Mayweather vs McGregor Pt II

[LSCII]

Too bad Conor couldnt have ducked and dodged Mayweather's punches in the last round like you are Morozov's questions.

So wait a second. I've said all along that I hate the guys style and that I dislike risk adverse fighters in general. Morozov keeps saying there was never any danger for Floyd, so me asking why Floyd was so afraid to move forward is ducking the question? If you want to know why he should have moved forward, it's because Morozov keeps saying that Floyd was never in any danger. If he can't get hurt by Conor and the man himself said he was using the first 3 rounds to make sure of that fact, then why did it take until round 9 for Mayweather to try and do anything offensively? Seems kind of silly, no? The truth is, he knew he could toy with McGregor and wait for him to get tired, all while avoiding any actual contact because, and I've said this many times here so maybe this time it will sink in for you, he's a little kittykat. Meow. Meow. Meow.

You can't have it both ways. Either McGregor could have either a punchers chance, or Floyd was never at risk. So which was it?

Now in terms of overall career, if Floyd was so afraid to mix it up and wanted to protect himself at all times, why go into combat sports for a living? If he's so risk adverse, why didn't he become an accountant or something? He'd be plenty safe behind a desk.

 

[LSCII]

To me, the greatest factor in this fight was the gloves size. Some spoke a bit about it, but not to the degree of importance this element has.

It changes everything !!

from the energy you put in a hit, the energy you put in avoiding a hit and the energy or capacity you loose as you get hit. a couple of inches difference and the difference is deadly.

glove size allows you to get hit without being hurt or being hit immediately and be able to calculate ....
Yet do not expect conor that have as much power as a boxer (althoug Cain had more than Evander holifield) ... MMA fighters have a much more balanced body for a determined weight than boxers who are pure hitting machines and know little more.

It makes a huge difference in terms of defense as well. You can block more shots far easier the bigger the gloves are.

 

[Morozov]

So wait a second. I've said all along that I hate the guys style and that I dislike risk adverse fighters in general. Morozov keeps saying there was never any danger for Floyd, so me asking why Floyd was so afraid to move forward is ducking the question? If you want to know why he should have moved forward, it's because Morozov keeps saying that Floyd was never in any danger. If he can't get hurt by Conor and the man himself said he was using the first 3 rounds to make sure of that fact, then why did it take until round 9 for Mayweather to try and do anything offensively? Seems kind of silly, no? The truth is, he knew he could toy with McGregor and wait for him to get tired, all while avoiding any actual contact because, and I've said this many times here so maybe this time it will sink in for you, he's a little kittykat. Meow. Meow. Meow.

You can't have it both ways. Either McGregor could have either a punchers chance, or Floyd was never at risk. So which was it?

Now in terms of overall career, if Floyd was so afraid to mix it up and wanted to protect himself at all times, why go into combat sports for a living? If he's so risk adverse, why didn't he become an accountant or something? He'd be plenty safe behind a desk.

Again, what is the benefit for Floyd to fight more aggressively? why can't you answer this question?

Floyd did move forward in the fight so what are you dribbling about now?

There's always a punchers chance in combat sports. Doesn't mean that Floyd ever looked like losing this fight. He didn't.

And you're really questioning why Floyd went into combat sports for a living lmao? 50-0 (yes I'm sure you'll chime in that it's 49 in your books) and going to have made around 1 billion in earnings and now you're questioning his career choice? you just keep delivering.

Let's see if you can answer the question this time. I'll repeat, what is the benefit for Floyd to fight more aggressively? you keep saying he should do it, you keep saying it's what he should have been doing his whole career and yet you continue to be completely incapable of providing any reason why it would benefit him. Not even one single reason.

You say the truth is he could have taken him out at any time, but the actual truth is that Floyd was trying to bet on himself for the fight to be wrapped up in under 9.5 rounds. That reflects what Floyd actually thought about how long it would take. Not your unsubstantiated nonsense about he could do it at any time. Floyd literally tried to say it would be done in under 9.5 rounds, that's what he tried to say with his own money. Where's the facts to support this "truth" you're saying? again I asked you previously, how many KO's for Mayweather in the last decade? what's his KO rate in his last 10 fights? do you even know?

The only reason you've been able to provide for why he should be more aggressive is because he can? he can also not, and not give his opponent any greater opportunity, so for anyone with any common sense that's a pretty easy equation to figure out. The results speak for themselves.

So again, I ask, what is the benefit for Floyd to be more aggressive?

Is it meant to help him competitively? he's undefeated.

