• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Mayweather gets owned on an ESPN interview

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

James3shin

Diamond Member
Apr 5, 2004
4,426
0
76
Originally posted by: JDub02
boxing is dying/dead because they have no heavyweight superstars. i can name a bunch of retired heavyweight fighters, but not one current. the vast majority of people are only interested in the heavyweight fights.

mma > boxing because mma is interesting across all weight classes to a broad audience, has better personalities, does a better job of marketing (clothing, reality series, etc)

I don't watch or like boxing because of personalities and/or the marketing of products. I like boxing because it's very technical and flowing.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Silva weighs about 30 lbs more than mayweather and may be even faster. With enough training time and some warm-up matches (2 years or so total?), I think it could be a good fight. I don't really like Mayweather though - undefeated is impressive but he barely eked out some of his victories and likes to claim his hands were broken anytime his performance is underwhelming.
 

Scouzer

Lifer
Jun 3, 2001
10,358
5
0
I don't give a crap about sports, and less even boxing, and this was an awesome interview to watch. That guy whooped mayweather!
 

hydroponik

Senior member
Oct 2, 2006
530
0
0
MMA = bunch of half-naked dudes rolling around on the ground with each other

Boxing = two dudes punching the shit out of each other.

This is why boxing > MMA
 

Baked

Lifer
Dec 28, 2004
36,052
17
81
How many times have I loss?! How many! And how many times have Pacman been knocked the fuck out?! Yeah that's right bitches, I'm the greatest! Mayweather is a funny cat.
 

Tea Bag

Golden Member
Sep 11, 2004
1,575
3
0
Comparing Boxing and MMA is like comparing apples to oranges IMO. Vastly different styles and strategies. I understand the idea behind them both is to ultimately knock the other guy out cold (and the promoters/organizations make tons of money), but there's much much more to it.

In the context of whats more exciting to watch, that's in the eye of the beholder. I'm a fan of both. At the end of the day, boxing will still be boxing - it's not going away and neither is MMA. But man, would it be nice if they could get some of those sanctioning bodies to agree and restructure the belts a bit. That's just ridiculous. I can name every MMA organization's title holders (or at least good fighters) but even watching boxing matches I could only give you a handful of names. That's part of MMA's appeal, it seems less 'high and mighy' than the five Boxing Gods telling us who's the best in the world.

There's NO way a MMA fighter at the elite tier, like Silva would be able to out box a professional boxer, and there's no way an elite boxer would last one round under MMA rules. They'd get twisted into a pretzel. Apples and Oranges.

Back on tangent - I hope this guy comes out of retirement (and he will when they drive the dumptruck of money up to his house) so Paquiao can knock his ass out cold.
 

ric1287

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2005
4,845
0
0
Originally posted by: hydroponik
MMA = bunch of half-naked dudes rolling around on the ground with each other

Boxing = two dudes punching the shit out of each other.

This is why boxing > MMA

I applaud this intelligent post. Flawless logic.
 

slayer202

Lifer
Nov 27, 2005
13,679
119
106
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: CPA
MMA > National Cheerleading Competition > Boxing

Why? So you can watch two guys lay on the floor squeezing each other in different ways in which you can barely figure out if any activity is even taking place?

No, I'd rather watch a sport where guys punch each other once, clinch, have to be sep'ed by the ref, repeat x 100000000000000000000 then finally win on points.

It's also great that boxing has 50 different organizations, because honestly, why do we want to know who the real champion is?

seriously? mma has way more organizations. It really isn't that bad in boxing. It is clear who the best are in each weight class. I rather watch some clinching(which usually isn't bad at all) than some dudes rolling around not doing anything
 

dbk

Lifer
Apr 23, 2004
17,685
10
81
so is mayweather going to fight sugar shane or just go straight after pacquiao after he beats up on marquez
 

Tea Bag

Golden Member
Sep 11, 2004
1,575
3
0
Originally posted by: slayer202
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: CPA
MMA > National Cheerleading Competition > Boxing

Why? So you can watch two guys lay on the floor squeezing each other in different ways in which you can barely figure out if any activity is even taking place?

No, I'd rather watch a sport where guys punch each other once, clinch, have to be sep'ed by the ref, repeat x 100000000000000000000 then finally win on points.

