An interesting article with a different perspective, worth the time to read.
I’ve watched a lot of Floyd’s interviews before and since the Pacquiao fight, and I have to say I like the bloke.
I’ve not watched much of Pacquiao in the past few years. I made a controversial post earlier in the thread about how Pacquiao might be able to beat Floyd, but clearly that was total nonsense. There can be no doubt, Mayweather is on another level.
I’m disgusted by the way Pacquiao has behaved since the fight, and it’s really lessened him in my eyes. If you’re a fighter, and you show up on fight night, then you leave your excuses behind you. Every one, even at amateur level, fights injured. Mayweather said it best, ‘Winners win, and losers make excuses’. Fucking A-men. If you show up to fight, shut the fuck up and fight, and take your loss like a man if that’s how it goes.
The notion that Floyd ‘ducked’ Manny is a fair one in my view. Although not out of fear. Mayweather is not afraid of anyone who is within 20lbs of him, because he knows, as anyone should know, that they couldn’t fucking touch him. He is that skilled, and that smart, that overwhelming size difference way beyond weightclass is the only way to beat him. Mayweather ‘ducked’ Manny, in my view, to prolong his career, as 5 years ago Manny might have given him more of a beating and knocked a few fights out of Floyd. In doing so, Floyd’s consistently topped the list of sport’s top earners, and will retire crazily rich and with his mental health intact. In a sport that often takes as much as it gives at the top, I am personally damn glad to see someone as brilliant as Mayweather walk away with the whole damn lot. To my mind, for anyone who loves boxing, that is a great thing to see.
As far as Floyd being a shit goes - he’s cultivated the persona of ‘Money’, and it’s made him super rich, without ever having a sponsor, without ever bowing and scraping to the crooks that run boxing, without ever compromising himself as a fighter, or perhaps even as a man. For that, he has my profound respect. Everyone is very quick to pile on the hate, to call him a woman beater, and a thug, but I doubt it’s that clear cut. Just as Mike Tyson was a rapist when a chick showed up to his hotel room half naked, plied him with drugs, started voluntarily sleeping with him, and then allegedly said no half way through, it is important to keep in mind that when you are king of the pile, and have a reputation for being an unrepentant fighter and ‘manly man’, a whole lot of people are going to want to bring you down. It isn’t all that hard for me to imagine that the security guard Floyd assaulted may well have been enjoying the ego trip of making life difficult for a world champ, making himself feel powerful, like the big man over the smaller celebrity fighter. That’s not to excuse anything Floyd (or indeed Iron Mike) ever did, but I think most of us would be surprised at how many people are trying to take a shot at the throne in some small way or another. If you come up rough, money won’t change your first instinct to teach someone some humility the old fashioned way.
Thanks for posting that fight Aussie Davo.
[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
I’ve watched a lot of Floyd’s interviews before and since the Pacquiao fight, and I have to say I like the bloke.
I’ve not watched much of Pacquiao in the past few years. I made a controversial post earlier in the thread about how Pacquiao might be able to beat Floyd, but clearly that was total nonsense. There can be no doubt, Mayweather is on another level.
I’m disgusted by the way Pacquiao has behaved since the fight, and it’s really lessened him in my eyes. If you’re a fighter, and you show up on fight night, then you leave your excuses behind you. Every one, even at amateur level, fights injured. Mayweather said it best, ‘Winners win, and losers make excuses’. Fucking A-men. If you show up to fight, shut the fuck up and fight, and take your loss like a man if that’s how it goes.
The notion that Floyd ‘ducked’ Manny is a fair one in my view. Although not out of fear. Mayweather is not afraid of anyone who is within 20lbs of him, because he knows, as anyone should know, that they couldn’t fucking touch him. He is that skilled, and that smart, that overwhelming size difference way beyond weightclass is the only way to beat him. Mayweather ‘ducked’ Manny, in my view, to prolong his career, as 5 years ago Manny might have given him more of a beating and knocked a few fights out of Floyd. In doing so, Floyd’s consistently topped the list of sport’s top earners, and will retire crazily rich and with his mental health intact. In a sport that often takes as much as it gives at the top, I am personally damn glad to see someone as brilliant as Mayweather walk away with the whole damn lot. To my mind, for anyone who loves boxing, that is a great thing to see.