Is it meant to help him make more money? he's made around 1 billion dollars.

Is it meant to help him take less damage? nope.

So, what is the benefit for Mayweather to be more aggressive? just one benefit.

 

[LSCII]

Again, what is the benefit for Floyd to fight more aggressively? why can't you answer this question?

Floyd did move forward in the fight so what are you dribbling about now?

There's always a punchers chance in combat sports. Doesn't mean that Floyd ever looked like losing this fight. He didn't.

And you're really questioning why Floyd went into combat sports for a living lmao? 50-0 (yes I'm sure you'll chime in that it's 49 in your books) and going to have made around 1 billion in earnings and now you're questioning his career choice? you just keep delivering.

Let's see if you can answer the question this time. I'll repeat, what is the benefit for Floyd to fight more aggressively? you keep saying he should do it, you keep saying it's what he should have been doing his whole career and yet you continue to be completely incapable of providing any reason why it would benefit him. Not even one single reason.

And I'd ask why you refuse to acknowledge the truth. You keep saying he was never in any trouble or at any risk. So what benefit does he get by extending a fight where the guy only has a punchers chance and hopes to land one haymaker? Aren't you at risk more by giving him longer and more chance to do so?

But again, the greater point all along has been that everyone in their right mind knows McGregor didn't belong in that ring with the guy. Everyone knew the skill level was simply not there. Yet even with an incredibly obvious mismatch in front of him, he played it safe. If that isn't the literal definition of gutless, I don't know what is. Mayweather himself was on ESPN this morning talking about how McGregor couldn't hurt him. How he was never in any danger. How he controlled the entire fight, how he tested him early to make sure he couldn't be hurt, and how easy it was to breeze to victory. So answer me my question. Why was he so afraid to actually move forward when by everything he said, it didn't matter when he did so? If you take the man at his word, there was no actual risk.

You know what? Because he's gutless. I mean, I can get why you wouldn't do it against Cotto. Or some of the other guys he beat by running and hugging. But why do it against a guy you determined by round three was certainly no threat? Gutless.

 

[zombie kopitar]

On a different note though, I think it will be very interesting to see how McGregor's stand up game benefits from his focus on just boxing. It was already very good to start with, but now that he's honed that skill a bit, it could be even more explosive. Should be fun to watch his next fight, regardless of whom that is against.

I'd personally love to see it be Khabib, but that will never happen because Khabib can't consistently make weight.

So you want to see McGregor's improved standup game by way of fighting Khabib??

But I agree that he does keep putting himself in spots that forces him to get better. If he didn't move up to fight Nate twice he wouldn't have been able to wreck Eddie, and subsequently not look completely lost out there last night.

I'm hardly a fanboy, but I appreciate the way he pushes himself the way few athletes have done, while also beautifully understanding the entertainment aspect of the industry.

The narrative about Mayweather always running is not true. He plays defensively when that advantages him, he comes forward and exchanges when he needs to as well.

You really can't say that about a lot of his later fights, specifically the Pacquiao fight, he had no aggression from the start of the bell to the end and dictated a horrible pace, against a fighter who was injured and looked like garbage.
I respect him as the greatest defensive boxer of all time and a savvy business man. But people are always going to hate on him for the way he fights and his actions and behavior outside of the ring. Which really has nothing to do with last night, he brought a great show. Conor brought it for as long as he could and comes out looking like gravy too, all in all it was a win for both sports. There's really no reason to keep *****ing about nothing at this point lol.

 

[Morozov]

And I'd ask why you refuse to acknowledge the truth. You keep saying he was never in any trouble or at any risk. So what benefit does he get by extending a fight where the guy only has a punchers chance and hopes to land one haymaker? Aren't you at risk more by giving him longer and more chance to do so?

But again, the greater point all along has been that everyone in their right mind knows McGregor didn't belong in that ring with the guy. Everyone knew the skill level was simply not there. Yet even with an incredibly obvious mismatch in front of him, he played it safe. If that isn't the literal definition of gutless, I don't know what is. Mayweather himself was on ESPN this morning talking about how McGregor couldn't hurt him. How he was never in any danger. How he controlled the entire fight, how he tested him early to make sure he couldn't be hurt, and how easy it was to breeze to victory. So answer me my question. Why was he so afraid to actually move forward when by everything he said, it didn't matter when he did so? If you take the man at his word, there was no actual risk.

You know what? Because he's gutless. I mean, I can get why you wouldn't do it against Cotto. Or some of the other guys he beat by running and hugging. But why do it against a guy you determined by round three was certainly no threat? Gutless.

