From the pages of the ring magazine: Boxing's great enigma; Floyd - where did it go wrong?

This will be an attempt to discuss a recent article on Floyd Mayweather from the Ring magazine. Please do not try to make this the usual claptrap arguments, nor drag this onto any of the usual issues. Nor is this about a certain boxer from the Philippines - this is JUST about Floyd's career and where it went right - and where it went wrong.

Off topic posts and WUMery will therefore be removed. I believe that the board is capable of discussing the issues around the best/second best boxer in the world today, without wummery or infighting. Prove me right.

The ring magazine in their recent online issue discussed Floyd's career - 10 points it "went wrong", 5 points where it "went right".

First the bad:
10. He was given too much too soon. Came out of the Olympics as a bronze medallist and was hot property, but still wanted more - remember "slave contract?"
9. The Mayweather family. I don't think its unfair to question their influences over baby-Floyd as role models. Would he have done better without them?
8. Brittle hands. Has made some of his fights stinkers - yes he fights like a genius; but he would merely potshot and occasionally slap for 12 rounds.
7. Defensively minded. He found something he does very very well. So he started doing nothing else. And however impressive it is, it looks rubbish.
6. Perfectionism. Foreman once said "Boxing is like jazz. The better it is, the harder it is to appreciate". Or something like that. Mayweather epitomises this.
5. Played it safe on the biggest night of his life. ODLH SD 12. Enough said. Could have done SO much more for the appeal of the sport with a TKO.
4. Control freak. For example - Drug testing on Manny after never asking for it for one of his previous 39 fights. It might have happened by now otherwise...
3. He Retired. Retirement made Manny the "man". Good work, Floyd.
2. He's immature. For example the racist and homophobic ustream rants. Manny Steward declared it - Floyd is a "big kid".
1. Personal life overshadows boxing. Supporters say it doesn't matter - but when is ex is on a trolley because of him - it doesn't do much for the sport's image

Then the good:
5. He's caught the "reality TV" audience. His 24/7s are a damn site more interesting than anyone else's.
4. He captured the African-American audience. He gives a large market a continued interest in the sport.
3. Maybe boxing fans aren't that fickle. In spite of a "dull style" - he's still manages to get millions to tune in to watch his cold boxing clinics.
2. He's undefeated. OK - so was Ottke, but he didn't beat the class Floyd beat - and his 41-0 means a lot to him and his fans
1. He dominates. He's economical and he doesn't make mistakes. He owns the ring when he's in it like few others in the sport today.

Before people say about how his image helps his "popularity" - bear in mind that he is currently the 360th most popular celeb on twitter. Charlie Sheen gained more followers in a couple of hours than Floyd has period.

He is popular - but not as popular as he could have been; and when he retires, I think its fair to say that his career won't have hit the heights it could have done.

Where's next for Floyd? The Ring are trashing him; sports illustrated aren't his biggest fans. He hasn't fought in a year and he's got legal issues. Will the Floyd era end with a whimper?

Full article: http://ringtv.craveonline.com/blog/166865-from-the-pages-of-the-ring-magazine-

What a superb article.

In the cold light of day the weighing up of the pros and cons can only leave us disappointed, overall. Floyd is, without question, an awesome talent but it might be a bit late in the day to snatch his career out of the fire and secure his place among the elite which his talent surely merits.

Great fighter, and equally great pity.

8, 7 and 5 are absolute rubbish

Granted his fights with De La Hoya and Baldomir were less than exciting but the way he fought against Gatti, Chavez, Hernandez, Judah, Mosley, Corrales among others saw him attack with real intent

The Mighty Atom wrote:8, 7 and 5 are absolute rubbish

Granted his fights with De La Hoya and Baldomir were less than exciting but the way he fought against Gatti, Chavez, Hernandez, Judah, Mosley, Corrales among others saw him attack with real intent

To play Devils advocate:

8 - Floyd's brittle hands are pretty well known about. He has had issues for ears - look at the pillows he wears on his hands. Furthermore - he has to limit the number of punches he throws a day because of risk of damage.
7 - Early on - esp against Corrales - he attacked with intent and venom. However - in more recent times; Mosley aside - he hasn't been one for attacking with any particular venom. Judah was a good win - but I'd hardly call that attacking with venom.
5 - DLH was a stinker. You can't say that the fight was on the one hand "less than exciting" and on the other claim that he fully seized the chance to push boxing back into the public eye

8- He doesn't slap as suggested, two of his fights have been stinkers and throwing over 100 punches a round doesn't always provide excitement, as his PPV figures show skill is the most important thing

7- Aside from De La Hoya and Baldomir what other fights stand out as being particularly safety first?

