Mayweather vs a boxer

So we all get excited when Mayweather fights. They're the biggest nights in boxing where we get to see it's biggest star, highest earner and most talented practitioner do his thing. The one down side his fights are at times dull, and the routine has become formulaic.

He faces a come forward fighter whose stock is high and knows they're the man for the job. He backs off and counters with right hands along with occasional jab and lead hook. In Mayweather's last 9 fights only one opponent is what you'd call a boxer ahead of a fighter, a guy who will go on the backfoot and counter: Marquez. Undersized, F'd up gaining weight and Mayweather didn't even obey the catchweight.

We have to go all the way back to '06 to see him against a more typical boxer: Zab Judah. Judah of course made a good go of things initially before Mayweather's body work, marauding and workrate put things under his control for a wide UD.

Mayweather is, above all things, the money man of sport. Backfoot boxers typically don't set the heart racing (unless you're one of these weirdos like Chris or Alex who "enjoy Pernell Whitaker fights"  ) so they're rarely the most lucrative foes. But aren't we a little bored of seeing him do the same thign over and over to aggressive fighters? Cotto was effective and made it exciting but few others have really been worth watching for anything more than appreciation.

The front runner for next victi- sorry, opponent appears to be Garcia, who showed he CAN do it on the backfoot if forced to by a tank like Mathysse, but would just walk forward and eat lead rights if he were to face Mayweather.

So, which boxers are out there who can test how Mayweather copes with that style right now? Had Lara and Trout fought as they were meant to, a Lara victory would set up a very difficult showdown.

I like Lara but there's no way Mayweather fights him. Not enough profile = no money and then there's the risk/reward factor.

I always thought Oscar and Mosley were good boxers..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I always thought Oscar and Mosley were good boxers..

'Were' being the important word here.

I'd like to see him fight GGG. Lots of hype much of which is unjustified. But he looks good all the same...

GGG is a good "boxer" isn't he.........

Oscar was coming off a good win off Mayorga when he fought mayweather people forget that.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:GGG is a good "boxer" isn't he.........

Oscar was coming off a good win off Mayorga when he fought mayweather people forget that.

Seems like some are forgetting that Mayorga ain't Mayweather

He earns his living by having boxing matches. Not sure else you'd call him really.

DAVE667 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:GGG is a good "boxer" isn't he.........

Oscar was coming off a good win off Mayorga when he fought mayweather people forget that.

Seems like some are forgetting that Mayorga ain't Mayweather

Stupid statement..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I always thought Oscar and Mosley were good boxers..

Yeah but both primarily front foot fighter types. Oscar especially.

I'm saying it's getting boring watching front foot guys get countered and countered when there are good backfoot boxers out there to offer a different technical challenge.

What you're maybe saying is you are grasping at straws hoping there is someone out there who can beat Mayweather..

My guess any slick boxer gets outslicked anyway...don't hold your breath...

Not aimed at you JBW.........But Mayweather's list looks like a quality who's who of boxing and it gets a bit boring reading how he's never beaten anybody.......

Buster Douglas would have been a bum If he hadn't of Ko'd Tyson........

These guys aren't chumps they are very good fighters posed with a puzzle they couldn't solve.......

Credit where it's due...

Watched the fight again today (when I watched it on Sunday morning I had been drinking since 9 AM on account of the rugby, also, my friends shouting the Money Team motto after every decent Floyd hit made any scoring impossible). In my opinion, Canelo came with the right "blueprint" to fight Floyd, the only problem was, he didnt hit as hard as advertised. He only hit Floyd seven times less than he hit Trout. Generally, Floyds opponents have seen a massive drop-off in their attacking prowess. Canelo's numbers were pretty much the same.

I think Lara would be an interesting night for Floyd. Id back the Money man

I don't really see how that's not aimed at me, seen as it's a direct reply to what I've said.

No, I'm not grasping at straws, I'm posing the question of whether we're looking in the wrong place for an interesting Mayweather fight. Didn't say he's never beaten anybody, said it had been a while since he'd varied the style of foe a little bit.

kingraf wrote:Watched the fight again today (when I watched it on Sunday morning I had been drinking since 9 AM on account of the rugby, also, my friends shouting the Money Team motto after every decent Floyd hit made any scoring impossible). In my opinion, Canelo came with the right "blueprint" to fight Floyd, the only problem was, he didnt hit as hard as advertised. He only hit Floyd seven times less than he hit Trout.  Generally, Floyds opponents have seen a massive drop-off in their attacking prowess. Canelo's numbers were pretty much the same.

