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

First topic message reminder :

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-

D4thincarnation wrote:

David Tails wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

David Tails wrote:D4 the title asks where it went wrong. If posters don't feel it went wrong then they are entitled to respond with why. That is the beauty of the OP being made in the form of a question.

Pointing out all of the accolades that he has won is relevant to this discussion. As mentioned by other posters - seems like he had a pretty successful career to me.

Whilst I agree they can agree with the OP original point, if they do make the point they don't agree it went wrong they it is a debate killer, because then you can discuss the reason's why but have to answer the another question on the why it is so.

So make the point but allow the topic to explore the original point.

Why is it a debate killer? Surely if everyone came on and completely agreed that would be a debate killer.

Having posters disagreeing is surely better for debate?

Because the debate then becomes about whether he has had a downturn or not about the reasons behind it, and it is a one string banjo, e.g "Floyd's career has not had a downturn" and thats as far as it goes.

Not saying they should not voiced there views, but rather to try and answer the original questions.

D4 you're full of it. Sugar just gave reasons why his career had not taken a downturn. I posted my original post on this thread to show you why disagreeing doesn't kill the debate but you chose to ignore them for a petty squabble.

D4thincarnation wrote:

David Tails wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

David Tails wrote:D4 the title asks where it went wrong. If posters don't feel it went wrong then they are entitled to respond with why. That is the beauty of the OP being made in the form of a question.

Pointing out all of the accolades that he has won is relevant to this discussion. As mentioned by other posters - seems like he had a pretty successful career to me.

Whilst I agree they can agree with the OP original point, if they do make the point they don't agree it went wrong they it is a debate killer, because then you can discuss the reason's why but have to answer the another question on the why it is so.

So make the point but allow the topic to explore the original point.

Why is it a debate killer? Surely if everyone came on and completely agreed that would be a debate killer.

Having posters disagreeing is surely better for debate?

Because the debate then becomes about whether he has had a downturn or not about the reasons behind it, and it is a one string banjo, e.g "Floyd's career has not had a downturn" and thats as far as it goes.

Not saying they should not voiced there views, but rather to try and answer the original questions.

The original point is still being discussed. The debate isn't being killed. You simply don't like the fact that people aren't blithely crediting Pacquiao in all of this. Boo hoo.

D4thincarnation wrote:

David Tails wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

David Tails wrote:D4 the title asks where it went wrong. If posters don't feel it went wrong then they are entitled to respond with why. That is the beauty of the OP being made in the form of a question.

Pointing out all of the accolades that he has won is relevant to this discussion. As mentioned by other posters - seems like he had a pretty successful career to me.

Whilst I agree they can agree with the OP original point, if they do make the point they don't agree it went wrong they it is a debate killer, because then you can discuss the reason's why but have to answer the another question on the why it is so.

So make the point but allow the topic to explore the original point.

Why is it a debate killer? Surely if everyone came on and completely agreed that would be a debate killer.

Having posters disagreeing is surely better for debate?

Because the debate then becomes about whether he has had a downturn or not about the reasons behind it, and it is a one string banjo, e.g "Floyd's career has not had a downturn" and thats as far as it goes.

Not saying they should not voiced there views, but rather to try and answer the original questions.

Again, D4, the original article asked, also, that we consider the positive aspects of Mayweather's career.

It does not become a "one string banjo" at all.

People are more likely to say I don't think it has went wrong and this is why: -

The OP or people that agree are then free to put forward their rebuttal.

In the same manner that we are debating right now.

You think it will be a debate killer and are explaining your reasons why. I disagree and am airing my views as to why.

People don't have to agree with the OP to air their views. They are entitled to disagree...as long as it is on topic. Stating that they don't think it has went wrong for him is on topic.

Isn't 'one string banjo' the name of a Viz album? Unless I'm mistaken it's another name for the male member.

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

David Tails wrote:D4 the title asks where it went wrong. If posters don't feel it went wrong then they are entitled to respond with why. That is the beauty of the OP being made in the form of a question.

Pointing out all of the accolades that he has won is relevant to this discussion. As mentioned by other posters - seems like he had a pretty successful career to me.

Whilst I agree they can agree with the OP original point, if they do make the point they don't agree it went wrong they it is a debate killer, because then you can discuss the reason's why but have to answer the another question on the why it is so.