5- Where did I say the fight with Oscar was anything but dull?

You said 5 was absolute rubbish. 5 is the one that criticises Floyd for playing it safe on the night of his life.

Hatton was a bit safety first mate. Great TKO at the end, but mostly countering for the first few rounds. It was quite dull to watch the second day.

Rios was a bit dull. Pep was OK. Vargas was pretty dull. Sosa equally wasn't the most action packed affair.

I read this in Ring mag ages ago - does your newsagent exist in some sort of time warp oxring?!!

As for Floyd and the article, I thinks it's a complex issue. He's an exceptionally talented fighter, but his style doesn't endear him to fans as much as less talented, more gung-ho guys, so he has had to use his personality to get people interested in his fights and basically created a situation where he is disliked but commercially successful. He'll tell you it doesn't matter to him as long as he's getting paid millions but I believe he's a touch more sensitive than that and would prefer to be loved by the public - which is probably somethingvthat irks him about pacquiao.

In terms of where it went wrong. Well the Ring seem to have a downer on Fliyd and look for every angle to put him down, was only a couple of months ago we saw a "ten fighters who'd kick floyds ass" article. Would they write the same about manny? No, because the mag is like the pacquiao fanzine these days. I don't think it has gone wrong for floyd, when you consider that he's undefeated, a 5 weight champ and former p4p no1 with millions in the bank to me his career has been a success.

Having said that there are areas where it could have been better and I tend to agree with a couple of the Rings points, a significant one being 'retirement'. In '07 after he beat hatton he was Ring fighter of the year and to me was at his absolute peak as a boxer. There were a couple of fights to be made in '08 that I'm certain he would have won that would have really cemented his standing, rather than leaving doubts, namely Cotto and margarito. Cotto was also undefeated then and it wouldve been a huge fight at 147. Mayweather would have owned him. Now Cotto has never called mayweather out before the usual ducking accusations start flying, but I feel he made a mistake in taking a break from boxing while he was at his peak. The landscape changed while he was off, Cotto and margarito both took hammerings and pacquiao arrived at welter as the p4p no1 in floyds place. The rest we know.

I think the ring are milking things a bit to get ten points out, the fact he's immature, his personal life overshadows his boxing and he has a poor influence of a family can all be put under the same umbrella, likewise the perfectionism and defensive minded issues.

If he never fought again he'd finish as a millionaire and a top 30 atg, I'd hardly define that as it "all going wrong". Perhaps you could say he wasn't as popular as he couldve been, wasn't a crowd pleaser and obviously there'd be a huge gap on his CV ie pacquiao, but he's still had a better career than most.

I don't remember De La Hoya getting as much criticism for playing it safe on the biggest night of his profressional career

On the flipside which fighter has ever been in an exciting fight every time?

With some very notable exceptions the majority of wars are down to sub par ability on either fighters behalf, granted to a casual viewer Mayweather isn't breathtaking to watch but thats clearly not what everyone is after.

oxring wrote:5. Played it safe on the biggest night of his life. ODLH SD 12. Enough said.

About what? How blind one of the judges was?

It's his ability that makes his fights less exciting. The way he dictates pace and controls his opponents. Personally I love watching him fight, as I enjoy watching technical boxing skill such as defensive prowess and accurate counter punching being executed. Not every fighter can be a Mickey Ward, nor would we want them to be. There has to be a yin for every yang. If people only want to watch boxing to see two guys slugging it out like neanderthals fighting over dead mammoth then I think that's a shame as there's so much more to the sport than that. Mayweather may not be in wars but that's mostly a testament to his boxing skill and it doesn't seem to do his ppv figures any harm. In case anyone forgets the art of boxing is to hit without getting hit, not to wind up looking like an out of date cabbage and be slurring your words.

Scottrf wrote:

oxring wrote:5. Played it safe on the biggest night of his life. ODLH SD 12. Enough said.