I think Lara would be an interesting night for Floyd. Id back the Money man

Alvarez himself got hit almost twice as much in order to land the same amount of punches on Mayweather as he did Trout.

232 vs 152 is NOT almost twice. Plus I can only count a handful of those hits which were "meaningful"

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:GGG is a good "boxer" isn't he.........

Oscar was coming off a good win off Mayorga when he fought mayweather people forget that.

Seems like some are forgetting that Mayorga ain't Mayweather

Stupid statement..

Not really fat boy. Beating the crude Mayorga is hardly going to set you up for a fighter like Floyd

It was a stupid statement end of.......

Mayorga was a respected fighter......No he's not Floyd but who is??????

Come on guys, you are destroying this thread

kingraf wrote:232 vs 152 is NOT almost twice. Plus I can only count a handful of those hits which were "meaningful"

Ok, I retract. Not twice as much. But a significant amount more. Roughly 60% then. And they were more meaningful than anything Alvarez landed. He was hit flush quite often and an easy target for the jabs.

Was Mayweather hit flush even once? Maybe Alvarez does hit hard but that fight wouldnt give much indication. Not a great deal of clean punches landed on Mayweather.

The jab was the difference. I think Canelo was a little green, if Im honest. Yes he has 44 pro fights, but he had no amateur career, so most of these fights were him undergoing an apprenticeship. He only really moved up a level a year ago vs Papa Shane, and then faced little Josesito. The Trout fight was his biggest challenge, and he just about made it out. Maybe he should have worked a little harder before fighting Floyd. But the obvious counter to that is... Canelo was king at 154, Floyd is p4p king, who fights at 154, its a pretty obvious fight!

Its unlikely he would ever be ready for Mayweather. Trout was as good a preparation available. Its difficult to have a blueprint to beat a boxer as well rounded as Mayweather. It will take a great fighter or else a massive size difference or father time.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:It was a stupid statement end of.......

Mayorga was a respected fighter......No he's not Floyd but who is??????

Not a stupid statement, you try to make out that beating a crude slugger like Ricardo was going to stand Oscar in good stead for fighting a guy like Mayweather who was practically his polar opposite. Respected or not, Mayorga was no preparation for fighting Mayweather. Once again your desire to have a pop has you looking stupid

kingraf wrote:Watched the fight again today (when I watched it on Sunday morning I had been drinking since 9 AM on account of the rugby, also, my friends shouting the Money Team motto after every decent Floyd hit made any scoring impossible). In my opinion, Canelo came with the right "blueprint" to fight Floyd, the only problem was, he didnt hit as hard as advertised. He only hit Floyd seven times less than he hit Trout.  Generally, Floyds opponents have seen a massive drop-off in their attacking prowess. Canelo's numbers were pretty much the same.

I think Lara would be an interesting night for Floyd. Id back the Money man

Disagree, his problem was that he couldn't/wouldn't back Floyd up. Cotto is the only fighter to have anything approaching success against Floyd in recent times (I discount DLH becasue the suggestion that fight was close is laughable).

Cotto forced Floyd to the ropes and into the corners, attacked the body and switched up to the head. H He caught Mayweather with some decent shots at times even bloodying his nose (practically a KO compared to most guys) however, Cotto either lacked the strength/ability to keep him there or, more likely, Mayweather was good enough to get out of there before taking anything serious.

CW - thats the point really. He only just got through Trout, that should have been a sign that perhaps he wasnt quite at the level required for Pretty Boy. It makes sense of course, even on fightnight, Canelo looked underweight. I dont know how long he can keep at it at 154-lbs, so he had to take the fight. Now or never sort of thing. Great performance from Floyd, but I still think Canelo could have made a fist of it if the hands had a little more dynamite.

kingraf wrote:CW - thats the point really. He only just got through Trout, that should have been a sign that perhaps he wasnt quite at the level required for Pretty Boy. It makes sense of course, even on fightnight, Canelo looked underweight. I dont know how long he can keep at it at 154-lbs, so he had to take the fight. Now or never sort of thing. Great performance from Floyd, but I still think Canelo could have made a fist of it if the hands had a little more dynamite.