As far as Floyd being a shit goes - he’s cultivated the persona of ‘Money’, and it’s made him super rich, without ever having a sponsor, without ever bowing and scraping to the crooks that run boxing, without ever compromising himself as a fighter, or perhaps even as a man. For that, he has my profound respect. Everyone is very quick to pile on the hate, to call him a woman beater, and a thug, but I doubt it’s that clear cut. Just as Mike Tyson was a rapist when a chick showed up to his hotel room half naked, plied him with drugs, started voluntarily sleeping with him, and then allegedly said no half way through, it is important to keep in mind that when you are king of the pile, and have a reputation for being an unrepentant fighter and ‘manly man’, a whole lot of people are going to want to bring you down. It isn’t all that hard for me to imagine that the security guard Floyd assaulted may well have been enjoying the ego trip of making life difficult for a world champ, making himself feel powerful, like the big man over the smaller celebrity fighter. That’s not to excuse anything Floyd (or indeed Iron Mike) ever did, but I think most of us would be surprised at how many people are trying to take a shot at the throne in some small way or another. If you come up rough, money won’t change your first instinct to teach someone some humility the old fashioned way.
[/quote]
I agree with your assessment of him as a fighter.
As someone who has started muay thai/boxing in the last couple years, I actually enjoy watching him cos he is just so technically good (and defence is my massive weakness which makes me appreciate it even more).
As a spectacle, I still think it is boring, but I can appreciate just how good he is.
However as a person I couldn’t disagree more wholeheartedly. I understand that some people would be looking at a payday and to take advantage of someone in the position he (and Tyson) are in. But one his charges was slamming a car door against his partners head, while their children were there (correct me if I am wrong).
I am not going to pretend to know the finer details of the cases, but he was convicted and served time. So it’s pretty hard to believe that he was acting in any sort of self defence or was justified in any way.
I can imagine the scenario you painted with the bouncer, and can sympathise to an extent. But if he wants to make 180 million from a fight, expect some dick heads to want to bring you down. I’ll take that trade off. It’s no excuse. And there is almost no excuse for domestic abuse either.
The guy is a piece of shit, but a phenomenal boxer.
[quote]idaho wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]CMdad wrote:
I think the most important factor in this fight that resulted in Floyd’s win wasn’t his footwork, clinching etc. but, his effective use of his substantial reach advantage. When I saw the tale of the tape stats the day before the fight and saw the 5" reach advantage Floyd had, I knew there was no hope for Manny. All night long, he kept him at bay with his jab. Manny could never find his range for longer than a few seconds at a time whereas Floyd found his early and engaged at that distance almost the entire fight. Whenever Manny was able to break through that fence of jabs, Floyd would quickly dance away as he is apt to do.
On another note, if I read another column about how this was boxing’s last gasp and how now with Floyd retiring boxing is dead, I will fucking put on Angel Manfredy’s old El Diablo mask and start dropping fools. What this fight proves more than anything is that people- and I’m talking about your average casual sports fan here, not the hardcore boxing purists- are still drawn to the spectacle that is championship boxing if there is a compelling fight to be made. The fight itself turned out to be another Mayweather dud but, when people were bombarded with the story lines heading into this fight, they tuned in in sure to be record numbers. Just think what this could have done to get a whole new generation of people into boxing if it had been a Ward vs Gatti bloodbath (which is what most casual observers desire). I don’t think boxing will ever regain its primacy among American sports simply because our society has undergone such a pussification.
