Boxers divided on - Mayweather vs Pacman ....

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 27 Apr - 13:33

First topic message reminder :

Manny
-------

Mike Tyson.....Bonecrusher Smith.....Miguel Cotto....Marvin Hagler......Oscar DelaHoya......Larry Holmes...Johnny Nelson....Nonito Donaire......Muhammad Ali ?? ......Ivan Robinson.....Timothy Bradley......

Mayweather
-------------

Ray Leonard...Keith Thurman.....Tony Bellew....Adrien Broner....Iran Barkley....Charles Brewer.....Tommy Hearns....Montell Griffin....Deontay Wilder....Ray Mancini.....Kell Brook.........JMM.......Chris Algieri...Amir Khan...Nigel Benn.......Wlad Klit...

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 28 Apr - 11:53

What a load of crap that is.

by Scottrf Tue 28 Apr - 11:54

One good line though: "Muhammad Ali had Elvis Presley and James Brown, Mayweather has Bieber. Go figure, as they say."

by AdamT Tue 28 Apr - 11:54

Hammersmith harrier wrote:What a load of crap that is.

I might actually read it, what is he slabbering about now??

by Scottrf Tue 28 Apr - 11:57

AdamT wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:What a load of crap that is.

I might actually read it, what is he slabbering about now??

Nothing much, just that Duran, Leonard and Hearns were better Welterweights. That's the article in one sentence, no need to read it now.

by AdamT Tue 28 Apr - 12:05

They were better Welters. Well Hearns and Leonard. Not sure about Duran.

by Coxy001 Tue 28 Apr - 12:05

Scottrf wrote:
AdamT wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:What a load of crap that is.

I might actually read it, what is he slabbering about now??
Nothing much, just that Duran, Leonard and Hearns were better Welterweights. That's the article in one sentence, no need to read it now.

Also this beauty....

Robinson soon moved to middleweight and is considered the best at that weight

Ermmmm, Harry Greb? Monzon? Hagler?

Shut up Buncey for christ sake.

by **88Chris05** Tue 28 Apr - 12:42

Just a depressingly familiar and cliché-filled offering from Buncey, really. The same kind that's been recycled on the subject of Mayweather a stupid amount of times already.

I asked the same question a few weeks back when another article of this nature was posted - when was the last time anyone on here read an article about Mayweather by any of the boxing writers in the tabloids, broadsheets or leading websites which actually contained anything you didn't discard from your memory within a couple of minutes of reading it, or which you felt was a refreshing or new angle?

As Scott has alluded to already, "Yeah he's good but he's no match for the following old-timers, let me present you with some evidence which is carefully selected and airbrushed of all the bits I don't like in order to suit my argument" is basically the jist of every single thing written about Mayweather (and Pacquiao to a lesser degree).

by Scottrf Tue 28 Apr - 12:43

SweetScience is about the only website with interesting analytic articles.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 28 Apr - 12:43

Steve Bunce is on a par with Halling..........

Backside kisser who knows F**K all about Boxing.....

Lot's of boxers have claimed to be the greatest....Floyd being the latest.....

He's some way off Ali, Robbo, Armstrong............My 1,2,3.......

But it's just talk..........Stupid thing to say but just talk..

by **hampo17** Tue 28 Apr - 12:45

Scottrf wrote:SweetScience is about the only website with interesting analytic articles.

Why not contribute to ours then? Help us grow and build the V2 brand?

by Rowley Tue 28 Apr - 12:45

The real tragedy with Steve Bunce is he is a capable writer, I have books he has ghost written which are excellent, similarly his piece on the ticketing farce on the Independent the other week was excellent as many of his articles are capable of being.

When he becomes intolerable is when he goes into "Buncey" mode, where for some reason he feels it necessary to become a loud mouth oafish bore, this article seems very much in the latter persona. Pity

by Scottrf Tue 28 Apr - 12:48

hampo171 wrote:
Scottrf wrote:SweetScience is about the only website with interesting analytic articles.

Why not contribute to ours then? Help us grow and build the V2 brand?

Because I'm not good enough.