No use throwing bombs if they don't hit the target

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What you're maybe saying is you are grasping at straws hoping there is someone out there who can beat Mayweather..

My guess any slick boxer gets outslicked anyway...don't hold your breath...

Not aimed at you JBW.........But Mayweather's list looks like a quality who's who of boxing and it gets a bit boring reading how he's never beaten anybody.......

Buster Douglas would have been a bum If he hadn't of Ko'd Tyson........

These guys aren't chumps they are very good fighters posed with a puzzle they couldn't solve.......

Credit where it's due...

Mayweathers list looks like a lot of carefully selected opponents with some good wins. A little balance Truss. Not a typical Americans strong point but you can try.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What you're maybe saying is you are grasping at straws hoping there is someone out there who can beat Mayweather..

My guess any slick boxer gets outslicked anyway...don't hold your breath...

Not aimed at you JBW.........But Mayweather's list looks like a quality who's who of boxing and it gets a bit boring reading how he's never beaten anybody.......

Buster Douglas would have been a bum If he hadn't of Ko'd Tyson........

These guys aren't chumps they are very good fighters posed with a puzzle they couldn't solve.......

Credit where it's due...

Mayweathers list looks like a lot of carefully selected opponents with some good wins. A little balance Truss. Not a typical Americans strong point but you can try.

Practice what you preach.

A little balance then:Mayweathers list looks like a lot of carefully selected opponents

You cant make it up:picard:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What you're maybe saying is you are grasping at straws hoping there is someone out there who can beat Mayweather..

My guess any slick boxer gets outslicked anyway...don't hold your breath...

Not aimed at you JBW.........But Mayweather's list looks like a quality who's who of boxing and it gets a bit boring reading how he's never beaten anybody.......

Buster Douglas would have been a bum If he hadn't of Ko'd Tyson........

These guys aren't chumps they are very good fighters posed with a puzzle they couldn't solve.......

Credit where it's due...

Mayweathers list looks like a lot of carefully selected opponents with some good wins. A little balance Truss. Not a typical Americans strong point but you can try.

Probably a jumbo plate of barbeque ribs in each hand (the only ribs he's seen for fifteen years or more)

kingraf wrote:CW - thats the point really. He only just got through Trout, that should have been a sign that perhaps he wasnt quite at the level required for Pretty Boy. It makes sense of course, even on fightnight, Canelo looked underweight. I dont know how long he can keep at it at 154-lbs, so he had to take the fight. Now or never sort of thing. Great performance from Floyd, but I still think Canelo could have made a fist of it if the hands had a little more dynamite.

Hitting harder would never be a bad thing. But in terms of a blueprint per se, I dont think Alvarez employed any tactical approach that would other fighters could look at and say, well thats how you go about beating Mayweather. He huffed and puffed but it was well short of being enough to win. He might have used his physical strength to greater effect and it took a while to warm up. He lacked ability to beat Mayweather though. His jab wasnt good enough and he didnt have the necessary speed to really put Mayweather under pressure. Oscar de la Hoya made a better go of it imo.

Dave, the thing is, Canelo doesnt throw 1,000 punches a fight. He was never going to outwork Mayweather, therefore he needed dynamite sticks to take Floyd out. Its easy to say Canelo walks in bigger, but he isnt a pressure fighter. And it showed. He only looked like one vs Lopez, and that was for obvious reasons.

I dont believe Floyd is unbeatable, though I agree that he is closer than most.

Great, the runt is here.

kingraf wrote:CW - thats the point really. He only just got through Trout, that should have been a sign that perhaps he wasnt quite at the level required for Pretty Boy. It makes sense of course, even on fightnight, Canelo looked underweight. I dont know how long he can keep at it at 154-lbs, so he had to take the fight. Now or never sort of thing. Great performance from Floyd, but I still think Canelo could have made a fist of it if the hands had a little more dynamite.

In fairness, Trout had just beaten Cotto far easier than Mayweather had, so it's no wonder people saw a close win over Trout as enough to give him a chance against a 36 year old Mayweather.

Even if Mayweather does lose at some point, does it even matter? If he ever loses he'll be at an age where people can say "well, he was old. We don't hold it against Ali..."