When boxing reigned supreme in the late 1800s all the way into the mid 1900s, life was fucking harsh. People lived hard and died young with few of the creature comforts that we have today. People at that time were used to suffering as part of regular life and therefore were very accepting of suffering in their forms of entertainment. These days, any sport where there’s a risk of injury, especially brain injury, is vilified and marginalized. Boxing and now hockey and even the sacred goose, football, are beginning to feel the effects of this. However, no matter how “civilized” we become, in our hearts, we will always enjoy seeing someone beat the shit out of someone else. If you come to an intersection and on one corner there is a football game, on another a baseball game, a soccer game on a third and 2 men fighting on the fourth, I’m willing to bet 90% of people will run to watch the 2 men fighting. For this reason, BOXING WILL NEVER DIE.[/quote]
Yup.[/quote]
Some interesting facts on the 'death of Boxing":
“Remarks such as “UFC/MMA is the real winner” come with a heavy dose of ignorance of the sport of boxing, which has had more than its fair share of successful fights and fighters independent of Mayweather and Pacquiao. Just to cite a few examples from the past two years”:
Bermane Stiverne vs. Deontay Wilder - January 17th, 2015. I know what you’re thinking, “Who and who?”. American Olympic bronze medalist Deontay Wilder became the first US heavyweight champion for any major sanctioning body since 2007, and Showtime attracted a peak number of 1.34 million and averaged out to be the 4th highest-rated bout in the channel’s history.
Next week – NEXT WEEK! – HBO will televise a junior middleweight fight between Canelo Alvarez and American heavy-hitter James Kirkland at Minute Maid Park, a 40,000 seat baseball stadium in Houston. StubHub ticket sales suggest that only 2,000+ tickets are left on sale. If the sport is dead then someone needs to alert the attendees, because this would mark Canelo’s 2nd stadium show in as many years. The UFC has held exactly the same number of stadium shows in its 22 year history.
[/quote]
First, I didn’t get to say this the last few times I read your recent posts, but I’m damn sure glad to have you posting more lately (or perhaps, admittedly, it’s me that’s got more time to read the forums? Either way, incredibly glad to see you around more). Glad you’re staying safe and kicking ass, and that Hellfire picture made my day.
Second, I agree with both you and CMdad about boxing not being on its deathbed. Its “death” has been reported many times over by now, and always with great exaggeration. And I cannot friggin WAIT for Alvarez/Kirkland, and GGG to be back in the ring. That guy easily has my man crush.
Third though, I do see this hyped showdown as a win for UFC for the casual fans demographic. The reason being is that it precisely WAS NOT a Ward/Gatti war and it had been built up for years, almost half a decade. That’s a lot of let down for casual fans and my newsfeed has been echoing consistently on it. It was a great technical fight, coming out exactly as my brain–but not my heart–thought it would, and I enjoyed the hell out of watching it. But even I could see, in my crowded bar, a packed house that paid cover to watch it growing increasingly restless and unhappy. CMdad had it right…imagine what it COULD have been to turn on a whole generation to boxing…but it wasn’t. Now most of us had this thought long ago knowing Floyd’s style of fighting and his evasion, but your casual fan didn’t. He saw the KOs Floyd scored early on in his career shown ad nauseam on ESPN and news coverage 24/7 except when the NFL draft was being talked about.
Now you can say that the casual fan is ignorant–fine. American fight audiences largely piss me off because they don’t WATCH the fight, see the art and the technical aspects, they simply want to see the big KO. Of course it’s hard to blame them as I love me some stoppage wins and blood as well. But sure, they piss fight fans like you and me off. And understandably so.
But the bottom line is that these same people are the ones who decide ratings, and because the UFC fights last half as long, and have twice the opportunity for stoppage (submission), and because the mat is usually stained with somebody’s blood at the end of a night of fights, that’s a big draw for the 18-40 crowd. Shorter attention span, more targets below the belt, throws allowed, submissions allowed, elbows…yeah.
And the other big thing for that sport is this: if you get a snoozer of a title fight or main event, you get at least 6 other opportunities in that night to see the big KO. So it is a lot harder for casual fans to come away with a sour taste in their mouth because even if the big fight was crap in their uneducated opinions, it was still only 1 fight out of 8-12 if you were in person or 5-7 if you were watching on TV.
