Taylor rules again!

I think its a real pity that womens boxing will always have the same significance as womens soccer. In other words, none.

Dodge wrote: »

Or just women in general then :rolleyes:

Well, in Sport, the physical expression of the mental aspect is what we are dealing with.

Women are simply less capable of generating the physical end product. They are slower, less powerful creatures than their male equivalents.

Thus, Cotto and Margarito will always sell out venues, and Katy Taylor will be a lesser attraction.

Plain and Simple.

After all, do you pay money to Setanta to watch Cotto and the Premiership, or to see Live Womens Boxing from Germany followed by the Arsenal Ladies.???

Dodge wrote: »

So you equate sgnificance in terms of Setanta Sports schedules? Is Sonia O'Sullivan's silver medal less significant than John Treacy's?

No...I equate Setanta Sports schedules in terms of Public Demand. Setanta shows it cos the Public wants it- its why they have Steve Bunce on for 1 hour per week and show 2 Premiership games in the same time frame.

Soccer is more popular than Boxing. It attracts a higher percentage of the Public.

Take for example Sky Sports recent advertising campaign- they are selling their product off the back of 6 sports- boxing not included.

Its the same with womens sports. Setanta and Sky make a hullabaloo about showing sports which are male-dominated.

The bottom line is that, political correctness aside, the worlds doesn't give a flying fukc about womens boxing or womens football. They want to see the best Male stars.

Of course, there will always be time for womens sports, it has a place, naturally. But when push comes to shove, it is the best male stars that make the headlines.

HollowMan wrote: »

Excellent comeback Dodge!

No...it wasn't. It was the sort of response one would expect from those crippled by the social dystrophy that is Political Correctness.

Dodge wrote: »

So you equate sgnificance in terms of Setanta Sports schedules? Is Sonia O'Sullivan's silver medal less significant than John Treacy's?

No, Treacy ran the Marathon, in 1984, I think, and O'Sullivan ran a much shorter race in 2000.

Treacys Silver in the Marathon was more significant than the Silver a WOMAN achieved in the same marathon the same year. Conversely, the male silver medalist in the same race O'Sullivan won her Silver in the Same year {2000} would have run a better time than O'Sullivan- and Szabo too.



As it happens, Women MIGHT be better "Super-Marathon" runners. Maybe that makes you feel better.

Dodge wrote: »

You couldn't be further from the truth. However continue to think what you like about me based on internet postings on Sport....

Listen ignoramus- Womens acheivements in sports are not as significant as mens. Period. Nobody cares what the "Arsenal Ladies" are up to. How do I know? Cos a benchwarmer at the Emirates earns more in 1 week than they do in a year, thats how I know. Cos a benchwarmer at the Emirates is a household name, and the ladies who play for Arsenal Ladies aren't even household names in their own households.

End of story.

Katie Taylor has never even fought at the Olympics.

You know why? Cos there is NO OLYMPIC BOXING FOR WOMEN {yet}

You know why?

Cos nobody cares. Its all about the best men from Central Asia, Cuba, Russia and America.

Womens Football is called Womens Football cos to call it "FOOTBALL" would be misleading.

Now go back to yer Arts faculty.

buck65 wrote: »

Who are the biggest names in world athletics for the past few years on this side of the pond ? Kelly Holmes , Paula Radcliffe , Sonia o Sullivan where are all the men?
What about tennis Nadal and Federer are matched if not surpassed by the Williamses and Sharapova in recognition.

Could Serena or Penis Williams beat Federer in a game??

Thank you and good night.

David Haye...he's a pretty good name:D:D

buck65 wrote: »

And this is what we call the Muppet Show

I think Kermit could kick the sh!t out of Miss Piggy.....whether Miss Piggy weighed in the same or not.

Katie Taylor is a girl. She could become the UNDISPUTED Champeen of the World in 10 divisions and it would make no difference. Its girls fighting. Not boys.

Who cares who the WOMENS champion is? I know I don't.

Who cares about Laila Ali the same way they do about Roy Jones? Who cares about Jackie Frazier Lyde the same way they do about Joe Frazier?? Nobody.

walshb wrote: »

I care and I follow here career and think she is superb, but I also do agree that womens sport is always going to lag behind mens.

Especially in boxing, if for no other reason than MEN do it better.:P

Women shouldn't be allowed to box as Pros, for several reasons that have nothing to do with sexism.