What truth? he's undefeated, his approach has delivered him unparalleled success in his career.

He's controlling the fight through that time, he's fighting at his pace, he has the better cardio, going to the late stages is not something Mayweather needs to be concerned with that's the smarter decision.

The fact you're so wound up and calling him gutless for this fight is hilarious and shows that you really don't understand what happened here. The guy has been in the ring 49 times, he's proven all he needs to when it comes to Boxing, he's been in the ring with multiple big names, dangerous names, those questions were answered long ago. This fight was entirely about money.

You keep saying he was afraid to move forward, but he did move forward in this fight, when he wanted to, when it suited him. It makes me question if you actually watched it because you keep making this completely false analysis.

So, again, you have no reason it would benefit Floyd. Calling him gutless isn't a benefit for Floyd. Where is the benefit to Floyd? if it makes sense, why can't you present some benefit for him to do so?

So, again, what is the benefit for Floyd to be more aggressive? why is this such a difficult question for you? I can't dumb this down any further for you. What is the benefit for Floyd to be more aggressive?

 

[LSCII]

So you want to see McGregor's improved standup game by way of fighting Khabib??

But I agree that he does keep putting himself in spots that forces him to get better. If he didn't move up to fight Nate twice he wouldn't have been able to wreck Eddie, and subsequently not look completely lost out there last night.

I'm hardly a fanboy, but I appreciate the way he pushes himself the way few athletes have done, while also beautifully understanding the entertainment aspect of the industry..

Yeah, I think that's a really unique match up. The very good stand up versus the very good ground game. It would be a real battle of wills and I'd love to watch the run up because I'm not so sure McGregor can get into Khabib's head like he did with Aldo. To me, that fight would be light years more interesting than Ferguson or Lee or Diaz 3 at this point. We know what Diaz 3 is going to be like. We've seen it twice already.

I will say that if it ends up being Diaz again, I believe McGregor retires shortly after that fight, win or lose.

 

[LSCII]

What truth? he's undefeated, his approach has delivered him unparalleled success in his career.

He's controlling the fight through that time, he's fighting at his pace, he has the better cardio, going to the late stages is not something Mayweather needs to be concerned with that's the smarter decision.

The fact you're so wound up and calling him gutless for this fight is hilarious and shows that you really don't understand what happened here. The guy has been in the ring 49 times, he's proven all he needs to when it comes to Boxing, he's been in the ring with multiple big names, dangerous names, those questions were answered long ago. This fight was entirely about money.

You keep saying he was afraid to move forward, but he did move forward in this fight. It makes me question if you actually watched it because you keep making this completely false analysis.

So, again, you have no reason it would benefit Floyd. Calling him gutless isn't a benefit for Floyd. Where is the benefit to Floyd? if it makes sense, why can't you present some benefit for him to do so?

Yep. All that is true. No question. I at least get why he's done that in the past against real boxers. But like you keep pointing out, he was never in any risk last night. So why play it safe when there's no danger?

And I did point out a reason. Letting a guy stay in the ring longer than need be, when the only hope that guy has is to wing haymakers is really not a smart play.

 

[Alex Jones]

So you want to see McGregor's improved standup game by way of fighting Khabib??

But I agree that he does keep putting himself in spots that forces him to get better. If he didn't move up to fight Nate twice he wouldn't have been able to wreck Eddie, and subsequently not look completely lost out there last night.

I'm hardly a fanboy, but I appreciate the way he pushes himself the way few athletes have done, while also beautifully understanding the entertainment aspect of the industry.


You really can't say that about a lot of his later fights, specifically the Pacquiao fight, he had no aggression from the start of the bell to the end and dictated a horrible pace, against a fighter who was injured and looked like garbage.
I respect him as the greatest defensive boxer of all time and a savvy business man. But people are always going to hate on him for the way he fights and his actions and behavior outside of the ring. Which really has nothing to do with last night, he brought a great show. Conor brought it for as long as he could and comes out looking like gravy too, all in all it was a win for both sports. There's really no reason to keep *****ing about nothing at this point lol.

There was no reason for May to come forward in the Pacquiao fight. Manny was pretty clearly hurt and couldn't work his way inside with his jab at all. Staying on the outside and feeding straight rights all night was the proper tactic to win the fight.

 

[LSCII]

There was no reason for May to come forward in the Pacquiao fight. Manny was pretty clearly hurt and couldn't work his way inside with his jab at all. Staying on the outside and feeding straight rights all night was the proper tactic to win the fight.