So make the point but allow the topic to explore the original point.

We shouldn't forget this, from oxy's article :

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.

This would imply that the central issue is as much to do with the positive aspects as the negative.

Roughy Oxxy was saying Floyd stock rose and then fell. I agree with this. Obviously when Floyd fought Oscar was a big boost in his career, as earlier in his career he struggled to fill small arena's. The publicity the Oscar fight gave him brought him to a career high, but he couldn't ride that wave for long and especially when not fighting. And while Floyd stood still, other boxers surpasses him in achievements in the ring and out. And Floyd pinned his hat on being the greatest fighter of his generation, which he cannot claim anymore.

To being well supported, back at the Oscar fight to being criticised, called a coward, booed, and having his record under heavy scrutiny, has greatly affected his legacy.

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

David Tails wrote:D4 the title asks where it went wrong. If posters don't feel it went wrong then they are entitled to respond with why. That is the beauty of the OP being made in the form of a question.

Pointing out all of the accolades that he has won is relevant to this discussion. As mentioned by other posters - seems like he had a pretty successful career to me.

Whilst I agree they can agree with the OP original point, if they do make the point they don't agree it went wrong they it is a debate killer, because then you can discuss the reason's why but have to answer the another question on the why it is so.

So make the point but allow the topic to explore the original point.

We shouldn't forget this, from oxy's article :

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.

This would imply that the central issue is as much to do with the positive aspects as the negative.

Roughy Oxxy was saying Floyd stock rose and then fell. I agree with this. Obviously when Floyd fought Oscar was a big boost in his career, as earlier in his career he struggled to fill small arena's. The publicity the Oscar fight gave him brought him to a career high, but he couldn't ride that wave for long and especially when not fighting. And while Floyd stood still, other boxers surpasses him in achievements in the ring and out. And Floyd pinned his hat on being the greatest fighter of his generation, which he cannot claim anymore.

To being well supported, back at the Oscar fight to being criticised, called a coward, booed, and having his record under heavy scrutiny, has greatly affected his legacy.

I understand your points, D4, whether or not I agree with them. I was merely pointing out that those who tend to feel more generously inclined toward Floyd are not killing the debate, since provision has been made for discussion of the positives as well.

But D4 that is what happens with reputations. The fact you've used the word "Stock" is self evident. Stock never keeps rising indefinitely. Stock rises and falls.

I don't think there are many sports stars that garner nothing but love and respect for their entire career. As a career continues/wears on it is always more likely that the star will begin to diminish. That is true of any sport...not just boxing.

David Tails wrote:But D4 that is what happens with reputations. The fact you've used the word "Stock" is self evident. Stock never keeps rising indefinitely. Stock rises and falls.

I don't think there are many sports stars that garner nothing but love and respect for their entire career. As a career continues/wears on it is always more likely that the star will begin to diminish. That is true of any sport...not just boxing.

Yes I agree, but would you agree, Floyd's stock has nose dived in the last two years?

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

David Tails wrote:D4 the title asks where it went wrong. If posters don't feel it went wrong then they are entitled to respond with why. That is the beauty of the OP being made in the form of a question.

Pointing out all of the accolades that he has won is relevant to this discussion. As mentioned by other posters - seems like he had a pretty successful career to me.

Whilst I agree they can agree with the OP original point, if they do make the point they don't agree it went wrong they it is a debate killer, because then you can discuss the reason's why but have to answer the another question on the why it is so.

So make the point but allow the topic to explore the original point.

We shouldn't forget this, from oxy's article :

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.

This would imply that the central issue is as much to do with the positive aspects as the negative.

Roughy Oxxy was saying Floyd stock rose and then fell. I agree with this. Obviously when Floyd fought Oscar was a big boost in his career, as earlier in his career he struggled to fill small arena's. The publicity the Oscar fight gave him brought him to a career high, but he couldn't ride that wave for long and especially when not fighting. And while Floyd stood still, other boxers surpasses him in achievements in the ring and out. And Floyd pinned his hat on being the greatest fighter of his generation, which he cannot claim anymore.

To being well supported, back at the Oscar fight to being criticised, called a coward, booed, and having his record under heavy scrutiny, has greatly affected his legacy.