It's also great that boxing has 50 different organizations, because honestly, why do we want to know who the real champion is?

seriously? mma has way more organizations. It really isn't that bad in boxing. It is clear who the best are in each weight class. I rather watch some clinching(which usually isn't bad at all) than some dudes rolling around not doing anything

Nah, it really IS that bad. Sifting over the current wiki list I can't tell who the best is, and it should be that simple. Since sanctioning bodies can have the same titleholders in the same weightclass as beltholders, you really can't tell who's the best but sometimes you get a consensus. Another thing that's BS is the friggin weightclasses. Bantamweight? Strawweight? Super-Bantamweight? Give me a break. What the hell is wrong with 115lb? Seventeen effin weightclasses is ridiculous.

There may be many MMA organizations but face it, except for maybe three fighters EVERYONE is in the UFC. Their belts and their past and present titleholders are the who's who in MMA.

It's a real simple test. Ask someone who watch either of these in some capacity, but not a diehard in either sport to name five CURRENT fighters. I'd bet most people could do it with MMA fighters before they could name boxers - and that's all due to exposure on TV.

Boxing needs to get that level of exposure to that target demographic, but alas it's probably reserved for all the snobs and promoters who don't want to 'stoop to the level' that MMA has in terms of marketing and televison.

And anyone who says anything about sweaty guys rolling around all the time hasn't seen a whole fight card. SOMEONE get's KTFO on every card.
 

Mojoed

Diamond Member
Jul 20, 2004
4,473
1
81
Now THAT, was a great interview! I normally don't have the attention span for videos more than a few minutes, but this one at 13 minutes kicked butt.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Originally posted by: Tea Bag
Originally posted by: slayer202
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: CPA
MMA > National Cheerleading Competition > Boxing

Why? So you can watch two guys lay on the floor squeezing each other in different ways in which you can barely figure out if any activity is even taking place?

No, I'd rather watch a sport where guys punch each other once, clinch, have to be sep'ed by the ref, repeat x 100000000000000000000 then finally win on points.

It's also great that boxing has 50 different organizations, because honestly, why do we want to know who the real champion is?

seriously? mma has way more organizations. It really isn't that bad in boxing. It is clear who the best are in each weight class. I rather watch some clinching(which usually isn't bad at all) than some dudes rolling around not doing anything

Nah, it really IS that bad. Sifting over the current wiki list I can't tell who the best is, and it should be that simple. Since sanctioning bodies can have the same titleholders in the same weightclass as beltholders, you really can't tell who's the best but sometimes you get a consensus. Another thing that's BS is the friggin weightclasses. Bantamweight? Strawweight? Super-Bantamweight? Give me a break. What the hell is wrong with 115lb? Seventeen effin weightclasses is ridiculous.

There may be many MMA organizations but face it, except for maybe three fighters EVERYONE is in the UFC. Their belts and their past and present titleholders are the who's who in MMA.

It's a real simple test. Ask someone who watch either of these in some capacity, but not a diehard in either sport to name five CURRENT fighters. I'd bet most people could do it with MMA fighters before they could name boxers - and that's all due to exposure on TV.

Boxing needs to get that level of exposure to that target demographic, but alas it's probably reserved for all the snobs and promoters who don't want to 'stoop to the level' that MMA has in terms of marketing and televison.

And anyone who says anything about sweaty guys rolling around all the time hasn't seen a whole fight card. SOMEONE get's KTFO on every card.

Being your SN is Tea Bag I bet that makes you all giddy inside.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Originally posted by: Tea Bag
Nah, it really IS that bad. Sifting over the current wiki list I can't tell who the best is, and it should be that simple. Since sanctioning bodies can have the same titleholders in the same weightclass as beltholders, you really can't tell who's the best but sometimes you get a consensus. Another thing that's BS is the friggin weightclasses. Bantamweight? Strawweight? Super-Bantamweight? Give me a break. What the hell is wrong with 115lb? Seventeen effin weightclasses is ridiculous.

There may be many MMA organizations but face it, except for maybe three fighters EVERYONE is in the UFC. Their belts and their past and present titleholders are the who's who in MMA.

You forgot about WEC. There are a lot of exciting fighters in the WEC weight classes.