|
|
Post by James Hetfield on Aug 30, 2010 10:07:24 GMT -5
 "WAR" Toney, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on Aug 30, 2010 11:12:59 GMT -5
Lol, he got taken down by the ankle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sean - Infested Films on Aug 30, 2010 14:12:55 GMT -5
Ha ha. So who exactly is left that thinks they can take their one awesome skill and kill in MMA with it?
Toney? Down. Kimbo? Might as well be in a coma for how fast his career dropped.
When will these idiots learn?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sean - Infested Films on Aug 30, 2010 14:17:10 GMT -5
^ I know what the point is. Just so they could create a huge buy-rate for the attendance and PPV crowds, which is what I'm sure they accomplished. That still doesn't mean Toney deserved whatever crazy amount of money they gave him. So, do you honestly believe that James Toney deserved the $700,000 for his 3:19 one-sided ass-kicking defeat at the hands of Randy Couture?? Wow...If he got $700,000 for losing, then what did Couture get for winning?? I would've gave the winner ALOT more than the loser, that's for sure. Especially when it was so one-sided. He got paid for appearing. Because without him APPEARING, the buyrate would have been UFC's typical buyrate. I'm sure this sparked at least a 25% jump, with crossover from the boxing crowd that hates MMA. If you fail to see how THAT is worth $700,000 (because they typically make like $50 million per PPV, this one was probably even higher) then you just don't understand supply and demand. James Toney was in demand, whether you agree or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Old School™ on Aug 30, 2010 15:10:20 GMT -5
^ I love how you put that. James Toney WAS in demand. They key-word being "WAS". Not anymore after that disgraceful performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by sean™ on Aug 30, 2010 16:15:49 GMT -5
While I'm not disagreeing with Toney being in "demand", I think there's a difference between being in demand, and people wanting to see you get  ed up by someone that knows what they are doing. |
|