It's only affected his legacy if you are short sighted enough to look past his phenomenal skills. As for not being able to claim he is the best of his generation that splits debate I would say he is and you wouldn't it's an opinion not fact. That would only be proved if their was a series of fights between him and Manny and it was one sided.

9. Mayweather family....Do you not think that had he not had two world class operators in his family to learn of Sr and Roger he would be the fighter he is today....He had skill in his DNA....

Lot's of fighters have brittle hands and because he is so good he can coast..not his fault he has so much talent compared to his contemporaries..

Not everybody thinks you need to see a Hagler-Hearns every fight for it not to be a stinker.....People should enjoy pure talent..It's called BOXING.

As for the drug testing....I've never seen anybody move up over six weight divisions and be more explosive 6 divisions above your norm....It's beyond comprehension.....He's right to want testing as Manny is a strange case....

Immature......Tell me someone who isn't...I'm immature for my age what the heck does that matter..

Where did it go wrong??? Funny question for a guy who's a mega star and earning millions a fight....

Not being a huge boxing fan (although I've slowly been getting more in to it because of you lot) I couldn't make an informed comment on that.

If it has nosedived...then it probably has gone wrong somewhere...but from what you and others have said...it sounds just like natural deterioration to me.

Shortly before his most recent round of legal problems, Floyd Mayweather Jr. was granting short interviews here and there, talking about how blessed he feels and about giving back to the community. Another popular topic was his recent engagement to his longtime girlfriend, Shantel Williams. Mayweather hinted at plans for a new reality TV show in which the two of them would star. Mostly, though, he talked about Twitter.

According to TwitterCounter.com, Mayweather has nearly 900,000 followers, which ranks him as approximately the 360th most-popular Twitter user. He’s well behind Lindsay Lohan, but at press time he was on the verge of passing Ivanka Trump.

Years ago, we had all looked forward to the day when Mayweather’s popularity would catch up to his skills. We imagined he could become that rare and desired boxing commodity – the fighter who was not only great in the ring but also famous enough to get mainstream attention. Not since the early days of Mike Tyson have we had a fighter who was immensely popular as well as being a dominant ring figure. Oscar De La Hoya had the fans but was never universally accepted as the best in the world; Roy Jones had the skills, but couldn’t put butts in the seats. As Mayweather proved to be a valid pay-per-view draw, it seemed our search for an all-around superstar was over.

Unfortunately, a number of factors have kept Mayweather from reaching the absolute, unquestioned, pinnacle of the sport, not the least of which was that Manny Pacquiao draws as well if not better, is a more exciting performer and possesses a more interesting back story.

But it is not just Pacquiao who makes Mayweather’s career seem only partially realized.

If we could whittle our thoughts down to a list of 10 things that has kept Mayweather’s career from being all it could be, it might read something like this:

I though I would read the article, .

Pretty decent covers most the points.

Just a quick question, does anyone disagree with the overall premise of the article?

Come on D4, stop demanding people answer your petty peurile questions if you're not willing to answer questions yourself. You're a ducker.

BALTIMORA wrote:Come on D4, stop demanding people answer your petty peurile questions if you're not willing to answer questions yourself. You're a ducker.

No demands, just interesting to see there view.

Answer my question from earlier then, stop ducking.

BALTIMORA wrote:Answer my question from earlier then, stop ducking.

What was your question?

Seems to me that people are employing a microscope in far too much detail.

Very little went wrong for Mayweather in the ring. Outside it he has had his problems. He was never much loved to begin with. He plays the bad guy. His appeal has always been his ability, not his personality.

Dont really see the relevance of Mayweathers twitter followings or reality tv programs on his boxing career.

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Answer my question from earlier then, stop ducking.

What was your question?

Do you not think Floyd Mayweather Jr is hugely respected for his excellent boxing ability?

manos de piedra wrote:Seems to me that people are employing a microscope in far too much detail.

Very little went wrong for Mayweather in the ring. Outside it he has had his problems. He was never much loved to begin with. He plays the bad guy. His appeal has always been his ability, not his personality.

Dont really see the relevance of Mayweathers twitter followings or reality tv programs on his boxing career.

