Mayweather v. McGregor - August 26

[The Dude]

19 minutes ago, Fru said:

So context matters when Floyd is being strategic to figure out Conor, but context doesn't matter when a complete boxing novice has his first fight ever with the goat and exists in the same ring for 10 rounds? Mmmk

Context matters [full stop]

 

Conor McGregor is a tough, smart, world class MMA fighter.  He's a legit warrior.  Floyd Mayweather is a slick defensive boxer that lacks real power and has never been a KO artist.

 

Millions and millions of people thought there was no chance Mayweather could stop McGregor within 12 rounds because of Conor's toughness and Floyd's lack of power.

 

Floyd did it with his brain as much as his fists.  That's boxing.  And yeah he did it while goofing off and toying with him and going half speed for half the fight daring Conor to KO him.

 

To imply Conor made a better account of himself than Cotto or Mosely is disingenuous.  Those dudes rattled the hell out of Floyd with real punches and left him bloody in the corner in legitimate title fights, not glorified exhibitions.

 

If Conor went 10 in a real title fight against Golovkin, then the point you're trying to make would make sense.

 

The fight went precisely how all the oddsmakers had it.

[Enhance]

42 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

The funny thing is, is that you could say the same thing if the roles were reversed and they fought in the octagon. 

That's true, but I don't think it's wholly relevant. McGregor inserted himself into boxing and not the other way around. Boxing is also the far more lucrative/popular sport.

 

 

[Cdog923]

2 minutes ago, Enhance said:

That's true, but I don't think it's wholly relevant. McGregor inserted himself into boxing and not the other way around. Boxing is also the far more lucrative/popular sport.

 

 

Relevancy doesn't necessarily reduce it's truth. And boxing is in no way more popular than MMA; outside of so-called "superfights", PPV buy numbers are very comparable over the last 7 years. 

 

And that tweet? C'mon man. 

[Cdog923]

11 hours ago, The Dude said:

One significant thing I took away was Conor McGregor is considered a devistating power puncher by MMA standards, and Floyd is considered a pitty-pat puncher by boxing standards.  

 

Floyd Mayweather punches much harder than Conor McGregor.

Honest question: does glove size factor into that at all? 

[The Dude]

27 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

Honest question: does glove size factor into that at all? 

This is just my opinion, I'm no expert.

 

If you take a 8oz. boxing glove and cut off the thumb and finger parts, you essentially have a 4oz.  MMA glove.

 

It would allow for a slight increase in hand speed perhaps.

 

Floyd hits harder because he puts his whole body behind some if his power shots. 

 

Conor puts the weight of his arm and shoulder behind his power shot.

 

It's a difference in technique.  Probably a big part of why Holly Holm was able to brutalize Rhonda Rousey in the octagon.

[Redux]

And then Holly Holm immediately lost that title to Meisha Tate, then lost to Valentina Shevchenko, and then lost to Germaine de Randamie.

 

Ronda has only fought once since the loss and it was also an ugly defeat to Amanda Nunes, clearly suggesting it had more to do with her not taking her training seriously. 

[Cdog923]

56 minutes ago, The Dude said:

This is just my opinion, I'm no expert.

 

If you take a 8oz. boxing glove and cut off the thumb and finger parts, you essentially have a 4oz.  MMA glove.

 

It would allow for a slight increase in hand speed perhaps.

 

Floyd hits harder because he puts his whole body behind some if his power shots. 

 

Conor puts the weight of his arm and shoulder behind his power shot.

 

It's a difference in technique.  Probably a big part of why Holly Holm was able to brutalize Rhonda Rousey in the octagon.

That makes sense.

[Enhance]

1 hour ago, Cdog923 said:

Relevancy doesn't necessarily reduce it's truth. And boxing is in no way more popular than MMA; outside of so-called "superfights", PPV buy numbers are very comparable over the last 7 years. 

 

And that tweet? C'mon man. 

The tweet was not directed at you. It's a legitimate mentality among some people who have been watching the reaction to the fight, particularly since some polls suggest MMA-only fans are more likely to be white.

 

As for "boxing is in no way more popular," this is an interesting article from the WaPost on that exact topic. It's pretty even-keeled from my perspective. Some quotes:

Quote

According to a new Washington Post-UMass Lowell poll, 28 percent of Americans count themselves as fans of professional boxing, nearly matched by the 25 percent who say they’re fans of MMA.