So no boxing isn’t dead. And it won’t die. And it’s awesome. But the reason it has lost its primacy isn’t a result of our culture being pussified, it’s a result of shorter attention spans, and the alternative offering the casual fan more opportunity for the “gladiator fix” with more fights, more blood, and shorter fights. Combine that with a PPV long time stranglehold–which thankfully is loosening quickly–and you can see exactly why boxing lost its combat primacy to many people IMHO.
And btw, thank you very much to both London and Irish here for the kind words on my behalf. It did not go unnoticed.
[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
But again, it all goes back to Roger Mayweather’s saying, which, every time there is a super fight, rings more and more true: “Most people don’t know shit about boxing.”
[/quote]
Precisely. I keep telling people that what we watched was great ‘boxing’ by Mayweather and they just can’t wrap their head around it. It was not a great fight. It was a great demonstration of one style outperforming another style.
If we segway to MMA, and watch fairweather MMA fans go bananas over an undercard barn raiser by two barely pro no-name brands, these armchair pundits are STILL not going to know the difference between a text book armbar and what Rhonda Rousey performed on Cat Zingana. Why? Because they’re not really experts on any fighting art. All they did was pay for a seat or exceedingly expensive PPV and now assume they have the requisite experience to have an “educated” opinion. Which is wrong.
I did not enjoy the fight. It was like watching a guest lecture by Dr Floyd Mayweather.[/quote]
Bingo. donnydarkoirl and you guys are dead on. Irish and donny called it years ago.
And no I did not enjoy the “fight”. I enjoyed the boxing masterclass, but not the “fight” because its Mayweather and as donny said he is a pure boxing virtuoso…but not a fighter. Regardless, he put on a technical show against Pacman which I enjoyed seeing as much as I hated seeing him lose.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Bingo. donnydarkoirl and you guys are dead on. Irish and donny called it years ago.
.[/quote]
Just looked up my post on this, found it. Dated Nov. 7, 2011.
And I quote:
"And I’m telling you guys, styles make fights, and Pacquaio is tailor made for Floyd. Will he give him problems? Yup, especially during the first few rounds.
But around Round 7, Floyd will do what he always has done - make adjustments, start landing the lead 2 and 2-3-2 with frightening regularity, and make Pac not want to come in anymore. Then they will stay at his range, and he will win.
It might be a boring fight, he may get on his bike a couple times during it, and he won’t get credit for it after he wins. But he’s faster than Pac, his reach is longer, and the one weapon that works EVERY TIME against a southpaw - the straight right hand - is the punch he has perfected.
So do I think he’s scared? No. I think he doesn’t want to get bullied by Freddie fucking catchweight Roach into fighting at a catchweight he doesn’t want, with gloves that he doesn’t want, in a ring that’s not the size he wants, and under conditions that make him uncomfortable. Why? Because Pac’s still a special fighter, and he’s going to have to have every advantage lined up, and his head on perfectly straight, to win.
It’s called “Stacking the deck.” It’s called “being smart.”
End rant."
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s a shame the fight turned out to be shit. I was hoping I was wrong.
I’m just a casual fan myself and I can’t help but compare most fights to any of the 3 Gatti v Ward fights. That’s what boxing should be (from an entertainment perspective) to me. [/quote]
Well, few things here. Thefights Ward-Gatti were certainly legendary but you have to remember that both those guys had that sort of style - come forward and get your brains bashed in. And they’re paying for it now (or, in Arturo’s case, were, and it might have contributed to his death).
So I don’t blame guys for not wanting to take it to that level.
By the same token, higher level fights can get really fucking exciting - see Marquez-Diaz, Mattyssee - Provodnikov, Provodnikov - Bradley, Marquez - Pacquiao, Rios - Alvarado, etc. And in comparison I agree, this fight was mundane.
