Gamebred wrote: » A bully hahahahahahahahahah Funniest thing ive read on here and that takes some doing congrats snowflake, again your strong opinions hold very little merit talk a big game yet no balls to back it up, i'll leave it at that and block you so I dont have to see the tripe posted by you cheers.
weldoninhio wrote: » Might be annoying, but is it going to maybe push someone over the edge and back into a destructive habit?? Would you push an alcoholic to have just one beer??
callaway92 wrote: » I'm a massive McGregor fan. Massive boxing and MMA fan. - Still hate the fight and everything it stands for. Still think McGregor will get humiliated in the ring (not money or fame-wise obviously).
walshb wrote: » Ok, so no McGregor v Mayweather thread on the MMA forum.... Am I ok to maybe post on this?
Deedsie wrote: » Not everyone gambles you know. Some people can enjoy sport for the spectacle.
Gamebred wrote: » Theres no risk though its easy according to these people talking a big game he wont land a single punch....
walshb wrote: » Of course there is risk... Injury being one, and a KO punch being another...
Deedsie wrote: » What are you talking about? There is no risk? Let them talk whatever way they want, are you the talk police? Gambling is not a sensible thing to do and to belittle someone who doesnt gamble for daring to have an opinion on something and not backing it up with evidence of putting money on it is stupid.
Gamebred wrote: » A ko punch? but he wont land a single punch hes a novice how could he ko him its a total mismatch im reading? he wont last 6 rounds according to these people with strong convictions, leads me to believe they dont actually believe their opinions that strongly as they pretend to.
Sweet Science wrote: » The gambling angle is strange . I've heard this mentioned a lot of times .
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Well, firstly, love that guys vids, his 'What really happened' ones are always worth a watch.... However, I'm not really sure why you're posting that vid to back up your view McGregor pulled Paulie down, as he doesn't (necessarily at least) agree with you, or to be more to the point...... more of what he says could be used to support my view of what happened, than yours. A few examples: At 1m32 he says: and at 1m40 he says that it landed and at 2m30 (speaking about Paulie's right hook) he says: So, he's now saying that Paulie's been hit by a jab and now as he throws a right is showing signs of being off balance and this is all BEFORE Conor's left glove even touches the back of Paulie's head............. ...... At 2m08 he says (regarding that last left hook Conor threw: So now he's even adding the possibility that left might have clipped Conor too! Now, while I personally don't think that left landed, the fact that he is saying that left might have connected, just further weakens the view that Paulie lost his balance and footing because Conor was pulling/pushing him down. To sum up: he admits Paulie eat a jab, showed signs of being unsteady right after that as he threw a right hook which missed and that he might have been clipped by Conor's left...... and all this was obviously before that left glove began "pulling" or "pushing" Paulies head............. but yet we're supposed to dismiss all that went before that and just see it is as Conor pushing / pulling him to the ground. To cap it all off, at 2m58 he says: Let's be honest, the guy is all over the place with mights and maybes. One minute he says that he doesn't think it should be seen as a knockdown, the next he is saying things which support the view that it should be seen as just that. End of the day, but for McGregor landing shots, Paulie wouldn't have lost his footing....... and if gassing and losing your balance negates or nullifies knockdowns that wouldn't have happened if that fighter wasn't gassed or unsteady, then there are a whole heap of famous knockdowns that we'd have to go back and strike from the records that were similarly messy.Knockdown, no knockdown, doesn't really matter though....... what matters is that this guys made up a bull**** reason for leaving the camp and said that he was pushed down because he was beating the breaks off McGregor and he couldn't handle it so resorted to pushing him down out of frustration...... all of which is a load of bollox. He still maintains he won that round by the way. Anyway, one thing which I don't think has gotten enough attention is just how much power Conor seemed to have after sparring for 12 Rounds. Now I know Paulie is a fat, ex pro etc etc, but I think it's still pretty impressive to be throwing this kind of shot in Round 12, even against the now obese magic man.
LionelNashe wrote: » I don't think it's that strange. There are posters who claim that McGregor has zero chance (literally zero, not just hyperbole). If Mayweather winning is a certainty, then it's not even gambling to put money on him. I'm not advocating that people gamble though - I'm just saying that it's ridiculous to talk about certainties.
Sweet Science wrote: » I just dont know why gambling has to be brought into it though . A lot of people just aren't even into it . The most stake i could get up a week before payday is around €100. To win €20 ? Pointless Then i suppose i could get a loan and put €6000 on it to win €1000 . However what if he gets injured like David Haye .
Stonedpilot wrote: » Let's all hope is Conor is not killed in the ring like Apollo Creed was against Ivan Drago. It's a real possibility
LionelNashe wrote: » I think it's obvious what point is being made by referring to gambling. It highlights the inconsistency in somebody's position if they say that Mayweather is a certainty (or even a 99%, 98% certainty) but they won't go onto Betfair and place a bet on it at 1/4 odds. They're practically turning down free money. Not being into gambling in that situation is like not being into free money. I'm not saying you're one of the 'certainty' people - I don't know what you think McGregor's exact chances are, though I gather you don't give him much of a chance.
Mellor wrote: » Wasn't it only yesterday what that somebody quoted your post where you were goading a poster offering him 500/1 on some bet? Of course, you also ran off with yourbtail between you legs when people accepted.
Sofiztikated wrote: » If it does go arseways, he should 100% be pulled out. There's not one here that would want to see anyone get seriously hurt, and his corner needs to be ready to do it, even override Conor on it.
walshb wrote: » That's rubbish..... Anyone placing money on this needs to realise that nothing is a certainty. The mere fact that this bout is going ahead and has been sanctioned, as well as all the greasy fingers in the tills regarding it should be enough to warn people not to be surprised how it could turn out, and throwing down money on it would be something I would not advise or encourage. No shenanigans and Mayweather wins 99 times from 100... To dismiss the possibility of injury or silly beggars would be very silly... I would almost dismiss the KO possibility completely... If someone gave me a 1000 euro now I wouldn't back/bet Mayweather.
LionelNashe wrote: » It's possible you don't understand gambling if you think its inadvisable to bet on a 99% certainty when you're getting odds that would be more appropriate for an 80% certainty. Or, you know at some level that you're not confident in your own estimate. It could be a bit of both.