About what? How blind one of the judges was?

This is also true. He didn't play it safe so much as fight his usual fight. Did anyone really expect mayweather, a guy with bad hands (as the ring admits) and not a huge puncher at 147, with an in-ring weight of 149lb to knock out an iron chinned Oscar at his natural weight? He did his usual, ie defend and land the clean punches. The fact it went to an sd was a joke, mayweather clearly won at least 8 of the 12 rounds, Oscar just huffed and puffed all night but did virtually no clean work.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:I read this in Ring mag ages ago - does your newsagent exist in some sort of time warp oxring?!!

I'll come clean - I don't pay for their journalism - I found it the other day on the website and thought it could be the basis for a decent discussion.

The only argument in DLH/Floyd was that you have to "take" the champions belt. Which is a bit tenuous IMO.

Anyway - the ODLH fight was a bit of a disappointment - and some of that criticism should go to Oscar. However - Oscar tried to make the fight - and for 4 rounds it was close. Which is a bit of a theme in Floyd fights - remember Judah?

The ring DO criticise Floyd; maybe a bit much - however, maybe fairly. He wants to be the number 1 fighter in the sport. He thinks he is the number 1 fighter in the sport. Fair enough. In which case - he becomes a representative of the sport.

In which case; the sport is represented by a man who fights on average once a year and who hasn't done his utmost to make the most important fight in >10 years to happen. (Whatever anyone says - Floyd could have done more to make Manny-Floyd happen).

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:I read this in Ring mag ages ago - does your newsagent exist in some sort of time warp oxring?!!

As for Floyd and the article, I thinks it's a complex issue. He's an exceptionally talented fighter, but his style doesn't endear him to fans as much as less talented, more gung-ho guys, so he has had to use his personality to get people interested in his fights and basically created a situation where he is disliked but commercially successful. He'll tell you it doesn't matter to him as long as he's getting paid millions but I believe he's a touch more sensitive than that and would prefer to be loved by the public - which is probably somethingvthat irks him about pacquiao.

In terms of where it went wrong. Well the Ring seem to have a downer on Fliyd and look for every angle to put him down, was only a couple of months ago we saw a "ten fighters who'd kick floyds ass" article. Would they write the same about manny? No, because the mag is like the pacquiao fanzine these days. I don't think it has gone wrong for floyd, when you consider that he's undefeated, a 5 weight champ and former p4p no1 with millions in the bank to me his career has been a success.

Having said that there are areas where it could have been better and I tend to agree with a couple of the Rings points, a significant one being 'retirement'. In '07 after he beat hatton he was Ring fighter of the year and to me was at his absolute peak as a boxer. There were a couple of fights to be made in '08 that I'm certain he would have won that would have really cemented his standing, rather than leaving doubts, namely Cotto and margarito. Cotto was also undefeated then and it wouldve been a huge fight at 147. Mayweather would have owned him. Now Cotto has never called mayweather out before the usual ducking accusations start flying, but I feel he made a mistake in taking a break from boxing while he was at his peak. The landscape changed while he was off, Cotto and margarito both took hammerings and pacquiao arrived at welter as the p4p no1 in floyds place. The rest we know.

I think the ring are milking things a bit to get ten points out, the fact he's immature, his personal life overshadows his boxing and he has a poor influence of a family can all be put under the same umbrella, likewise the perfectionism and defensive minded issues.

If he never fought again he'd finish as a millionaire and a top 30 atg, I'd hardly define that as it "all going wrong". Perhaps you could say he wasn't as popular as he couldve been, wasn't a crowd pleaser and obviously there'd be a huge gap on his CV ie pacquiao, but he's still had a better career than most.

Couldn't agree more!

Even his most fierce critics would agree that he is one insanely talented guy, for me he just doesn't entertain enough in the ring and being a jackass just adds fuel to the fire. Had he cleaned up around 08 like you say, there would be very little room to have a pop.

I'd hardly say it's gone wrong (professionally - not personally), but it could have gone better...

