Ten Conclusions from Mayweather - Manny !!

1. All the posters who hate Mayweather had the fight close or thought Manny won.....

2. If you couldn't give Manny the victory and you're a fan then it was a stinker......

3. Mayweather has just outboxed the 3rd best fighter on the planet........

4. The Filipino needs to get back onto the shakes.......

5. Shoulder injury shows him to be the classless guy I always thought he was deep down....

6. Mayweather isn't going to get credit off certain individuals no matter what he does........

7. If 606v2 radio had Manny 116-112......I'll never moan about Watt and Halling again...

8. It didn't live up to the hype.............Very few fights ever do..

9. Roach isn't the genius he thinks he is !!

10. If Floyd isn't Top 10 in most lists he must be very close !!.

Can I point for number 7 that one had it I Floyd and Owen was drunk, don't get confused now Trussy.

Number 7 was more tongue in cheek.....

It better be

Top ten all time. If had the opponents he would be top 5.

Glad I am witnesses to this boxing genius

AdamT wrote:Top ten all time. If had the opponents he would be top 5.

Glad I am witnesses to this boxing genius

We aren't going to run the gauntlet after all mate !!!!

But this victory won't change anything..............

I imagine Truss is a huge fan of Rigondeux then? Its the exact same style.

Not the same style................

It's about 17 years at the top and 6/7 Top 10 p4pers on his record..and being a brilliant technician..

Don't be a bad loser..

It wasn't a great fight, but Mayweather controlled and won comfortably, Pacquiao and anyone else who think he won the fight are biased and deluded IMO.

If Pacquiao had been given the verdict, I believe Mayweather would and should have shouted robbery, and I wanted Pacquiao to win.

I picked Mayweather to win, I picked him 5 years ago, he looked brilliant in the first round as soon as I saw that I thought the fight was over.

However he hit ran and held all night last night, which is exactly what Andre Dirrell and Rigondeux do, yet they get slaughtered for it. Its within the rules, but lets not try and pretend anything else. That was not the masterclass he put on against Alvarez, to call it a brilliant performance is laughable, he did what he needed to do to win, with a lot of close rounds.

I haven't seen Mayweather ever do that before and it was effective, but incredibly boring. Usually stays in the pocket uses his brilliant reflexes and punishes his opponent, that was rarely evident yesterday. I love watching counter punchers, its one of my favourite styles, but that was really boring. Marquez did a much better job in the 3rd fight.

He didn't run at all, for the majority of the fight he held the centre of the ring for christ sake and he barely held after the 5th round before which he wasn't holding much anyway.

Some people see fights differently wether they hate Mayweather or not.

Your persecution complex is both boring and stupid. I guess you come here because you get frustrated nobody listens to you at home. Plenty agree with your love of Mayweather some dont.

Hopkins is my favourite boxer, I dont need to get upset that you, Haz, Catweight and others hate him. Im not that insecure.

I must have watched a different fight then

I'm not a Mayweather hater, I love his style, I've watched him for years, but none of that was evident last night

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He didn't run at all, for the majority of the fight he held the centre of the ring for christ sake and he barely held after the 5th round before which he wasn't holding much anyway.

Totally agree, fought an intelligent fight, and at times Pacquiao was taking a step back, I feel Mayweathers right hands were a lot more stinging and hurtful than Pacquiao had anticipated.

Guys he won easily. Far better boxer than Manny. By far best of his era

He didnt win easily. He boxed superbly on high alert 3 minutes a round for 12 rounds. Excellent win against a tough opponent. Didnt look easy though. He showed class afterwards, talkin about Manny being dangerous. Shame there are such moronic, insecure fans of his looking to go one step too far to make their point.

Your man won. Enjoy it? Nope not enough

I haven't seen many people saying Mayweather didn't win, he did and clearly won, with some close rounds due to both of them doing next to nothing. What I have an issue with is the notion of a masterclass/domination, If that's a masterclass of boxing, I'm going to watch a different sport. Alvarez was a masterclass, this was far from

However credit to Mayweather for winning that fight and beating the 2nd best fighter in the world. Great win for his legacy.

Why have an issue at all....

He well beat the third best fighter on the planet.....

Just for once give him the plaudits he deserves for the icing on a great career..

I'm not a fan of any boxer....Mayweather won easily enough, though.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Why have an issue at all....

He well beat the third best fighter on the planet.....

Just for once give him the plaudits he deserves for the icing on a great career..

I'm giving him the plaudits, but it wasn't a masterclass or domination like some people on here are trying to make it out as

AdamT wrote:Top ten all time. If had the opponents he would be top 5.

Glad I am witnesses to this boxing genius

Not quite top 10 for me.

He may have the HOF names on his record but it can be argued that he never fought the majority of them at their peak.

