Shields Vs Marshall

It's a pretty straightforward analysis.

But, boiled down,

I think that Swords has shown a more professional attitude since this fight became a distinct possibility, whereas Stanshall has blown her cool and undermined her previous character somewhat,

and I think that people are missing this or choosing to overlook it due to entrenched dislike for Swords.

My genuine antipathy toward womens' boxing could only assist me in seeing things how they really are in this situation.

I mean, I do have a stake. I want to see Swords win. Not out of an interest in female boxing, but out of an interest in seeing it go away (specifically, at the very least being forced to stand on its own two feet, segregated from prime time cards until the unlikely event that it consistently generates some kind of organic demand). However, I will feel no particular emotion if Stanshall wins. Onto the next battle in the war. Capitulators and male feminists say it's not going away? Uh, it went away before, it can go away again.


I'm hip to this little game you're playing where you try to catch me out as someone who actually closely follows or secretly likes womens' boxing.

 

Marshall definitely is a bigger puncher of the two, but let's not fool ourselves about their records. Ladies' middleweight is absolutely horrific division. Who cares if it's a stoppage or UD as outside Marshall and Shields there's only bums, talentless overweight bums. The real (and only) challenge for both of them is when they fight each other.

I favour Marshall slightly, but I'm not sure how well beating bums prepare her for this fight. Same for Shields, but at least she's fought Hammer, who is decent.

 

All of the top female boxers pad their record by facing women who hold down full-time jobs. Look at that Irish woman promoted by Hearn. She lost to a cop and robbed her on the cards.

I was told after the fight that the Irish is among the most skilled in women's boxing. I decided there and then that I wasn't gonna waste my time watching this baloney.

 

I want to belong to a society that normalizes women behaving like [url]this[/url], said no man ever.

 

I’m not playing any game,I know some people dont like it and understand that.
It s not everyone’s cup of tea.

 

What’s wrong with posing at a weigh in though?

 

Shields will win, but I don't like her attitude. She is very noisy and talks too much.

 

A psychotherapist would have a field day with this comment. Especially the Freudian typo at the end...

 

Marshall`s long jab will be the key, Claressa has never seen anything like that, too much reach and the combos that follow that jab will just be too much for Clarressa.

 

I wouldn't have expected I'd need to explain, but, okay.

Women aren't biologically hardwired to bust out the 'most muscular' before squaring up to another woman. My issue isn't with the odd tomboy here and there who wants to do what the guys are doing. My issue is with the (utterly undisguised, therefore undeniable) social engineering, the attempt to compel larger and larger numbers of women into an activity where their fine countenances* can be pounded to pulp, their child-bearing bodies beaten on. And it's not just boxing, it's everywhere, this drive to compel women into fields that women are not naturally inclined toward. Ruining women, reprogramming them, taking them from their productive nature and making them malfunctional and unproductive, is the object, not empowering them.

There are reasons that men have historically dominated boxing, and it's not patriarchy per se. It's because they invented it. It comes naturally to men. It does not come naturally to women. And it's this odious organized perversion of that natural order, moreover, that I object to.



*Granted, there are not many fine countenances in womens' boxing, but there inevitably would be, should significant numbers begin to take up the sport with the intent to make it a career.

 

I sent you a personal message dont know if you read.
I dont think they are compelled at all.
Plenty of bad ass chicks wanna fight and enjoy the adrenaline.
I see your point but offcourse I disagree.

 

You don't see the point, because you think I'm referring to Jane Doe Bulldyke who might be boxing on some card next week.


The point is that we are witnessing an obvious, very unsubtle campaign to compel greater numbers of women into taking up boxing with the intent of making it a career (whether said campaign ultimately proves particularly successful or not) and to normalize women busting out the 'most muscular' before squaring up to each other and beating the crap out of each other.

It's utterly perverted and destructive, and I feel sorry for anyone who can't recognize that.

 

Absolutely nothing wrong with that(or more wrong than the men).

 

Yes, there is, and I've already explained why.

I understand where you're coming from, though. You are, after all, the guy who posted this;

Everyone who doesn't automatically defer to a woman's side of a story is a misogynist, #BelieveAllWomen, et cetera. That's a very 'male feminist' point of view, as is the idea that women busting out the 'most muscular' and beating each other down is totally normal (or no more abnormal than men doing the same).

 

I am half trolling in the lounge most of the time besides you took it out of context.
I see you failed to post when one guy was basing his wish Heard lost so he could get vindication being convinced by some tabloids as apparently that is equal to court orders.
How about that message though?it s boxing related.Clear some time and tell me what you think.