Mayweather Rejects 50/50 proposal by pac on May 5th.

Who then will argue the merits of sanctioning bodies with their fair and impartial methods of deciding champions and challengers?

 

Is he the hipster of boxing forums?

 

Nah. I know a few hipsters, they aren't wrong about everything.

 

::

 

why should he?

never having seen someone fight has never stopped you from running your fat mouth

 

Fair. I take it back. Forgive me, mikE.

 

Oh, conceding one point and moving on to another?

The 2nd point should be 'never fought anyone' you have seen.

 

The betting point? I only bet on fights I attend live. I find bouts much less enjoyable when there's money on the line for the most part.

Narvaez was/is an obscure fighter in North America.

 

Narvaez over Donaire is indefensible. Fuck off, mikE.

 

Dude, you never saw him fight so you don't have a clue. It's not like Donaire did much against him and i've seen more than one person who thought narvaez won rounds against Donaire.

Donaire played it safe and didn't push the action because every time he tried to push the action he ate clean shots. So he won easily, but put no hurt on Narvaez. Big deal.

 

And I offered to take Narvaez with better odds than you'd get anywhere else and

not one person took me up on it. So who should fuck off?

 

Of course I had seen him fight. Who says I had never seen him fight?

 

You should.

 

then way to pounce on my offer.

oh yeah, "i only bet on fights I attend live"...hahaha nice bitch response

 

I like to lay down a nice chunk of cash at the casino when I'm at a big fight. :dunno:

I'm not really a gambler. Especially with boxing, where you can get screwed by cuts, bad decisions, fouls fairly easily.

Either way, I'm not the one defending a Narvaez pick over Donaire.

 

This proves what exactly? I've posted with some of these guys for 10 years and I still wouldn't put cash down for a bet over the internet. Doesn't mean I wouldn't be wholly behind my pick for a fight.

This reeks like 'Fly down to Houston' to me.

 

The part in bold is the whole point of boxing so yes, it is a big deal.

 

Yep, Witter was outclassed by Bradley from start to finish, little Timmy dominated that Ingle scrub.

Brook is just another Ingle scrub, style over substance, he would get dominated in the same way.

 

Quit being a moron. It's nothing like 'fly down to Houston.'

It's not like I was looking to wipe anyone (myself included) out. I thought the odds on the fight were off and offered better odds if I got Narvaez. No one took me up on it. I didn't have a problem with Donaire being the favorite, I just thought Narvaez had a real shot to win.

The Brook fight is different. I'm not worried about odds, I'll take Brook over Bradley so long as Brook is still undefeated.

 

You aren't one of the people regularly criticizing the Klitschko's and their styles then, are you?

 

Agreed, if Brook loses a decision next time out, he'll suddenly become a MUCH worse fighter.

That's why Floyd is so good, undefeated yo. Brian Nielson too.

Bradley would school the shit out of that Ingle camp fraud.

 

Undefeated. ::

 

What a fucking stupid response. You think we know how good anyone is who has fought the competition Brook has fought to date? You're just being a douchebag.

So long as he keeps winning, I'm guessing he's better than Bradley. What more can you expect when they don't even have a fight scheduled?

Attack Ingle and his camp all you want. As if I give a fuck.

 

And what exactly makes you think he's better than Bradley?

Bradley has fought much better opposition and dominated them, looking far more impressive than Scrub Brook in the process.

How much are you prepared to bet on Brook?

Kell Brook ::

Undefeated yo!

I'm surprised you're picking him though mikE, he hasn't won many belts has he?

 

I'd go $100. But I'd prefer to make 5 $20 bets, rather than 1 $100 bet.

I like Brook's style and I like his athleticism and I think Bradley's featherfist routine would ensure that he is behind after 6 rounds. Then it will come down to if Brook can fight off the pressure if Bradley is still around.

 

Bradley would win because he's a more talented, more skilled, more experienced fighter.

Kell Brook would be out of his depth against Bradley, I wouldn't even expect him to put up much of a fight.

Bradley might not be a KO puncher, but he has just enough meat on his shots to make most fighters think twice about walking him down, he's accurate and efficient.

Peterson and Alexander were both fairly hesitant against Timmy, because power or not, his offense is better than theirs. It would be the same story with Brook, except Brook would do even worse, because he's a style over substance hype job, like all Ingle fighters.

 

No, just their competition. I have no issues with either style.

 

So is Brook, but yeah I forgot about Timmy being undefeated too. mikE should really see this as a pick em fight, afterall they are both undefeated, who can you pick one to beat then other? ::