It's impossible to determine at what age a fighter is at their athletic peak but a window of 22-32 years old would encompass the majority of opinions on this subject.

Looking at the P4P fighters on his record since 2007, each opponent was well into their 30's at the time Floyd fought them.

Oscar - 34
Marquez - 36
Mosley - 39
Cotto - 32
Pacqiaou - 36

The question of whose to blame that these fights never happened when the above fighters were in their prime is irrelevant, the fact remains that by the time they fought Floyd each fighter was at the tail end of their stellar careers and at an age where physically, their best days were behind them.

In my opinion Floyd's career can be viewed in terms of two distinct time frames - pre and post Mayweather vs De la Hoya.

His achievements until the Oscar fight had laid the foundations for a career that looked like it was going to be a certainty for inclusion in most Top 10 ATG lists at it's conclusion.

For me Mayweather is 15-20 ATG - he has the talent to warrant an inclusion in the top 10 and had his post 2007 career continued in the same vain as it had started, i feel he would be a cert for a spot in the top 10.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Why have an issue at all....

He well beat the third best fighter on the planet.....

Just for once give him the plaudits he deserves for the icing on a great career..

I haven't seen the fight, so probably shouldn't comment. But, I think most people are acknowledging Floyd won and won well. Its the effect his style and shenanigans have on claims to a great career they're debating.

Kevin Mitchell, the Guardian, is saying he believes Manny was unlucky not to get a split. So, as always, depending on what you look for, even the win can be debated. There is a commentator, on his thread, saying he believes Floyd, over the last 10 fights, gets very close to running foul of the rule to engage. Which, is probably true, judging by comments about this fight.

I actually really enjoy watching good defensive boxers and counter punchers but Floyd has transcended that to be almost negative. Further, he, recently, seems to have started to cherry pick pressure fighters that flatter him. I thought Manny, as probably the best pressure fighter of the generation, stood a chance but obviously, I was wrong or Manny was not on form, which ever. But, Floyd has had the most problems with the more considered fighters of his generation, Moseley, Castillo, ODLH. Which is probably is why he chose Maidana over Khan. Khan won't come forward with his face, as his chin is susceptible.

The Mayweather "fan boys" talk about how much he earns but that is an assinine and moronic argument in an era when ALL SPORTS earn more than previously. Are people saying the Brazil side of the 70's must be worse than the England side today, because they earn less? Are people seriously trying to say Ali, Frazier, Foreman were obviously many times inferior because the Rumble in the Jungle and Thriller in Manila got less receipts?

I really enjoy his skill(s), reflexes, timing and athleticism but, when his career ends, how many of the "Floyd Mayweather's best fights" DVDs will get sold?

For his talent, Floyd has sold himself short and used the subdiffuge of "money" as the reason he has done it. And his fans fall for it.

10 yrs from now he won't be many people's top 10 WW's.

Would be better served watching the fight really and how much more money do you honestly expect him to make, it's a really awful argument.

B.A. BARACUS wrote:In my opinion Floyd's career can be viewed in terms of two distinct time frames  - pre and post Mayweather vs De la Hoya.

His achievements until the Oscar fight had laid the foundations for a career that looked like it was going to be a certainty for inclusion in most Top 10 ATG lists at it's conclusion.

For me Mayweather is 15-20 ATG - he has the talent to warrant an inclusion in the top 10 and had his post 2007 career continued in the same vain as it had started, i feel he would be a cert for a spot in the top 10.  

I agree.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Would be better served watching the fight really and how much more money do you honestly expect him to make, it's a really awful argument.

I know you're "fanboy #1" but try reading what I said because you've just fulfilled the stereotype I outlined.

Further, through your bias you seem unable to deconvolute different issues. Above I talk about how the "fanboys", like you, fall back on defending him by saying he earns alot. As if to vindicate why he is the "best". Above, I illustrate how earning is a terrible way to judge "quality". As if you shouldn't know htat already.

ON other threads, you told me how he was "about the money". So, I dissected that argument pointing out opportunities where he didn't choose the most lucrative option and how he could have earned more. You simply came back with the assinine "he's earnt lots already" comment. You can't even see how you missed the point.

So, read the comments and stop with your witless "he's earnt lots" rebuttals. They make you look silly.

Your usual childish fanboy reply and I cannot believe you are the missing point that is being so badly that you've created two paragraphs of waffle.

You are the one who keeps mentioning money and at no point has anyone including myself said that his high earnings are an indication of his ability or greatness. Your initial woefully incorrect stance was that he wasn't a draw until he started with Showtime which was factually false and that his apparent avoidance of Khan was a sign he wasn't about money. My stance on this has been the same throughout, Mayweather is a great boxer capable of a defensive masterclass (note the use of the word defensive) but he for many years has been about the highest reward for the lowest possible risk.