And actually I wasn't really commenting on yours, which seem in the main to be news pieces? I could be wrong.

by **hampo17** Tue 28 Apr - 12:50

Scottrf wrote:
hampo171 wrote:
Scottrf wrote:SweetScience is about the only website with interesting analytic articles.

Why not contribute to ours then? Help us grow and build the V2 brand?
Because I'm not good enough.

And actually I wasn't really commenting on yours, which seem in the main to be news pieces? I could be wrong.

Everyones welcome to write for us mate, doesn't matter if you're a complete noob or an experienced writer, any type of articles. Honestly at the moment, there's only three of us. Owen is holding down two jobs, and Damien is all over the place.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 28 Apr - 12:53

Rowley wrote:The real tragedy with Steve Bunce is he is a capable writer, I have books he has ghost written which are excellent, similarly his piece on the ticketing farce on the Independent the other week was excellent as many of his articles are capable of being.

When he becomes intolerable is when he goes into "Buncey" mode, where for some reason he feels it necessary to become a loud mouth oafish bore, this article seems very much in the latter persona. Pity

I agree..

It's his vaudeville act..............He thinks we all want to see larger than life Buncey............

The Ian Wright of Boxing.............and both a couple of irritating W**kers..

by .aveyard2.0 Tue 28 Apr - 13:54

longgame wrote:I cant see Floyd not winning this fight. Worst case it will be a close decision but not a contentious one (unless you are a casual boxing fan -like far too many of my mates - who believes throwing 100 punches a round should win a fight irrelevant of anything else)

I can understand people making a case for Manny outworking Floyd, if he keeps stepping right, throwing then getting out he could have success because the shoulder roll isn't AS effective if your moving left a lot. The problem is, Manny coming in quick, throwing 3,4,5 and getting out will become very readable and Floyd wont let him do it after a few rounds.
I cant see how any plan Manny bring isn't going to be figured out by Floyd very quickly.

Of late the 2 people I remember having most success against Floyd (if only for short spells or a few rounds) are ODLH & Hatton.
Hatton had success with pressure and throwing close up shots, cortez didn't help but Floyd was always going to figure Hatton out, too many straight lines and wide hooks.
ODLH had a lot of joy because of the size advantages he had which made floyd a bit over cautious early. Still got caught on the way in almost every time.

Personally I see a Mayweather decision (something like 116-112) or a stoppage late on.
I really wouldn't be surprised if we see the most aggressive mayweather for a while though, he wants this fight to define him, he wants no one to be able to question him and also wont want pacquio to have any confidence.

The only stupid predictions iv seen are Manny to win by KO / TKO.
Have we EVER seen Floyd close to being KO'd?

He has been in with big punchers. Pacquios punch power is decent but not huge, his KOs come from people not seeing the shots or not being able to get out the way. That wont happen with Floyd..

Castillo
Cotto
Ortiz
Corralles
Alvarez
Maidana
Mosley

Every one of those guys could bang, some of them more than Pac, and none came close to putting Floyd down or stopping him.

I think people are doing what they did when hatton fought Floyd..... getting a little bit caught up with the assets that the challenger brings and forgetting just how good Floyd is!

He may not be TBE but I think he is the best most of us will ever live to see!

THIS!!! couldn't agree more...people talking about many getting an early stoppage, are pure fantasists. I don't see the same fighter as most when talking about him. Floyd hasn't come close to being knocked out despite facing several big hitters. There is no way that Manny right now has more power or speed than De La Hoya did, and he was buzzed by Floyd several times. After the marquez stoppage manny will be more carfeul once Floyd clips him, at 5/6 with bet fair for a Floyd points victory that is as close to printing money as you will get for me.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 28 Apr - 13:58

Don't discount their ages Mate...........

An 83 Holmes murders Spinks...........In 85 he couldn't hit s**t......

Fighters grow old overnight.........Holmes was 35 !!!

These two are older than him..........and age counts for more in the lower classes..

Anything can happen on May 2nd....

These two aren't in their primes...........

by Marlonz Tue 28 Apr - 14:03

Scottrf wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Maidana is nothing like Manny.............and I imagine he surprised Mayweather first up.....