As the name suggests I'm a big Mayweather fan as a boxer not as much as a person over the last couple of years
Great talent but great shame his career has went this way since Hatton. Inactivity and trouble with the law isn't great for boxing.
Such a talent like Floyd with his family background was always going to rise to the top early. Holding him back may have been detrimental to his career. Don't see how his family especially his uncle Roger have been bad for him he has trained him since he turned pro. What could another trainer have taught him?
His hands have always been a problem which isn't his fault but have maybe hindered the way he wants to fight at times. Think on occasion he would like to go looking for a KO but can't.
OK Maybe the general public don't like his style but if a hardcore boxing fan was to tell me they don't enjoy watching him fight I would be stunned. Whittaker and Pep were defencive minded fighters as well and aren't lauded by the public but proper boxing fans rate these guys very highly and Floyd is in their class.
Their is nothing wrong with having high standards and in the ring Floyd clearly has.
As for the ODLH fight the SD was a joke Floyd clearly won around 8 or the rounds.
Don't know where the Ring got the idea that he has never asked for this style of drug testing before. He has done on many occasions including his last fight with Mosley.
Retiring was a bad idea he was never going to be able and sit and watch Pac being paraded as P4P#1 while he was still capable of beating most if not all fighters out their.
The rant about Pac was shocking and done nothing for Floyds reputation but should only be used as a slight on him as a person not a boxer.
The legal troubles aren't great but he hasn't been found guilty of anything so would hold judgement on slating him on that one.

As for the Positives.
He is excellent at selling a fight to the general public. He has attitude,charisma and devilment in abundance. Nothing wrong with this if you can back it up with performances which he has.
Nothing wrong with African Americans supporting an African American although they have dominated boxing for years. A sport which a nation or race excels at will always draw a big following from their ethnic or national background.
Most proper boxing fans will always enjoy watching Floyd he is so naturally gifted at times it's a joy to watch. He can make a top fighter look a level or two below what he actually is. Not many can do that. Defencive masters are a joy to watch in general because it looks so natural in most cases.
His 0 along with cash are all he cares about involving boxing and why shouldn't he? If when he retires he is satisfied with what he has achieved and if that was tomorrow I don't see why he wouldn't be then that should be enough.
He is an enigma the greatest of his generation in the ring but a bit of a knob outside it. He will always split opinion. His personal life should not be allowed to overshaddow what he has shown us in the ring.

Cheers for the detailed reply prettyboy.

I think that the ring are referring to his uncle and father as role models. They have taught him brilliantly, but their own past history with the law. Remember roger and Judah?

Re drug testing - Floyd has wanted wada testing since Manny hit the scene. Before that, eg hatton - he didn't care. Looks suspicious.

Ox it's my expert subject. They may not be great role models away from the ring but he is a grown man and needs to take responsibilty for his own misdemeanors. They were always going to have an influence on Floyd he grew up looking up to these men regardless of their faults. I do remember Roger and Judah but Judah wasn't innocent he is an explosive personality remember he grabbed the ref by the throat when he got stopped by Tszyu.
The drug testing is one I'm not sure about I've read that he has been demanding this of opponents for a number years. I also think drug testing in boxing should be more stringent and felt Manny brought himself under scrutinity by refusing it. His excuse was poor.
The ring isn't the greatest source for facts and impartiallity when it comes to Floyd. It's owned by Golden Boy and ODLH hates Mayweather.

prettyboykev wrote:Ox it's my expert subject.......The drug testing is one I'm not sure about I've read that he has been demanding this of opponents for a number years. I also think drug testing in boxing should be more stringent and felt Manny brought himself under scrutinity by refusing it. His excuse was poor.
The ring isn't the greatest source for facts and impartiallity when it comes to Floyd. It's owned by Golden Boy and ODLH hates Mayweather.

~ Dear me sir, perhaps you would be better suited becoming an expert on butterflies, or perhaps Albino Tibetan Yaks.

Well, fair props for being honest about not being sure about drug testing, but rest assured, Mr. Moneybags couldn't have cared less about drug testing in boxing until the agreement to fight Mr. Pacquiao was hammered out at great effort and expense by the promoters, GB and Arum. Mr. Pacquiao NEVER refused drug testing sir, he compromised favorably to meet 90% of the drug testing roadblock that Mr. Moneybags threw out AFTER negotiations were completed.

Dear me, sir, it doesn't take an expert to know that Mr. Moneybags has yet to take and pass the test he demanded of Mr. Pacquiao especially in light that the drug testing and all other terms were agreed to for their 2nd scheduled fight that he passed on.