It’s a shame that casual fans are only going to watch fights like that, or Mayweather’s 2007 snoozefest against DLH, instead of the fights I just listed. It’s a great sport, but the big fights have been downers in the last decade.
[/quote]
I completely get your perspective and I agree it’s a shame the really hyped fights have been disappointing from my perspective. It isn’t boxing specific though, it’s the same in the UFC for the most part (I refuse to watch a George St. Pierre fight).
I’ll see if I can get a hold of some of these other fights, I use to watch quite a bit when I was younger, and I’ve actually had a set of gloves on. Like I said, the Mayweather Vs DLH fight pretty much was it for me.
Side note, do yourself a favor and put TheCB on ignore. He’s just a troll. [/quote]
here you go, a proper boxer vs brawler fight to make up for the shit you saw the other day
Great fight… despite that meddlesome ref… and the two foreign judges. Geez.
I saw the fight and thought that Pacquiao won. A Mayweather fan, I found myself saying, "Damn it, Mayweather, throw some punches!" throughout the second half of the fight. (According to Mayweather, his father had given him the same message.) Pacquiao clearly landed more hard punches, while Mayweather barely mounted an offense. I was surprised by the decision and the lopsided scores of the judges. I expected a lot of dissension and controversy over the decision when I turned on ESPN. Instead, I found that every commentator gave the decision to Mayweather, and no one questioned the judges' scoring. The only exception to this reaction was Evander Holyfield, who said that Pacquiao won.
On the Monday morning after the fight, Skip Bayless (on First Take) articulated what I had seen during the fight. He scored the fight 115-113 in favor of Pacquiao, for three main reasons:
1. Pacquiao won at least 7 rounds. He was the aggressor throughout the fight. (For Bayless, if the fighting is relatively even in a particular round, that round should be given to the aggressor.)
2. He hurt Mayweather twice, pummeling him in the fourth and sixth rounds. Mayweather never hurt Pacquiao.
3. He landed more hard punches.
Bayless went on to say that Roy Jones Jr. had misled the public by making it seem as if Mayweather was winning the fight, when in fact Pacquiao was out-pointing him. Jones and the judges allowed their view of the fight to be colored by Mayweather's high reputation. According to Bayless, if the fight had been staged in a setting where the identities of the fighters were unknown, and where no announcers were present, an impartial observer would declare Pacquiao the winner.
There could be something to this. I saw a foreign broadcast of the fight--I think it was in German--and couldn't understand a word spoken by the broadcasters. Three guys watched the fight with me, and all of us saw Pacquiao as ahead throughout the fight, and as the eventual winner.
By way of comparison, I saw Mayweather-Alvarez and his first fight with Maidona, and in both cases Mayweather was the obvious victor--he landed a lot of good shots, in addition to making his opponents miss. In his bout with Pacquiao, Mayweather had the apparent edge in reflexes and foot speed, but Pacquiao seemed to have faster hands. Mayweather appeared to be wary of attacking him because of his hand speed. For all the talk of Mayweather's defensive skills, Pacquiao's defense was also pretty strong; he prevented Mayweather from initiating any significant offense.
At the end of round six, Pacquiao was clearly winning the fight. Mayweather didn't do enough in the second half of the fight to gain the upper hand. I was surprised to learn after the fight that Mayweather landed 67 more punches than Pacquiao. I'd still give the victory to the Filipino, because his punches did more damage, and he appeared to win more rounds.
As a Mayweather fan, I want someone to try to convince me--using as many specifics as possible--that he won the fight, if only by a slim margin. Thanks in advance for any replies.
[quote]stallone wrote:
I saw the fight and thought that Pacquiao won. A Mayweather fan, I found myself saying, “Damn it, Mayweather, throw some punches!” throughout the second half of the fight. (According to Mayweather, his father had given him the same message.) Pacquiao clearly landed more hard punches, while Mayweather barely mounted an offense. I was surprised by the decision and the lopsided scores of the judges. I expected a lot of dissension and controversy over the decision when I turned on ESPN. Instead, I found that every commentator gave the decision to Mayweather, and no one questioned the judges’ scoring. The only exception to this reaction was Evander Holyfield, who said that Pacquiao won.