Starling labored with the mauling Fugio Ozaki and then went and smashed the ten times better Honeyghan's face in...
That's not really the point.

I'm not comparing styles or anything, but people can score fights on a variety of factors, and when you're someone like Mayweather who is a high quality/low volume boxer that counts against you with some judges.

Do we know who the judges are BTW?

Scott, they’re all American Judges and Burt A. Clements and Dave Moretti have been judges in almost all of Floyd’s fights since he fought Hatton back in 2007. Bayless, who Reff’ed Floyd’s first pro fight (obviously American) and seemingly protected Floyd when Mosley rocked him (allowing Floyd to hold both Mosley’s arms and even pushing down the back of his head several times) and during the rematch with Maidana, constantly broke the fighters, particularly a moment in which Floyd initiated a clinch, only for Maidana to land some clean punches with his free hand which he was technically allowed to do as you’re allowed to punch with your free hand if your other is being held.

Just to add, not trying to needlessly split hairs - Just disappointed that 2 thirds of the judging panel are Floyd regulars and the Ref is Bayless – Would have preferred balanced officiating. Surely a fair minded individual, whether backing Floyd or Manny, could understand that.

by horizontalhero Tue 28 Apr - 14:09

longgame wrote:I cant see Floyd not winning this fight. Worst case it will be a close decision but not a contentious one (unless you are a casual boxing fan -like far too many of my mates - who believes throwing 100 punches a round should win a fight irrelevant of anything else)

I can understand people making a case for Manny outworking Floyd, if he keeps stepping right, throwing then getting out he could have success because the shoulder roll isn't AS effective if your moving left a lot. The problem is, Manny coming in quick, throwing 3,4,5 and getting out will become very readable and Floyd wont let him do it after a few rounds.
I cant see how any plan Manny bring isn't going to be figured out by Floyd very quickly.

Of late the 2 people I remember having most success against Floyd (if only for short spells or a few rounds) are ODLH & Hatton.
Hatton had success with pressure and throwing close up shots, cortez didn't help but Floyd was always going to figure Hatton out, too many straight lines and wide hooks.
ODLH had a lot of joy because of the size advantages he had which made floyd a bit over cautious early. Still got caught on the way in almost every time.

Personally I see a Mayweather decision (something like 116-112) or a stoppage late on.
I really wouldn't be surprised if we see the most aggressive mayweather for a while though, he wants this fight to define him, he wants no one to be able to question him and also wont want pacquio to have any confidence.

The only stupid predictions iv seen are Manny to win by KO / TKO.
Have we EVER seen Floyd close to being KO'd?

He has been in with big punchers. Pacquios punch power is decent but not huge, his KOs come from people not seeing the shots or not being able to get out the way. That wont happen with Floyd..

Castillo
Cotto
Ortiz
Corralles
Alvarez
Maidana
Mosley

Every one of those guys could bang, some of them more than Pac, and none came close to putting Floyd down or stopping him.

I think people are doing what they did when hatton fought Floyd..... getting a little bit caught up with the assets that the challenger brings and forgetting just how good Floyd is!

He may not be TBE but I think he is the best most of us will ever live to see!

A few points here, but there are genuine questions that are being asked about the case that Floyd is getting older and that he is at an age when time can catch up with a fighter.So whilst he may be able to read the combinations and flurries from Pacquiao, with his speed and punch variety, it won't neccessarily be easy- Larry holmes made the point that when he fought Spinks he could still see the openings, but could react as quickly as once could- yes, Floyd may well suss out any plans quiclky, but effectively countering those plans isn't neccessarily a given- everyone knew Mike Tysons fight plan- not many were able to capitalise upon it. Regardless of who they are picking, most people expect Floyd to get hit more in this fight any any of his others.
I also assume that those picking a Pacquiao late stoppage will be basing their views on accumulative punching rather than KO power. I think it's an unlikely outcome , but can't see that it is 'stupid'.
Mosley didn't drop him, but he did have him in trouble.
Not really convinced the situation with peoples predictions for the Hatton fight is comparable- Pacquiao is a much better fighter than Hatton, and Mayweather is getting older- so people have been coming up with scenarios under which Pacquiao could win but the vast majority of people are expecting a Mayweather victory- no one seems to have forgotten how good his is, but do recognise that Manny is a bit special too.
Lastly most of us lived to see Roy jones, and I have no doubt which I consider the better of the two..