He fought a guy that had one hand. A guy that barely landed a few punches each round, at best. Playing it safe was a pathetic display.

 

[Morozov]

Yep. All that is true. No question. I at least get why he's done that in the past against real boxers. But like you keep pointing out, he was never in any risk last night. So why play it safe when there's no danger?

And I did point out a reason. Letting a guy stay in the ring longer than need be, when the only hope that guy has is to wing haymakers is really not a smart play.

There's always a punchers chance. As I've said multiple times, you just choose to ignore it because you think you finally have a valid point but you don't. It makes no sense to open that small opportunity even a little more. You're incapable of differentiating these two things. Floyd never looking like losing doesn't mean there's not a punchers chance. It's a given, in any combat sport, that one stray punch can alter everything.

But this doesn't really stack up, to end the fight sooner Floyd needs to put himself at greater risk, earlier in the fight where the punchers chance is a greater factor. Later in the fight, the power is reduced, Floyd outlasts everyone, that's Floyd's time, so nope. This is further reinforced by yourself, you criticise him for doing exactly this, because it's "safe", it's what you complain about. So even you understand that it's the smarter, safer option for Floyd.

Again, I ask, what is the benefit for Floyd to be more aggressive?

What is the benefit that is greater than the results he has achieved in his career?

What is the benefit for Floyd to be more aggressive?

 

[Morozov]

He fought a guy that had one hand. A guy that barely landed a few punches each round, at best. Playing it safe was a pathetic display.

What would be the benefit for Floyd to not "play it safe" in this instance? please elaborate why it would make any sense for him to be more aggressive in that fight? why would it be a good thing for Floyd?

If you can't explain this, then your suggestion that it is "pathetic" is nothing but dribble.

You can't just spout this crap and not actually have any reason for it.

We all realise it's nothing more than your blind dislike for the man and that you don't actually have any legitimate argument to support the nonsense you're spewing. This was clear to everyone else a long time ago, but it continues to be hilarious to see how long you keep ducking. If you just admitted to everyone what we already know, that you can't have a rational conversation about the man because of you're dislike for him, you'd look much less ridiculous.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

It was a bit of a work to be sure. I'm sure that before this fight was signed off on there was an agreement in place that would protect Conor from suffering a career ending injury. Go up a couple of posts and see the beatings Floyd has dished out. A clearly defenseless Conor getting pummeled until he drops serves no purpose. If you think he was somehow going to recover, then perhaps you have a legit beef. It all ended in a nice little bow. Floyd wins, Conor didn't embarrass himself and there's that little nugget of doubt that it was stopped too early.

I don't have a "problem" with the finish, because it fit exactly what the fight was - an exhibition.

What's baffling me is people saying, "oh wow what a great fight, way better than I thought!" It was an exhibition - so are you saying it was good for an exhibition, or good for a real bout? Because it definitely wasn't the latter, and it was so utterly predictable that I don't really think it was the former either.

 

[LSCII]

What would be the benefit for Floyd to not "play it safe" in this instance? please elaborate why it would make any sense for him to be more aggressive in that fight? why would it be a good thing for Floyd?

If you can't explain this, then your suggestion that it is "pathetic" is nothing but dribble.

You can't just spout this crap and not actually have any reason for it.

We all realise it's nothing more than your blind dislike for the man and that you don't actually have any legitimate argument to support the nonsense you're spewing. This was clear to everyone else a long time ago, but it continues to be hilarious to see how long you keep ducking. If you just admitted to everyone what we already know, that you can't have a rational conversation about the man because of you're dislike for him, you'd look much less ridiculous.

He fought a guy that had one hand. Taking a risk in that scenario isn't really a risk when he's fighting a guy that can't really defend himself or counter anything Floyd threw at him. The incredibly limited punching output by a guy that was a volume puncher his entire career tells the story here. Manny had nothing in that fight, yet rather than end the misery early and definitively, it went to the scorecards.

If you can't get that, I don't know what to tell you. He puts on horrible displays most of the time because he hugs, jabs, and runs. Even when guys are clearly over matched or injured.

 

[Morozov]

He fought a guy that had one hand. Taking a risk in that scenario isn't really a risk when he's fighting a guy that can't really defend himself or counter anything Floyd threw at him. The incredibly limited punching output by a guy that was a volume puncher his entire career tells the story here. Manny had nothing in that fight, yet rather than end the misery early and definitively, it went to the scorecards.