I believe that to be spot on.

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Answer my question from earlier then, stop ducking.

What was your question?

Do you not think Floyd Mayweather Jr is hugely respected for his excellent boxing ability?

He probably is, but it takes more than ability to be a great. And it does not detract away from his career has taken a huge hit over the last two years.

Look at how Woods, Jordan, Pacquiao, Oscar can earn mega money and boost there profile through endorsements but Mayweather cannot.

Why do you think that is?

No 'probably' - yes or no: do YOU think so? Stop squirming.

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Answer my question from earlier then, stop ducking.

What was your question?

Do you not think Floyd Mayweather Jr is hugely respected for his excellent boxing ability?

He probably is, but it takes more than ability to be a great. And it does not detract away from his career has taken a huge hit over the last two years.

Look at how Woods, Jordan, Pacquiao, Oscar can earn mega money and boost there profile through endorsements but Mayweather cannot.

Why do you think that is?

Woods ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Answer my question from earlier then, stop ducking.

What was your question?

Do you not think Floyd Mayweather Jr is hugely respected for his excellent boxing ability?

He probably is, but it takes more than ability to be a great. And it does not detract away from his career has taken a huge hit over the last two years.

Look at how Woods, Jordan, Pacquiao, Oscar can earn mega money and boost there profile through endorsements but Mayweather cannot.

Why do you think that is?

Woods ?

Tiger

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Answer my question from earlier then, stop ducking.

What was your question?

Do you not think Floyd Mayweather Jr is hugely respected for his excellent boxing ability?

He probably is, but it takes more than ability to be a great. And it does not detract away from his career has taken a huge hit over the last two years.

Look at how Woods, Jordan, Pacquiao, Oscar can earn mega money and boost there profile through endorsements but Mayweather cannot.

Why do you think that is?

Woods ?

Tiger

Yes, I know who you mean, mate, but don't you think HIS career has taken a hit or two ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Answer my question from earlier then, stop ducking.

What was your question?

Do you not think Floyd Mayweather Jr is hugely respected for his excellent boxing ability?

He probably is, but it takes more than ability to be a great. And it does not detract away from his career has taken a huge hit over the last two years.

Look at how Woods, Jordan, Pacquiao, Oscar can earn mega money and boost there profile through endorsements but Mayweather cannot.

Why do you think that is?

Woods ?

Tiger

Yes, I know who you mean, mate, but don't you think HIS career has taken a hit or two ?

That is someone that DEFINITELY lost sponsorship deals.

Does that not contradict a point you made earlier?

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Answer my question from earlier then, stop ducking.

What was your question?

Do you not think Floyd Mayweather Jr is hugely respected for his excellent boxing ability?

He probably is, but it takes more than ability to be a great. And it does not detract away from his career has taken a huge hit over the last two years.

Look at how Woods, Jordan, Pacquiao, Oscar can earn mega money and boost there profile through endorsements but Mayweather cannot.

Why do you think that is?

Woods ?

Tiger

Yes, I know who you mean, mate, but don't you think HIS career has taken a hit or two ?

Yes it has, but the point I was making, even at the height of his powers Floyd could not compete even though there was a huge gap in the market.

Peter Crouch probably does better.

Better at what?

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Answer my question from earlier then, stop ducking.

What was your question?

Do you not think Floyd Mayweather Jr is hugely respected for his excellent boxing ability?

He probably is, but it takes more than ability to be a great. And it does not detract away from his career has taken a huge hit over the last two years.

Look at how Woods, Jordan, Pacquiao, Oscar can earn mega money and boost there profile through endorsements but Mayweather cannot.

Why do you think that is?

Woods ?

Tiger

Yes, I know who you mean, mate, but don't you think HIS career has taken a hit or two ?

Yes it has, but the point I was making, even at the height of his powers Floyd could not compete even though there was a huge gap in the market.

Peter Crouch probably does better.

Yeah selling pringles is bound to be a massive money spinner for Crouchy.

D4thincarnation: He probably is, but it takes more than ability to be a great. And it does not detract away from his career has taken a huge hit over the last two years.