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 28 Apr - 14:10

Dave Moretti has been judging for over 30 years.............

Lederman and Chuck Giampa were also regulars on the Vegas circuit........Who did plenty of the big names regularly..

I wouldn't read too much into it unless you're a rabid Manny fan..

I guess you'd like the judges from Manny-JMM 1 ......

by Marlonz Tue 28 Apr - 14:20

Very funny Truss! Yeah, the judge that scored round one 10 - 7 instead of 10 - 6, that's Burt A. Clements... That's what I mean. Anybody cross referencing the track records of those involved and questioning the playing field are hardly rabid Manny fans.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 28 Apr - 14:21

Marlonz wrote:Very funny Truss! Yeah, the judge that scored round one 10 - 7 instead of 10 - 6, that's Burt A. Clements... That's what I mean. Anybody cross referencing the track records of those involved and questioning the playing field are hardly rabid Manny fans.

He was perfectly within his rights to score the first round 10-7, to be perfectly honest I have never seen anything wrong with Bayless' refereeing.

by Marlonz Tue 28 Apr - 14:40

But there were 3 knockdowns?! That's a 10 - 6 score, not 10 - 7.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 28 Apr - 14:42

It doesn't matter whether there were three knockdowns or not, a judge can use his discretion when scoring therefore 10-7 is a perfectly acceptable score, no where in the 10 point must system does it say you lose a point for each knockdown.

by TopHat24/7 Tue 28 Apr - 14:48

So if a fighter got knocked down twice you'd say a 10-10 score would be perfectly legitimate??

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 28 Apr - 14:50

Well no because that does go against the 10 point must system, a two knockdown round can be scored 10-8 depending on the overall flow of that round much like a round with no knockdowns can be scored 10-8 if it's very one sided.

by Coxy001 Tue 28 Apr - 14:50

Not sure I agree with you on this one HH, am pretty much sure they 100% have to deduct a point from the fighter who was knocked down.

You can have a 9-9 round though if it was a flash knockdown and then goes on to smack his opponent all around the ring though (I think).

by Scottrf Tue 28 Apr - 14:52

No, but some governing bodies explicitly state that 10-7 is the maximum disparity before penalties and it's certainly not beyond discretion.

by Coxy001 Tue 28 Apr - 14:52

Ignore that you can't have a 9-9 round under the 10 must rule.

by Scottrf Tue 28 Apr - 14:53

Coxy001 wrote:Not sure I agree with you on this one HH, am pretty much sure they 100% have to deduct a point from the fighter who was knocked down.

You can have a 9-9 round though if it was a flash knockdown and then goes on to smack his opponent all around the ring though (I think).

No, that would be 10-10.

The only way you could have a 9-9 is through penalties, but it wouldn't appear as that anyway as the penalties go at the bottom of the card (EDIT: Actually that's not true for all cards).

by Scottrf Tue 28 Apr - 15:03

See for example Rule E, 3:

http://www.wbanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/WBA-Rules-adopted-in-Panama-2015.pdf

The bout was WBA/IBF.

In likelihood he was the only judge scoring it correctly.

by **88Chris05** Tue 28 Apr - 15:16

Never really liked the 10-7 cap idea - another one where nobody ever seems to be sure of whether it's a suggestion, a command, applicable, not applicable etc.

Interestingly, rather than his own discretion, Clements said that he only scored that first round 10-7 instead of 10-6 because he was under the impression that the NSAC had instructed him and his fellow judges to follow such a cap as Scott has just mentioned - but they hadn't. There's a quote knocking around from Clements (D4 used to post it a lot in order to back up his claim that it was in fact Manny who was robbed in that first fight, not Marquez!) where Clements admits that if he'd been aware of this he'd have scored the round 10-6 as the other two judges did, and that he "dropped the ball" in not doing so.

