chan!

ThinkProgress

wonderfullife wrote: »

Conor's substitute isn't vast amateur boxing experience, it's vast professional MMA experience.

He's not going to try box Floyd using traditional orthodox boxing fundamentals, he's going to try win using MMA fundamentals in a boxing ring under boxing rules.

Wait and see Round 1, I'm very confident his stance, range, distance, faints, set-ups will look like they do in MMA which is very different to boxing.

Whether that works or not is up to Conor.

The rules of the game he is about to play on Aug 26th, dictate that he must box Floyd... what style of boxing he chooses, is up to him. But no matter what style... it will still be a form of boxing! (no matter how stupid, weird, ugly or unskillful it looks)

His fists will still be flying towards Floyd's head or body... that's all that matters!

The best boxers, box the way they do, because it's the smartest and most efficient method of doing so. Through trial and error, over MANY generations, with MANY great minds guiding the way. Not because they can't think up anything better!

wonderfullife wrote: »

Yeah that's exactly it. Well, boxers usually start boxing at 4 or 5 in many cases and by the time they fought Floyd they'd been doing the same things for 20, 30 years. It's very difficult to throw out 20 years of traditional boxing practices (like stance, footwork etc) to try a new plan.

On the other hand, Conor has been fighting out of a karate stance at kicking-range for over a decade. He knows how to attack and how to defend at that range. It's easier for Conor to fight out of a karate stance than it would have been for Oscar de la Hoya to try it.

Every youngster is taught the fundamentals of their sport... but that doesn't mean there isn't room for personal styles or improvisation. Boxing is no different.

The way you talk about boxing... you would swear that all boxers are just robots that do the same things. This is not true at all. There are many subtle differences between boxers... but the fundamentals are the sport. You can't change that, without creating a totally different sport!!

That last point, actually shows not only your lack of boxing knowledge... but also your lack of MMA knowledge too.

The karate stance is an effective and intelligent stance in MMA, because it allows you to defend against the different ways your opponent can attack you... you don't know if your opponent is going to kick, punch or shoot for a takedown. So it's a logical stance in MMA... it gives you a lower, more solid base and better balance with kicks and takedowns. (both defensively and offensively)

Floyd or Conor don't have to worry about kicks or being taken down... so if Conor actually adopts that stance, it will just make it even easier for Floyd to see his punches coming, and Conor won't be able to move fast enough to react to Floyd's movements around the ring offensively! And because his footwork will be slower, with that wider stance... he will also be easier for Floyd to hit.

He will also be essentially cancelling out any reach advantage he might have too... because his lower stance, will mean he has to reach further to land punches. He will effectively be turning himself into a smaller fighter inside a boxing ring, for absolutely no logical reason at all.

A karate stance, against a top boxer, in a pure boxing match.... is absolute madness. It's not revolutionary or evolutionary... it's just dumb! There is zero advantages to be gained, from such a method.

Too Tough To Die

Paulie said after the second spar that Conor had improved, he was shortening his punches, which suggests he might be abandoning trying to fight at his usual MMA range.

xtal191

hbhook

S.A.S is annoying but I agree with him here. I think I get what he was saying. I try not to listen to him. Paulie didn't want people to think a novice could knock him down. He couldn't keep his trap shut until after the fight.

wonderfullife

weldoninhio wrote: »

But, but, but remember the Fosbury flop!! Hahahaha

We'll see.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

T
A karate stance, against a top boxer, in a pure boxing match.... is absolute madness. It's not revolutionary or evolutionary... it's just dumb! There is zero advantages to be gained, from such a method.

Says you.

We'll find out August 26th.

wonderfullife

Max Kellerman in that clip is the personification of all you "experts" in here.

Didn't shut up for weeks that no pro boxer would get touched in sparring by Conor, then as soon as Conor proves him wrong he pivots to lame excuses.

The ol' sweet science eh...

Frank Bullitt

wonderfullife wrote: »

Max Kellerman in that clip is the personification of all you "experts" in here.

Didn't shut up for weeks that no pro boxer would get touched in sparring by Conor, then as soon as Conor proves him wrong he pivots to lame excuses.

The ol' sweet science eh...

You really don't come across well when you take a position and tone like that.

GerryDerpy

wonderfullife wrote: »

Max Kellerman in that clip is the personification of all you "experts" in here.

Didn't shut up for weeks that no pro boxer would get touched in sparring by Conor, then as soon as Conor proves him wrong he pivots to lame excuses.

The ol' sweet science eh...

I hold Kellerman responsible for a lot of the boxing fans expert opinions.

walshb

We still talking bollix sparring against has-been Paulie Malignaggi?