Rubio is fighting on New Year's Day?!

:-( No it doesn't. His record tells you nothing. It just tells you that he hasn't faced anyone good.

A padded record doesn't mean a bad fighter any more than it means a good fighter. It means a "we don't know a ****ing thing about him because he hasn't fought anyone good" fighter. A padded record means nothing - except for a padded record.

The only indication that he might suck is that he only got a SD over the one guy he fought with a winning record (who still has one, incidentally - barely...he's 4-3 now). That was in his 6th pro fight, though. Plus, at the end of the day he still won. It isn't like he's 7-4 against that level of opposition. He's unbeaten. That just means he's good enough to beat tomato cans. Whether he's any better than "just good enough to beat tomato cans" is impossible to know exactly because he's only faced (and beaten) tomato cans. For all intents and purposes Santana is unproven based on his opposition so far. He has not been proven to be good, and he has not been proven to be bad. He has not been proven to be ANYTHING. You know nothing about him - especially having never seen him with your own eyes.

If someone with a record like that steps up to someone like Alfonso Gomez and gets KTFO - then...then, we can say "that padded record belied a shitty boxer". If he starts to step up and continues to win...then, we can't. UNTIL he steps up (which he's about to, big time) you can't surmise ANYTHING one way or the other from a padded undefeated record, ESPECIALLY not having seen the person in action with your own eyes.

THIS IS COMMON ****ING SENSE.

Boxing forums are such irritating places sometimes.

 

OK, my bad... I just thought a SD against such an opponent was lame...

You could be right, actually. Rubio might just get violated in the ring come January the 1st.:rofl

http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/flyer.do?personId=37169

 

Date of Birth: 09/09/1946
Height: 5'06"
Weight: 140 lbs

OK, if Rubio can't stop THIS guy...

 

Wooo... Things are heating up in Mexico.:scaredas:

EDIT: LINK CENSORED, 7TH RESULT FROM THE TOP OF THE PAGE FOR ''WILSON SANTANA BOXER'' ON GOOGLE.

Fat Dan considers the fight to be ''at least a little interesting''.:bart

http://danboxing.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/light-heavyweight-2010-11-dec-27-jan-2/

Unsurprisingly enough, Rubio is a 50/1 favorite.:deal

http://www.oddschecker.com/boxing/marco-antonio-rubio-v-wilson-santana/winner

 

Santana seems confident...

http://nobsboxing.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1014&start=0

 

It is very likely that Rubio will beat the living **** out of this guy.

 

God damn it, dude! After I just got done explaining how people do this and it's maddeningly stupid?

Based on what? Experience? (because that's literally all any of us have to go on as hard evidence without any visual aid whatsoever to give us firsthand knowledge).

Guess what? Giovanni Andrade has a ton more experience than Guillermo Rigondeaux. Who do you suppose wins? :think

(yes, I understand it's completely different and that Rigondeaux is a highly decorated AM and has already been matched tough in total contrast to this Santana guy - that has dick all to do with my point: that experience isn't the be all end all, and experience is the ONLY edge we know Rubio to have here for a fact).

 

I understood your point, but experience does matter, and Rubio's morning dump probably had more rounds of boxing than this kid.

 

LMAO in your general direction.

 

According to several people on Twitter, Rubio won by TKO. :thumbsup

Different reports have it in the 8th or 9th round.

 

I hate to say I told ya so . . . . .


But . . . . . . .


Well . . .


You know"

 

8th round KO.

http://boxrec.com/date_search.php?yyyy=2011&mm=01&dd=01