To me, if you drop your opponent legitimately three times over you should be properly rewarded, but that's just me.

by Scottrf Tue 28 Apr - 15:18

Fair play Chris, obviously D4 didn't make the point strongly enough for me to remember it.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 28 Apr - 15:23

I personally don't like the idea of a round being scored 10-6, it's very doubtful the knockdowns would be heavy enough to warrant it if the other guy makes it to the end of the round.

by Scottrf Tue 28 Apr - 15:24

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I personally don't like the idea of a round being scored 10-6, it's very doubtful the knockdowns would be heavy enough to warrant it if the other guy makes it to the end of the round.

That does mean you can get a free knee to make it to the bell though.

by Rodney Tue 28 Apr - 15:26

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I personally don't like the idea of a round being scored 10-6, it's very doubtful the knockdowns would be heavy enough to warrant it if the other guy makes it to the end of the round.

Boxing is about doing damage scoring 3 knockdowns against your opponent is a accomplishment and needs to be fully rewarded.

Cheers, Rodders

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 28 Apr - 15:30

Doing damage is a by-product of the sport Rodney and it isn't actually the sole aim, in a fight where one man thoroughly outboxes the other it is rather absurd that one round can swing it the other way.

by Rodney Tue 28 Apr - 15:35

Disagree if you've been put on the seat of your pants 3 times and are allowed to continue you should expect to be well behind. The fight is a 10/12 round fight you still have opportunity to get those points back anyhow.
Cheers , rodders

by **88Chris05** Tue 28 Apr - 15:35

horizontalhero wrote:Lastly most of us lived to see Roy jones, and I have no doubt which I consider the better of the two..

The Jones-Mayweather debate is always an interesting one. I think (barring an utterly spectacular decline between now and his retirement) Mayweather will probably be viewed as the figher with a better overall record and career accomplishments and as such will probably get the higher rank for most people when the dust has settled. Who was the greater fighter at their best is trickier to decide.

Mayweather was always the better technician and to that end the more skilled boxer whereas Jones was more of a physical talent with more athletic skills which he was able to harness in to boxing. That's not to say that Jones didn't have good all-round boxing ability and decent fundamentals himself, of course, or that Mayweather wasn't or isn't an excellent athlete in his own right either, but you get my drift.

Both absolutely immense in what they did and both guys didn't just beat a string of good fighters, they dominated them. But Mayweather in terms of what he did (still does) in there is one of a small group for me, whereas Jones was closer to being one of a kind, for me. Just such an unusual and rare talent that you couldn't pigeonhole him in to any particular category and he seemed to be able to excel in just about every area despite doing most things 'wrong' from a technical perspective.

I think Roy of 1993 - 2003 was closer to unbeatable (DQs aside, of course!) than Floyd of, say, 2000 - 2010 was, and was even more dominant against his nearest rivals more often than not. Mayweather perhaps the 'greatest' of his era, whereas Jones might have been the 'best' if that makes sense.

by RanjitPatel Tue 28 Apr - 15:47

I'm interested to see how the shoulder roll holds up to the volume of punches that Pacquaio throws. I think it's going to be difficult for Mayweather to get a points win using his usual one/two shot counters.

Mayweathers accuracy seemed to have dropped in the Maidana fights too. If he's not as accurate then I'll have to give Pacquaio the edge. I've always fancied Pacquaio in this fight though.

Saying that though I want Floyd to win and always have done.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 28 Apr - 15:47

Rodney wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:I personally don't like the idea of a round being scored 10-6, it's very doubtful the knockdowns would be heavy enough to warrant it if the other guy makes it to the end of the round.

Boxing is about doing damage scoring 3 knockdowns against your opponent is a accomplishment and needs to be fully rewarded.

Cheers, Rodders

Shame he lost ten rounds after it..

by Rodney Tue 28 Apr - 15:50

He didn't really though did he ?