If you can't get that, I don't know what to tell you. He puts on horrible displays most of the time because he hugs, jabs, and runs. Even when guys are clearly over matched or injured.

And yet, you can't product a single reason why it would be beneficial for Floyd to be more aggressive in the fight.

Again, I ask, what is the benefit for Floyd to be more aggressive in this situation? if it's so pathetic, there must surely be a good reason for Floyd to do something different? what is the benefit for him?

We all know you won't, because you don't have one. Simple as that. You do not have a good reason why Floyd should be more aggressive in this situation. That's why you don't provide an answer.

You'll respond back with some nonsense about how it's because I don't understand and if I don't understand you aren't going to spell it out for me or some other pathetic attempt to duck the question again.

 

[LSCII]

There's always a punchers chance. As I've said multiple times, you just choose to ignore it because you think you finally have a valid point but you don't. It makes no sense to open that small opportunity even a little more. You're incapable of differentiating these two things. Floyd never looking like losing doesn't mean there's not a punchers chance. It's a given, in any combat sport, that one stray punch can alter everything.

But this doesn't really stack up, to end the fight sooner Floyd needs to put himself at greater risk, earlier in the fight where the punchers chance is a greater factor. Later in the fight, the power is reduced, Floyd outlasts everyone, that's Floyd's time, so nope. This is further reinforced by yourself, you criticise him for doing exactly this, because it's "safe", it's what you complain about. So even you understand that it's the smarter, safer option for Floyd.

Again, I ask, what is the benefit for Floyd to be more aggressive?

What is the benefit that is greater than the results he has achieved in his career?

What is the benefit for Floyd to be more aggressive?

A punchers chance, even though Floyd himself discounted that. Makes sense.

Going back to the Usain Bolt analogy I had used earlier. Let's rewind. If you were a decent high school track star and won the majority of races you ran, and then Bolt shows up, do you really have that much of a chance to win? I mean, yeah, maybe Bolt stumbles and falls out of the gate, but isn't it far more likely that he breezes to an easy win? Even if he did fall, isn't also more than likely that he'd get up and still win because he's so much better than you? That's the equivalent of this fight. Even if McGregor had hit Floyd with his best shot, it wasn't going to be enough to put him down, and even if it had, he'd still be able to get up and easily outbox the guy. But instead of out boxing him, he chose to dodge contact and run away. Against a guy he knew he could easily beat. How do you root for that? How do you cheer that guy? How do you pay for that? I'm honestly asking, because I don't get it.

 

[loudi94]

I don't have a "problem" with the finish, because it fit exactly what the fight was - an exhibition.

What's baffling me is people saying, "oh wow what a great fight, way better than I thought!" It was an exhibition - so are you saying it was good for an exhibition, or good for a real bout? Because it definitely wasn't the latter, and it was so utterly predictable that I don't really think it was the former either.

It was a sideshow for money. I watched for much the same reason I drive slow past an automobile accident.

 

[Morozov]

I don't have a "problem" with the finish, because it fit exactly what the fight was - an exhibition.

What's baffling me is people saying, "oh wow what a great fight, way better than I thought!" It was an exhibition - so are you saying it was good for an exhibition, or good for a real bout? Because it definitely wasn't the latter, and it was so utterly predictable that I don't really think it was the former either.

It is a strange one because you're right, it was not a great fight at all.

I think many of the people who are saying it was a great fight are the people who think Conor was actually hanging in this fight, and that because it went 10 rounds and Conor got a couple of early ones that it was somehow close. There's many who think this fight was actually competitive at some point because Conor had the first couple of rounds.

Reality is it wasn't a good fight at all, it was completely lopsided and who won those opening rounds was meaningless.

 

[Morozov]

A punchers chance, even though Floyd himself discounted that. Makes sense.

Going back to the Usain Bolt analogy I had used earlier. Let's rewind. If you were a decent high school track star and won the majority of races you ran, and then Bolt shows up, do you really have that much of a chance to win? I mean, yeah, maybe Bolt stumbles and falls out of the gate, but isn't it far more likely that he breezes to an easy win? Even if he did fall, isn't also more than likely that he'd get up and still win because he's so much better than you? That's the equivalent of this fight. Even if McGregor had hit Floyd with his best shot, it wasn't going to be enough to put him down, and even if it had, he'd still be able to get up and easily outbox the guy. But instead of out boxing him, he chose to dodge contact and run away. Against a guy he knew he could easily beat. How do you root for that? How do you cheer that guy? How do you pay for that? I'm honestly asking, because I don't get it.