I thought Cotto has been poor for a few years. Didnt really see the fight as a glowing endorsement of Trout. I mean, nearly killed by Manny, and that finished him off.

Not the point, it's that he did it with so much less fuss than Mayweather. That's why it made sense for people to think Canelo would have a chance against the man himself.

I get the logic I just didnt bite. Look, I like Canelo, and I think he is going to become a multiple division champ, and probably the face of Boxing eventually, its just that, lacking the pace, or power (Four KOs in his last eleven fights) I think it was a little early in his graph to try take this fight.

Agree on the Canelo bit, just adding perspective. People didn't have retrospect back than.

I think with his style and low centre of gravity Gavin Rees gives Mayweather fits but I still take Floyd to win a close decision.

kingraf wrote:The jab was the difference. I think Canelo was a little green, if Im honest. Yes he has 44 pro fights, but he had no amateur career, so most of these fights were him undergoing an apprenticeship. He only really moved up a level a year ago vs Papa Shane, and then faced little Josesito. The Trout fight was his biggest challenge, and he just about made it out. Maybe he should have worked a little harder before fighting Floyd. But the obvious counter to that is... Canelo was king at 154, Floyd is p4p king, who fights at 154, its a pretty obvious fight!

When did pacquiao stop bein green? I'm just curious as the Hopkins canelo etc debates get put about as they are green! So just a question on when you thought pacquiao stopped being green as he had no amateur career

Its a good question, one I have no acual answer to. But Pacquiao is a remarkable athlete and he had a few losses in the beginning which generally help your development as you learn more from defeat than victory. Remember, at 23, Pacquiao was facing Lehlonolo Ledwaba, not Mayweather, so there was a slightly greater margin for greenness. Also, Manny is a more gifted athlete than both.

For me a slick boxer would struggle just as much against Mayweather as he is just the best at the backfoot boxing and has enough ability on the front foot if needed.

Just can't see any slick boxers our there that would be able to compete with Floyd at his own game.

For me the only type of fighter that would give Floyd trouble is a scrapper with a decent chin and strong body attack. Basically someone like Hatton only better and with probably a weight advantage.

Problem is that Mayweather is the best out there and regardless of the right style to beat him they would also need to be great in their own right. Can't see anyone, within the right weight brackets that can come close to him regardless of style.

Nobody out there that I feel would have enough to beat him over the next couple of years and can't see him boxing much beyond that.

Funny in boxing though, in order to find out how good someone is we want to see them beaten to know their limits. Imagine if in other sports they did the same thing, made Redbull drivers pick up hitchhikers every 7 laps or make athletes run without PED's, would be madness.

Just need to stick all the drivers in the same car and then you'll see who the best driver is. I wager that if you put Lewis Hamilton in my old Renault 5 and I raced him to Manchester in my wife's car...I'd win. Does it make me the better driver or just the bloke with a better car?

DAVE667 wrote:Just need to stick all the drivers in the same car and then you'll see who the best driver is. I wager that if you put Lewis Hamilton in my old Renault 5 and I raced him to Manchester in my wife's car...I'd win. Does it make me the better driver or just the bloke with a better car?

They are very little cars, would they have to form a human pyramid?

I know what you mean and think it would be a good thing but they tried that with the A1 Grand Prix and nobody watched. Unfortunately a lot of the F1 fans are fans of the teams involved, such as the Ferrari fans (Ferrari fans are a strange bunch, mostly Italian yet they haven't swapped sides when they are losing).

huw wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:Just need to stick all the drivers in the same car and then you'll see who the best driver is. I wager that if you put Lewis Hamilton in my old Renault 5 and I raced him to Manchester in my wife's car...I'd win. Does it make me the better driver or just the bloke with a better car?

They are very little cars, would they have to form a human pyramid?

I know what you mean and think it would be a good thing but they tried that with the A1 Grand Prix and nobody watched. Unfortunately a lot of the F1 fans are fans of the teams involved, such as the Ferrari fans (Ferrari fans are a strange bunch, mostly Italian yet they haven't swapped sides when they are losing).

Should ban F1 then. They should give all sprinters the same dose of drugs, all footballers the same boots and energy drinks (according to the adverts it can mean the difference bewteen winning and losing) all snooker players the same cue, all golfers the same clubs etc etc etc