Cheers, Rodders

by Scottrf Tue 28 Apr - 15:50

Of course he didn't, but it's a TRUSS catchphrase.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 28 Apr - 15:54

Rodney wrote:He didn't really though did he ?

Cheers, Rodders

One of the worst decsions I've seen in the last 20 years..........No one made a fuss about it like Bradley-Pac..

But Paccy's a nice guy..........

by **88Chris05** Tue 28 Apr - 15:57

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Doing damage is a by-product of the sport Rodney and it isn't actually the sole aim, in a fight where one man thoroughly outboxes the other it is rather absurd that one round can swing it the other way.

I think going in-depth about how heavy or hurtful the knockdowns are is just going too far unneccesarily, Hammersmith, and takes the idea of discretion to a whole new level. If that severity of the knockdowns is a major factor then what's to stop a judge just deciding that a single knockdown in a round wasn't particularly heavy and therefore scoring it 10-9 instead of 10-8 like they should?

I don't particularly agree that a single round out of 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 (however long the fight is scheduled for) potentially having such a massive impact on a fight is somehow unfair, absurd or whatever. You can get knocked down - or knocked out / stopped - at any point in a fight as history shows. Any precise moment or round within a fight has the potential to effect the outcome and is as important as the next. If you get put over three times inside three minutes, tough luck in my opinion. All you can do is get back on the horse and try to claw your way back in to it, which Marquez did fantastically well in that case. I had him winning by a couple of points even with a 10-6 opener against him.

I can understand a bit more discretion in terms of not calling or scoring a knockdown which looks illegitimate and was obviously called in error by the referee; keeping it Pacquiao-related, the 'knockdowns' he suffered against Barrera and Mosley, both of which were really poor refereeing calls, would be decent examples. But if a knockdown is a full and legitimate one I don't think there should be any room for manouvre on how heavy it was or how badly it goes on to effect the guy who gets floored. Should just be a straight-forward extra point cushion in all cases, for me.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 28 Apr - 16:04

I tend to think that is a far too simplistic way of judging a fight, if A happens then B must follow etc. to put it in its most simplistic form there is no way that first round was worthy of being 10-6 as the knockdowns weren't heavy enough.

There has to be a differentiation between a heavy knockdown and a flash knockdown like Hamed was suffering against Kelley otherwise as they aren't worthy of the same reward.

At the end of the day Clements did absolutely nothing wrong in scoring that round 10-7 but it looks like the Pacquiao fans are getting their excuses ready already. Expect a full blown conspiracy of how Bayless and the judges were in Mayweathers back pocket to ensure he won despite recently being on the end of three fairly awful judging displays.

by **88Chris05** Tue 28 Apr - 16:05

Hammersmith harrier wrote:At the end of the day Clements did absolutely nothing wrong in scoring that round 10-7 but it looks like the Pacquiao fans are getting their excuses ready already. Expect a full blown conspiracy of how Bayless and the judges were in Mayweathers back pocket to ensure he won despite recently being on the end of three fairly awful judging displays.

Or we're just having a bit of a debate about scoring a fight.

by **hampo17** Tue 28 Apr - 16:06

So are you saying if it's a flash knockdown it should still be a 10-9 round?

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 28 Apr - 16:07

I agree................Also hate this 10-8 knockdown crap formula..........

How many times do you see a guy dominate a round....get caught with a shot and get stuck with an 8-10.....

It's a strange business when you can smash a guy around the ring without a KD and get a 10-9........Then you can have a tough round and catch someone off balance and get 10-8...

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 28 Apr - 16:08

Potentially Hampo, you can be losing a round but score a knockdown as the result of your opponent being off balance so I think 10-9 would be a fair score.

by Scottrf Tue 28 Apr - 16:09

I think you'd need significant changes to the 10 point must system to justify any radical changes in the scoring of knockdowns.

It doesn't really make sense that it's encouraged to split level-ish rounds, and these are on par with fairly dominant rounds which aren't quite 10-8 worthy.

Unless there's more discretion used then I think scoring knockdowns as they are now is fairest.

I'm sure I've seen scores of 10-10 where there's been a knockdown though, but it's incredibly rare.

by Sponsored content