Quote

Boxing appears to be making inroads with a younger audience. Among adults under age 40, 36 percent identify themselves as boxing fans, compared with 25 percent of 40- to 64-year-olds and 17 percent of those 65 and up. MMA have a similarly aged following. Some 34 percent of adults 18-39 years old say they are MMA fans, compared with 23 percent of those ages 40-64 and 13 percent of those ages 65 and up.

My use of the language "far more" popular might be a reach. The more accurate way to describe it is that it's still more popular by a small margin. Boxing is without question the more lucrative sport.

 

And relevancy may not reduce "truth," but it reduces the gravity and weight of the argument. Why does Mayweather's perceived lack of ability to fight in MMA matter in any way? It's entirely irrelevant to this discussion. In fact, the only reasons I imagine people would bring it up is because they either dislike boxing, dislike Mayweather or they disliked the outcome of the match. Those reasons don't justify the argument, in my opinion. I view it as more of a deflection.

[The Dude]

33 minutes ago, 1995 Redux said:

And then Holly Holm immediately lost that title to Meisha Tate, then lost to Valentina Shevchenko, and then lost to Germaine de Randamie.

 

Ronda has only fought once since the loss and it was also an ugly defeat to Amanda Nunes, clearly suggesting it had more to do with her not taking her training seriously. 

I had Holly up on points before Meisha stopped her, to be honest.  Can't say she wasn't competitive in that world title fight.  I didn't see the other 2.

 

Holly is 11-3, that's a decent record by UFC standards.  Former world champion.  Hurt Ronda Rousey poimanent.

 

Give the girl some credit.

 

 

[Redux]

5 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I had Holly up on points before Meisha stopped her, to be honest.  Can't say she wasn't competitive in that world title fight.  I didn't see the other 2.

 

Holly is 11-3, that's a decent record by UFC standards.  Former world champion.  Hurt Ronda Rousey poimanent.

 

Give the girl some credit.

 

 

 

Points mean squat when you get finished, remember Connor Macgregor?  Can't say he wasn't  competetive in that fight.

 

Holly is a decent fighter, and yeah a former champ that couldn't defend her title or even gwt back within a sniff of earning a rematch though.  She has hit the 2-3 mark in her last 5 fights, that's troubling.  Her problem has been, wait for it, being too one dimensional.

[The Dude]

5 hours ago, 1995 Redux said:

 

Points mean squat when you get finished, remember Connor Macgregor?  Can't say he wasn't  competetive in that fight.

 

Holly is a decent fighter, and yeah a former champ that couldn't defend her title or even gwt back within a sniff of earning a rematch though.  She has hit the 2-3 mark in her last 5 fights, that's troubling.  Her problem has been, wait for it, being too one dimensional.

 

I dunno, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on your assessment of the Floyd-Conor fight.  You saw something completely different than I did.

 

Holly was never going to be as good at MMA as she was at boxing.  She dedicated most of her athletic prime to being a boxer and started doing MMA when she was 30.  Just a pesky consequence of being a human being I guess.  It's all beyond the point I was originally making about the Holm-Rousey fight anyway.

[ZRod]

Redux, how much boxing do you, have you watched?

[Redux]

I think the difference is you are judging his performance like he were a boxer.  He had to adapt to a different style of fighting and a different rule set altogether.  Floyd obviously had a game plane going in, and he executed that game plan.  I knew that going in and could see it unfold as the match started.  But Connor's gameplan was go in and try to get the knockout, it had to be.  And to that, he landed some seriously good shots.  It was his only chance, I knew that and so did Floyd.  His window closed as Floyd hoped it would, he gassed as to be expected and ultimately lost.  As soon as Floyd incorporated the duck in and turn the back technique, the match was over.  Connor couldn't legally do anything offensive at that point other than hope to land a bomb after the ref restarted things.  He got frusteated and gassed, just like Floyd wanted.  Is that dominating?  I guess it can be if you want it to be.

[BigRedBuster]

Also, I want to point something out not being discussed.

 

Mayweather obviously was a very good boxer.

 

But, I was strongly hesitate to claim he was the best boxer ever.....like I have seen some people claim.  That's nothing more than people trying to pump him up.

[The Dude]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Also, I want to point something out not being discussed.

 

Mayweather obviously was a very good boxer.

 

But, I was strongly hesitate to claim he was the best boxer ever.....like I have seen some people claim.  That's nothing more than people trying to pump him up.

I don't think he'd beat any pound for pound fighters right now, or any time in the last few years.  There's a reason his last 3 opponents were a shot Pacman, Andre Berto, and a MMA guy.