Surely you know it has been for several years now that Mr. Moneybags has fought EXCLUSIVELY for GB, whereas Mr. Pacquiao was fighting GB stars in huge fights during this time frame until bringing his slander lawsuit against Mr. Moneybags and Oscar.

I've no doubt you could be an expert on Albino Tibetan Yaks without contradiction, so good luck on your future pursuits in the beautiful Himalayas.

Precedent Albertus Lion V
-----------
Think you need to stop sniffing that Bostik old china. Playing the wise but eccentric character is one thing, but you're in danger of crossing over into irritating weirdo territory now.

Like I've said I'm not 100% sure about the drug testing but have read that it has been demanded of most fighters he has fought since he became a world champion but wasn't really a problem. He did pass the testing prior to the Mosley fight so you clearly aren't an expert either.
Pac refused the testing first time round don't know what you're problem with that is. Pac even gave a reason for it.
Mayweather fights under Mayweather promotions in partnership with Golden Boy but it's purely buisness. In the build up to the Mosley fight Mayweather stated he didn't like Oscar and Oscar didn't like him. He also said Oscar knows how to make money so it makes sense this was when he was standing next to the Golden Boy himself. Who was nodding his head in agreement. Like I said purely buisness.
Like I said expert subject

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:Precedent Albertus Lion V
-----------
Think you need to stop sniffing that Bostik old china. Playing the wise but eccentric character is one thing, but you're in danger of crossing over into irritating weirdo territory now.

In danger he crossed that a while ago.

I personally thought de la Hoya won their may 2007 fight by at least 2 rounds, he was the fighter who went forward more throughout the fight, landed the bigger shots and troubled Mayweather with his speed throughout. With regards to where it went wrong, i think the guy is ultra-selfish and a control freak who will rub people up the wrong way, im also not a fan of his easy tactics ie fighting Marquez when he could of boxed Cotto, Manny, Bradley, Martinez, not a fan at all of that.

Steven_89 wrote:I personally thought de la Hoya won their may 2007 fight by at least 2 rounds,

Did you listen to Stevie Wonders radio commentary for that fight?

prettyboykev wrote:

Steven_89 wrote:I personally thought de la Hoya won their may 2007 fight by at least 2 rounds,

Did you listen to Stevie Wonders radio commentary for that fight?

You may not know of Steven_89 he's another interesting character from a while back, can't see how anyone could have scored that fighter to Oscar, it was at best a 116-112 loss and that's being generous saying he won 4 rounds

Atom I don't remember him I was new to the old 606 shortly before coming here 2 months ago.
I think at the time I had it to Floyd by 6 or 7 rounds.

I had Oscar winning the first 8 but then the vodka caught up with me and I passed out...

Think something similar mighty have happened to the judge who scored it for Oscar. Someone woke him up and he took a guess. Think he might have went to the Terry O'Connor school for scoring fights wrong.

prettyboykev wrote:Like I've said I'm not 100% sure about the drug testing but have read that it has been demanded of most fighters he has fought since he became a world champion but wasn't really a problem. He did pass the testing prior to the Mosley fight so you clearly aren't an expert either.
Pac refused the testing first time round don't know what you're problem with that is. Pac even gave a reason for it.
Mayweather fights under Mayweather promotions in partnership with Golden Boy but it's purely buisness. In the build up to the Mosley fight Mayweather stated he didn't like Oscar and Oscar didn't like him. He also said Oscar knows how to make money so it makes sense this was when he was standing next to the Golden Boy himself. Who was nodding his head in agreement. Like I said purely buisness.
Like I said expert subject

Mr. Moneybags has yet to take or ever demand the testing that he required of Mr. Manny is common knowledge equivalent to Brits knowing that Prince William has married his dear Kate. One would be hard pressed to find a way to explain the facts of life to the few poor dears not aware of the obvious historical historical record.

Indubitably with his tax liens and criminal charges against him, Mr. Moneybags has lost the plot, probably too many punches or blinded by all his bling, but there is hope for you sir, in education of thine self. Not all that glitters.........later.........