Look at how Woods, Jordan, Pacquiao, Oscar can earn mega money and boost there profile through endorsements but Mayweather cannot.
-------------
I think he's just not a fan friendly guy. He doesn't have the wholesome appeal of Oscar, the humility or exciting style of manny, he's not articulate like woods. He's more of a Bernard Hopkins type, bundles of boxing ability but not a fan friendly style or persona. He got to the top by performing well against rated guys at the lower weights, as he became a welter he picked his opponents carefully with one eye on a prospective match with Oscar. That match and the debut 24/7 made him more of a star, but only in the villain sense and in the fight itself he outboxed Oscar but did it in a clinical, technical way which doesn't endear a fighter to anyone but the hardcore.

Overall I would look at mayweathers career as a success, although I would say he has underachieved for a man of his ability. It's nit that he didn't take good opponents at welter, but there were occasions when better ones were available. I think an undefeated Cotto is a glaring omission on his cv, as will Pacquiao be if that fight never happens (which seems will be the case).

Overall I maintain that it hasn't gone wrong for him in the ring, but outside it in the last year or so he's gone from obe personal disaster to the next, which is why it's gone wrong personally which if course has a consequent effect on his career - ie it being put on ice when his greatest contemporary is active and there is a fight waiting to be made.

Great talent, HoF career, couple of gaps on his cv, non fan friendly style and persona, flawed character traits. Think that sums him up.

David Tails wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Answer my question from earlier then, stop ducking.

What was your question?

Do you not think Floyd Mayweather Jr is hugely respected for his excellent boxing ability?

He probably is, but it takes more than ability to be a great. And it does not detract away from his career has taken a huge hit over the last two years.

Look at how Woods, Jordan, Pacquiao, Oscar can earn mega money and boost there profile through endorsements but Mayweather cannot.

Why do you think that is?

Woods ?

Tiger

Yes, I know who you mean, mate, but don't you think HIS career has taken a hit or two ?

Yes it has, but the point I was making, even at the height of his powers Floyd could not compete even though there was a huge gap in the market.

Peter Crouch probably does better.

Yeah selling pringles is bound to be a massive money spinner for Crouchy.

He has the Mars contract tied up too as well as a few other.

But the point is Mayweather has done appallingly bad at securing endorsements, even when he was at his most popular.

D4thincarnation wrote:

David Tails wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Answer my question from earlier then, stop ducking.

What was your question?

Do you not think Floyd Mayweather Jr is hugely respected for his excellent boxing ability?

He probably is, but it takes more than ability to be a great. And it does not detract away from his career has taken a huge hit over the last two years.

Look at how Woods, Jordan, Pacquiao, Oscar can earn mega money and boost there profile through endorsements but Mayweather cannot.

Why do you think that is?

Woods ?

Tiger

Yes, I know who you mean, mate, but don't you think HIS career has taken a hit or two ?

Yes it has, but the point I was making, even at the height of his powers Floyd could not compete even though there was a huge gap in the market.

Peter Crouch probably does better.

Yeah selling pringles is bound to be a massive money spinner for Crouchy.

He has the Mars contract tied up too as well as a few other.

But the point is Mayweather has done appallingly bad at securing endorsements, even when he was at his most popular.

So What? Why is that a big deal?

We all accept hes not Mr Popularity. He never was.

Pringles AND Mars? Whoa now we're just talking crazy talk! What does Mayweather not having product endorsements have to do with his career standing? Some guys whore themselves out for every dollar going, he made a ton of cash fighting.

Bernard Hopkins doesn't have much endorsements but that takes nothing away from his ability and standing in the sport.

BALTIMORA wrote:Pringles AND Mars? Whoa now we're just talking crazy talk! What does Mayweather not having product endorsements have to do with his career standing? Some guys whore themselves out for every dollar going, he made a ton of cash fighting.

Mayweather has cried about not getting endorsements before blaming it on racism.

One of the points in the article is how Mayweather has not made the most out of his opportunities and the reasons behind it.

prettyboykev wrote:Bernard Hopkins doesn't have much endorsements but that takes nothing away from his ability and standing in the sport.

Nobody is linking abilities to endorsements.

prettyboykev wrote:Bernard Hopkins doesn't have much endorsements but that takes nothing away from his ability and standing in the sport.

Bingo. Calzaghe, Eubank, Naz-none were particularly charming when it came to PR, but their in-ring achievements stand separate from their personal lives.