On the Monday morning after the fight, Skip Bayless (on First Take) articulated what I had seen during the fight. He scored the fight 115-113 in favor of Pacquiao, for three main reasons:
1. Pacquiao won at least 7 rounds. He was the aggressor throughout the fight. (For Bayless, if the fighting in a particular round is relatively even, that round should be given to the aggressor.)
2. He hurt Mayweather twice, pummeling him in the fourth and sixth rounds. Mayweather never hurt Pacquiao.
3. He landed more hard punches.
Bayless went on to say that Roy Jones Jr. had misled the public by making it seem as if Mayweather was winning the fight, when in fact Pacquiao was out-pointing him. Jones and the judges allowed their view of the fight to be colored by Mayweather's high reputation. According to Bayless, if the fight had been staged in a setting where the identities of the fighters were unknown, and where no announcers were present, an impartial observer would declare Pacquiao the winner.
There could be something to this. I saw a foreign broadcast of the fight--I think it was in German--and couldn't understand a word spoken by the broadcasters. I, along with the three guys watching the fight with me, saw Pacquiao as ahead throughout the fight, and as the eventual winner.
By way of comparison, I saw Mayweather-Alvarez and his first fight with Maidona, and in both cases Mayweather was the obvious victor--he landed a lot of good shots, in addition to making his opponents miss. In his bout with Pacquiao, Mayweather had the apparent edge in reflexes and foot speed, but Pacquiao seemed to have faster hands. Mayweather appeared to be wary of attacking him because of his hand speed. For all the talk of Mayweather's defensive skills, Pacquiao's defense was also pretty strong; he prevented Mayweather from initiating any significant offense.
At the end of round six, Pacquiao was clearly winning the fight. Mayweather didn't do enough in the second half of the fight to gain the upper hand. I was surprised to learn after the fight that Mayweather landed 67 more punches than Pacquiao. I'd still give the victory to the Filipino, because his punches did more damage, and he appeared to win more rounds.
As a Mayweather fan, I want someone to try to convince me--using as many specifics as possible--that he won the fight, if only by a slim margin. Thanks in advance for any replies.[/quote]
I’m not a Mayweather fan, but he won that fight handily. Pac won four rounds. It’s not even a question to me.
To be honest, I look at people who say Pacquaio won the same way I look at people who tell me we faked the moon landing or the government was behind 9/11.
Irish - Been reading along for awhile LOL. Do you need a stool or a drink of water. Keep pummeling them man. I will be in the corner over here watching in case you need anything. Maybe their corner will throw in the towel.
What the fuck.
As soon as I read Skip Bayless was cited for his opinion i should have stopped reading.
“Pacquiao clearly landed more hard punches” - no. no he didnt. simple.
“He landed more hard punches” - again, simply untrue and doesnt require your approval.
look watching a fight on tv can be misleading. thats why you arent asked to score it. in 1 round i recall me and friend thinking pac had landed a huge shot which knocked mayweather back 6ft. at the end of the round, the slow motion replay showed it wasnt even close, floyd simply stepped back at that point giving the illusion in real time it had connected.
" I’d still give the victory to the Filipino, because his punches did more damage" - you seem to be satisfied in decision. and ignoring the facts.
here is an extensive list of people who thought pac won:
you
skip bayless
evander holyfield
adriana lima
pacs wife, pacs mom, pacs children
pacquaio
bob arum
freddy roahc
here is a brief list of people who thought mayweather won:
max kellerman, dan rafael, roy jones, sergio martinez, robert garcia,
every single uk boxer, trainer and journalist i follow on social media (amir khan, kell brook, david haye, anthony crolla, boxing monthly, sky sports carl froch, mathew macklin, andy lee, lennox lewis etc).
…whose to say which group is more qualified