If you give me a link or show me an article that proves he has never asked for them before the first sit down with Manny then I would read them. Go on educate me about my favourite fighter. You clearly know something that no one else does.
Lost the plot maybe but he hasn't been found guilty of his upcoming trials so hold you're fire. For someone apparently so intelligent you would think you would know the first and main rule of the criminal justice system. Innocent until proven guilty.
Like I said educate me then please.

Perfessor Albertus Lion V wrote:Mr. Moneybags has yet to take or ever demand the testing that he required of Mr. Manny

http://www.usada.org/default.asp?uid=2730 says you are wrong.

However, I'm pretty sure he didn't before negotiations with Pacquiao first started.

Scott I've said this to you before. I've read somewhere he has been demanding this of fighters since he became a world champion. It wasn't really a big deal until the Manny discussions.
Although I wouldn't state it as fact because like I said I've read it somewhere a while ago and can't find the link.
I don't see a problem with the drug testing the testing in boxing should be stricter anyway.

I know you have, and I disagree now as I did then. Hence why it was such a big deal when he asked it of Pacquiao and when it happened with Mosley.

It happened with Mosley for good reason he has a questionable history with BALCO.
It was a big deal with Pac because Pac made it a big deal by knocking back the biggest fight in boxing and £30m+ on the basis of drug testing.

That level of drug testing just doesn't happen in boxing. If it happened in previous Mayweather fights it would be very easy to find. Mayweather blood testing search results 1997-2008 http://tinyurl.com/6km7qbe - nothing. http://tinyurl.com/65bufjk 2009-2011, well we know that part.

It doesn't normally but it should and I think he should be applauded for trying to improve the standard of testing in the sport.
I've said I'm not sure about it but don't see the problem with him asking Pac maybe he suspects something. Don't think he is wrong to ask for it.

I know, Mayweather is a saint, as I commented upon in my slightly sarcastic article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A69235563

I love that article. Despite the sarcasm, it may be for his own gain but would be good for the sport in general. Like you said in the article most fighters don't have the power to make changes in the sport but guys like him do and should. Regardless of their motive.

You may not know of Steven_89 he's another interesting character from a while back, can't see how anyone could have scored that fighter to Oscar, it was at best a 116-112 loss and that's being generous saying he won 4 rounds
........................
de la Hoya landed the bigger punches, he also avoided a rematch at LMW for a reason, Martinez will beat him now that's the only fight for him because we all know he is scared of Manny

What you mean like Mayweather landing twice as much as De La Hoya, only a true hater could possibly have him losing that fight. Try not to pass off your opinion as fact.

What you mean like Mayweather landing twice as much as De La Hoya, only a true hater could possibly have him losing that fight. Try not to pass off your opinion as fact.
...........................
A true hater? erm no an [u]OPINION. You know, i dont agree with you, that dont make me an hater, im not a fan of Mayweather but i dont hate the guy, am i also an hater in your planet if i think Martinez would beat him?

Well Southpaw I too think Martinez beats anyone below Middleweight but that's mainly due to him being very accomplished at 160lbs a step too far for any of the welterweight or light middleweights around.

When Mayweather showed the better ring generalship, was better with his offence landing with more regularity, had the far better defence and landed the cleaner shots I find it hard to see how De La Hoya could possibly have won.

Mayweather was caught throughout with big shots
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/6626009.stm
im not the only one who thought de la hoya won
Martinez beats him because he gives him nightmares with his speed and style, he is much stronger, and is in his PRIME

I've actually seen the fight and don't rely on the BBC to tell me what happened, who other than the blind judge had De La Hoya winning because most if not all of the publications i've read had Mayweathert winning.

Think I'll drop in on this one uninvited; I have to say, I'm still amazed that anyone could have De la Hoya winning this fight, or even nicking a draw. For me it just shows how ridiculous this modern idea of rewarding aggression, no matter how ineffective it is, has become these days. De la Hoya's jab and right hand took three or four of the first five rounds, but he totally neglected the jab from the half way stage onwards, after which Mayweather settled in to a rhythm and completely dominated.

De la Hoya huffed and puffed, for sure, but hitting thin air for the last six rounds while being countered with alarming regularity (Mayweather had more of an open target than he'd had for a fair few fights beforehand) can't win you a fight. The better punches came from Mayweather, he wasted far less than De la Hoya and, at times, made Oscar look clumsy and a wee bit amateurish as he chased him around the ring.