For a start, they don't offer the same level of competition. Their participation in the sport approaches irrelevancy as no matter what a woman does, it will always be found wanting when compared to the skill, talent, power and speed of a male comparator.

Secondly, as I have already illustrated, the degree of opportunity for gimmickry and novelty is far too high. Women "fighting" "men":rolleyes: is one example, where, in some fukced up attempt to recreate the Bobby Riggs vs BJ King "Battle of the Sexes" farce of the 1970's is made.

Riggs, an ancient, thoroughly unsuccessful {and washed up to boot} player, who insisted on playing through the opening set in a vinyl top which sweated him to death to get sponsorship money, was outplayed by the greatest Female player of her era who just so happened to be on top of her game.

Invariably, boxing, as with tennis involves an aged, decrepit excuse of a non-fighter, who is shipped in to be out-moved and out-jabbed by a far younger, fitter female opponent with some degree of boxing nous. This is then held up as "proof" that the "gender divide" is a "fabrication" intended to keep women "down":rolleyes:

I don't want to see the game degraded to suit the neo-fascist agenda of some fukcing lesbian dyke feminist who entertains impossible fantasies of swinging-cock Amazons defeating puny men. Let Germaine Greer and her ilk satisfy themselves through writing about men with wombs.:rolleyes:

Last but not least-, When a serious injury finally occurs to a woman in the ring, or one is killed in a high profile situation, it is not "womens boxing" that will be scrutinised, but ALL boxing. In other words, the MENS game, in effect the ONLY TRUE BOXING, will find itself coming under attack, because some out-of-condition mom of 5 with a beer belly was hurt fighting a real fighter.

http://ballardboxing.tripod.com/id48.html

This fight involved no less than a "College Professor"........and she had a 6-4 record....in an amateur fight.:eek: Whats gonna happen when some female pro gets her chest all horribly busted up and is killed live on the undercard of a big fight in Vegas???


I find that vision intolerable.

Women, by dint of their own physical makeup, run the risk of incurring injuries which are peculiar to the female form, swollen breasts, damage to internal organs that men don't have etc. They are also more prone to suffer more lasting facial damage and bad cuts too. In short, they will attract the attention of the "Ban Boxing Brigade" which will insist that ALL boxing be shut down.

Of course, the Pro-Female outfit have their own arguments, One valid argument, particularly valid in the case of one famous Appellant, Jane Couch, is that your tits don't swell if you don't have tits to begin with.:eek: Throw in the whole "Gender Testing" problem and you have some real sordid embarassment in store for the future.:mad: Steroid taking Females with clits like bananas who want to be famous failing gender tests.

Always be mindful of JUST WHY the Marquess of Queensbury had GLOVES introduced- Polite, Prudish Victorian Society, thoroughly ignorant of anything, insisted upon the prevention of the facial injuries suffered by men in bare-knucke bouts.Such disfiguration offended polite society, the same way alcohol consumption offended Middle America:rolleyes:

PC people always know best.:rolleyes:

Of course, nobody knew that the gloves would allow fights go on for longer, allowing people to get their brains pounded for longer. Allow Lenny to explain, you can contradict him if you want....:D



So fellas....are we, the Boxing Public, going to make our own mind up, or allow some Lawyers/FemiNazis/Lesbians do it for us.???

walshb wrote: »

No matter what spin you put on it, Taylor is a talent unheard of IMO. Yes she's a woman, and yes she is not as known as her male counterparts; but she is still awesome.
Just watch her with an open mind. She is really superb!

Dude...I fight out of her gym in Bray.

She's still a girl.;)

walshb wrote: »

Take her for what she is, a woman competing against other women in boxing at the highest level there is for women.

Thats like saying so-and-so is the greatest wheelchair basketball player of all time.

Then some 7 foot dude goes flying through the air and slam dunks it.

Its kind of hard to stay focused on how "good" the guy in the wheelchair was.

Yes, you can say "Damn, he's pretty good, for a guy in a wheelchair"..... because in your heart and your head you know he is only as "good as he is" cos he is performing against similarly handicapped opponents and that if he were to take his talent to the logical conclusion, he would be horribly and shockingly outclassed.

For me, I watch Katy fight and I say to myself...."Damn...what a boy would do there".

I understand, you want me to look at her in the abstract, and appreciate her for what she is. I am, trust me, but its hard to call her "Irelands Greatest Athlete"....because, well, she isn't:o