BALTIMORA wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:Bernard Hopkins doesn't have much endorsements but that takes nothing away from his ability and standing in the sport.

Bingo. Calzaghe, Eubank, Naz-none were particularly charming when it came to PR, but their in-ring achievements stand separate from their personal lives.

Naz banged in the big money endorsements, he made more money of them than his boxing.

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Pringles AND Mars? Whoa now we're just talking crazy talk! What does Mayweather not having product endorsements have to do with his career standing? Some guys whore themselves out for every dollar going, he made a ton of cash fighting.

Mayweather has cried about not getting endorsements before blaming it on racism.

One of the points in the article is how Mayweather has not made the most out of his opportunities and the reasons behind it.

So? We get it: you don't like the guy. Change the tune.

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:Bernard Hopkins doesn't have much endorsements but that takes nothing away from his ability and standing in the sport.

Bingo. Calzaghe, Eubank, Naz-none were particularly charming when it came to PR, but their in-ring achievements stand separate from their personal lives.

Naz banged in the big money endorsements, he made more money of them than his boxing.

Well done. Misquote me. I never mentioned their endorsements.

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:Bernard Hopkins doesn't have much endorsements but that takes nothing away from his ability and standing in the sport.

Bingo. Calzaghe, Eubank, Naz-none were particularly charming when it came to PR, but their in-ring achievements stand separate from their personal lives.

Naz banged in the big money endorsements, he made more money of them than his boxing.

Not sure that's true but it doesn't make him any better a fighter and should have no bearing on his standing in the sport.

Fair play D4, you want to talk about twitter, reality tv shows and endorsements. Great. The rest of us were discusing boxing.......

Endorsements only prove you are media friendly. Not boxing but look at Beckham their has never been a point in his career where he has been one of the top ten footballers on the planet but made more out of sponsorship deals than most top players made in wages.

I think it down to Mayweather not being a very exciting fighter, much of his fights were borefest, until the Oscar fight, but even then companies stayed away because then did not want to be associated with Floyd.

Maybe it is because Floyd lack charisma and class.

IMO Floyd would make my top 25 ATG I love his style. Does anyone agree? If not is it because of the stuff that has went on away from boxing?

prettyboykev wrote:Endorsements only prove you are media friendly. Not boxing but look at Beckham their has never been a point in his career where he has been one of the top ten footballers on the planet but made more out of sponsorship deals than most top players made in wages.

Lionel Messi is the top earning footballer in the world and the best.

Mayweather undoubtedly lacks class, but charisma certainly isn't a quality he's lacking. When he wants to, he CAN turn it on. Talk about his fights being boring, but he holds the record with Oscar for most PPVs.

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:Bernard Hopkins doesn't have much endorsements but that takes nothing away from his ability and standing in the sport.

Bingo. Calzaghe, Eubank, Naz-none were particularly charming when it came to PR, but their in-ring achievements stand separate from their personal lives.

Naz banged in the big money endorsements, he made more money of them than his boxing.

Not sure that's true but it doesn't make him any better a fighter and should have no bearing on his standing in the sport.

Yes it does, it commands respect, gets you bigger fights, allows you to dictate terms, get you more coverage to the wider public and helps the bank balance.

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:Bernard Hopkins doesn't have much endorsements but that takes nothing away from his ability and standing in the sport.

Bingo. Calzaghe, Eubank, Naz-none were particularly charming when it came to PR, but their in-ring achievements stand separate from their personal lives.

Naz banged in the big money endorsements, he made more money of them than his boxing.

Not sure that's true but it doesn't make him any better a fighter and should have no bearing on his standing in the sport.

Yes it does, it commands respect, gets you bigger fights, allows you to dictate terms, get you more coverage to the wider public and helps the bank balance.

Bit of a generalization, D4.

Plenty of unpopular champions throughout history who traded on their very notoriety.

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:Endorsements only prove you are media friendly. Not boxing but look at Beckham their has never been a point in his career where he has been one of the top ten footballers on the planet but made more out of sponsorship deals than most top players made in wages.

Lionel Messi is the top earning footballer in the world and the best.

He is the best but the rest isn't true gon and look these things up before you state them as fact.