As I said, a strange desire or a tendancy to be fooled by ineffective aggression is the only reasons I can give for someone possibly scoring that fight for De la Hoya. Either that, or it could be partially down to the fact that he's popular and Mayweather isn't. The only poor thing about that result was that it was a split decision in Mayweather's favour rather than a unanimous one - he dominated from the middle stages onwards.

@88chris05
......................
what were you saying?

88Chris05 wrote:Think I'll drop in on this one uninvited; I have to say, I'm still amazed that anyone could have De la Hoya winning this fight, or even nicking a draw. For me it just shows how ridiculous this modern idea of rewarding aggression, no matter how ineffective it is, has become these days. De la Hoya's jab and right hand took three or four of the first five rounds, but he totally neglected the jab from the half way stage onwards, after which Mayweather settled in to a rhythm and completely dominated.

De la Hoya huffed and puffed, for sure, but hitting thin air for the last six rounds while being countered with alarming regularity (Mayweather had more of an open target than he'd had for a fair few fights beforehand) can't win you a fight. The better punches came from Mayweather, he wasted far less than De la Hoya and, at times, made Oscar look clumsy and a wee bit amateurish as he chased him around the ring.

As I said, a strange desire or a tendancy to be fooled by ineffective aggression is the only reasons I can give for someone possibly scoring that fight for De la Hoya. Either that, or it could be partially down to the fact that he's popular and Mayweather isn't. The only poor thing about that result was that it was a split decision in Mayweather's favour rather than a unanimous one - he dominated from the middle stages onwards.

Floyd Mayweather Snr called the fight for Oscar, by two round.

This is not the amateurs where we score all blows the same. Floyd only managed to get on top when part-time Oscar tired and he stopped throwing the jab. Oscar was also a one handed fighter by then and could no longer throw the right hand with any snap or power.

Steven89. It's all well and good saying Martinez beats mayweather but he's an accomplished 160lb fighter, mayweather is a small welter who'd moved up from 130lb. If you think Oscar beat mayweather you need to go away, learn a bit about the hit and not get hit philosophy of boxing and rematch the fight.

I see D4 has crawled out from his stone - where you been?

So daddy floyd said something against his son.

How did YOU score it D4?????

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:I see D4 has crawled out from his stone - where you been?

So daddy floyd said something against his son.

How did YOU score it D4?????

I scored it 2-3 round for Floyd, but Oscar even though he was a part-time boxer who couldn't throw the right anymore, was winning the fight at the half way stage, but his lack of conditioning, stopped throwing the jab, let the fight slip away.

Roach did excellent work coming up with that game plan.

D4thincarnation wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Think I'll drop in on this one uninvited; I have to say, I'm still amazed that anyone could have De la Hoya winning this fight, or even nicking a draw. For me it just shows how ridiculous this modern idea of rewarding aggression, no matter how ineffective it is, has become these days. De la Hoya's jab and right hand took three or four of the first five rounds, but he totally neglected the jab from the half way stage onwards, after which Mayweather settled in to a rhythm and completely dominated.

De la Hoya huffed and puffed, for sure, but hitting thin air for the last six rounds while being countered with alarming regularity (Mayweather had more of an open target than he'd had for a fair few fights beforehand) can't win you a fight. The better punches came from Mayweather, he wasted far less than De la Hoya and, at times, made Oscar look clumsy and a wee bit amateurish as he chased him around the ring.

As I said, a strange desire or a tendancy to be fooled by ineffective aggression is the only reasons I can give for someone possibly scoring that fight for De la Hoya. Either that, or it could be partially down to the fact that he's popular and Mayweather isn't. The only poor thing about that result was that it was a split decision in Mayweather's favour rather than a unanimous one - he dominated from the middle stages onwards.

Floyd Mayweather Snr called the fight for Oscar, by two round.

This is not the amateurs where we score all blows the same. Floyd only managed to get on top when part-time Oscar tired and he stopped throwing the jab. Oscar was also a one handed fighter by then and could no longer throw the right hand with any snap or power.

So if Oscar had those faults at his natural weight of 154 in the summer of '07 what was he like in the winter of '08 at a weight he hadn't fought at in ten years (147) against manny????

Guys can we give this a miss and concentrate on the points in question rather than going over old ground, agreed?