There's always a punchers chance in combat sports if the other guy can throw a strike. Imagine Floyd saying something arrogant, who would ever think it.

You keep saying that Floyd ran away in this fight, it is completely ridiculous and at this point I refuse to believe you actually watched the fight because how you could watch it and think he was running is beyond me. You're incapable of having a rational conversation about Mayweather.

And your analogy is rubbish. The sports aren't comparable at all. You can't land one lucky strike in a sprint and win, you can land one lucky strike in a fight and win.

Again, what is the benefit for Floyd to be more aggressive than he was? what does Floyd have to gain? don't keep asking me questions when you haven't been able to answer this simple one for months.

 

[zombie kopitar]

There was no reason for May to come forward in the Pacquiao fight. Manny was pretty clearly hurt and couldn't work his way inside with his jab at all. Staying on the outside and feeding straight rights all night was the proper tactic to win the fight.

Okay I'm not arguing that he 'had' to fight more aggressively. But why shouldn't he finish these fights more decisively if he can do it with little risk?

The dude didn't become a household name because of the way he fought like Tyson or Ali. He was smart at marketing, and built off the perception of always winning. He would make these huge money fights, and then play it safe and leave many with a bad taste in their mouth. Casual fans would hear the hype and pay for a fight and not understand it and then be disappointed.

There were probably many times where he had to fight like this, and I respect it. But if he wants to call himself GOAT there were times he could have had much flashier finishes and raised his clout even more, but he didn't.


And this really isn't in relation to the Conor fight, because he was smart to let it go longer, he brought a show, and that's been the biggest criticism through his whole career.

 

[LSCII]

It is a strange one because you're right, it was not a great fight at all.

I think many of the people who are saying it was a great fight are the people who think Conor was actually hanging in this fight, and that because it went 10 rounds and Conor got a couple of early ones that it was somehow close. There's many who think this fight was actually competitive at some point because Conor had the first couple of rounds.

Reality is it wasn't a good fight at all, it was completely lopsided and who won those opening rounds was meaningless.

Ugh. Just ugh. I mean, I thought McG had a "punchers chance".

**** dude, you talk out of so many sides of your mouth it's not even funny. Either he had no chance or he did. Not this halfway BS you keep spouting depending on whom you're responding to.

 

[Kitten Mittons]

Conor did surprise me with his slips, uppercut counters, quick jabs and stance switches (and complete lack of power). I think it even surprised Floyd a little bit. But that was a sparring session for him; there was a gigantic difference in skill there. I wonder if Conor will ever be able to see that.

 

[LSCII]

Okay I'm not arguing that he 'had' to fight more aggressively. But why shouldn't he finish these fights more decisively if he can do it with little risk?

The dude didn't become a household name because of the way he fought like Tyson or Ali. He was smart at marketing, and built off the perception of always winning. He would make these huge money fights, and then play it safe and leave many with a bad taste in their mouth. Casual fans would hear the hype and pay for a fight and not understand it and then be disappointed.

There were probably many times where he had to fight like this, and I respect it. But if he wants to call himself GOAT there were times he could have had much flashier finishes and raised his clout even more, but he didn't.


And this really isn't in relation to the Conor fight, because he was smart to let it go longer, he brought a show, and that's been the biggest criticism through his whole career.

Hey! It took a lot of pages, but finally we're at the real reason it went longer. This is exactly right.

 

[Morozov]

Ugh. Just ugh. I mean, I thought McG had a "punchers chance".

**** dude, you talk out of so many sides of your mouth it's not even funny. Either he had no chance or he did. Not this halfway BS you keep spouting depending on whom you're responding to.

It's hilarious how you don't understand the difference between having a punchers chance and Floyd completely controlling the fight.

The punchers chance is still there. Perhaps you don't know what a punchers chance actually means.

The fact you post this arrogant, condescending message while only making yourself look further stupid because you can't comprehend the point is hilarious.

Perhaps you can tell us more about how Floyd should have chosen a different career path

I will admit that constantly embarrassing you is growing boring even for me at this point though.

 

[LSCII]

Conor did surprise me with his slips, uppercut counters, quick jabs and stance switches (and complete lack of power). I think it even surprised Floyd a little bit. But that was a sparring session for him; there was a gigantic difference in skill there. I wonder if Conor will ever be able to see that.

Underneath it all, I'm sure he fully realizes it and accepts it. He'd never admit it in public, but that's all part of the bravado and persona he puts on to sell fights.