I somehow don't think a fanboy would be calling the object of his affection a selective matchmaker but each to their own but you seem to be making points that have no relevance to anything. The difference between Khan and Maidana money wise is negligible considering that the former would command a higher purse so again fitting the high reward low risk philosophy.

Then commenting on a fight you have not watched saying it could have gone either way because Kevin Mitchell said Pacquiao was unlucky is baffling. I could if I felt inclined list Jones, Malignaggi, Tyson, Lederman, Gray, Kellerman, Watt, Lampley, Nelson, Lewis. DiBella etc. who all had Mayweather winning a clear decision, better of watching it first though aye.

Truss, I think you have to take the consideration that Pac has the pressure of the Philippines on his shoulders and clearly felt rock bottom for losing to Floyd (you could see on his face that he knew he'd lost). So when he said he thought he'd won and then mentioned the torn shoulder it could very well have been to try and lessen the blow that millions of impoverished, highly impressionable people are bound to feel, as opposed to Pac trying to protect his own ego.

Sorry HH, you're losing it.

'Your usual childish fanboy reply'

Who am I meant to be a fan of?

'You are the one who keeps mentioning money'

No, you came out with the comment that was totally out of context:

'and how much more money do you honestly expect him to make'

I had only said he, and his fans, use his earnings to justify why he is an atg.

'Then commenting on a fight you have not watched'

My only comment was it sounds like he won but, as usual with a points win, there is variable views.

The vast bulk of my comment was on Floyd and his career.

I agree with BA, I started to stop following/supporting Floyd about the time of the ODLH fight. Up till then I thought he could be an ATG. Since then, he's been under achieving.

But, as a fanboy you won't recognise a balanced critique.

I think if Mayweather is criticised for failing to engage, Pacquiao should. He spent the majority of the fight daydreaming.

1) I don't like Mayweather and I gave him the win.
2) Well you couldn't exactly call that entertaining.
3) True
4) Can't say Floyd beat the 3rd best on the planet then give Manny an excuse.
5) True
6) Your self included.
7) Didnt listen
8) Wasn't exactly expecting a phone booth shootout
9) His boxers came closer the anyone else
10) Not for me...

Still bemused at how average Manny looked, more to the point was made to look...

Jab, straight right, lateral movement... He didn't do much more than that and Manny was missing by miles. Guess it's easy enough to look good and have quick hands when you're fighting face first fighters though...

Manny didn't throw because when he did he was hitting fresh air or on occasions being beaten to the punch. He got deterred as early as round 1 when he ate a right hand that he felt more than he let on...

Defensive materclass, and note the word defensive.

Who's next? Could be Brook or Thurman... No Khan as he's on Ramadan... Would love him to fight Brook, if partly because Khan will then cry.

Surely would have been a more enthralling contest in 2010 or so but I can't believe that the result would have been different. I've always thought that Pacquiao's style would suit Floyd perfectly; five years ago, I suspect that Manny would have incorporated a bit more risk into his strategy but it's hard to think that he would have had more success catching up with an even more elusive Mayweather.

No point carping about Floyd; I've still got him around the nine or ten mark all-time and he really doesn't deserve less. History will be kinder to him than we are. The only spot of inconsistency that I can see is the way in which certain folk, notably Truss, persist in assessing the relative merits of Mayweather and Pernell Whitaker. To me they are peas from the same pod, if you'll excuse the pun. Truss regards Whitaker as a "stinker" of a fighter, while not denying his greatness; I have never heard the same epithet used for Floyd. In my view, they are both the epitome of the essence of boxing and in pure ability and quality of opposition beaten, there is little to choose between them. Floyd's superior longevity gives him a narrow advantage in an all-time sense - something like a difference of three or four places in my list - but there isn't a lot in it. Both greats by any measure.

As is Pacquiao, of course. This fight didn't showcase his best attributes and it may be that time has moved on too far for us to hope to see them again. There's no shame in being a fringe top 20 all-time merchant and Manny's achievements will also stand the test of time.

Cap, i'm no real fan of Whitaker and they both have performances at Welterweight which leave a lot to be desired in the excitement stakes; Baldomir for instance was a stinker of a fight. However I will say that many myself included will have followed Mayweather his whole career and have memories of him being aggressive in fights especially down at 130lbs. I haven't watched a lot of Whitaker i'll openly admit, going back and watching a defensive master is slightly different to watching them in the present. Basically what i'm asking are there any fights in which Whitaker showcases a more aggressive style because after all perception is reality.

Hammersmith, not trying to infringe on the captain (sorry cap!) but if you don't mind mate I'd suggest any of Pernell's fights against Uncle Roger, Haugen, Paez, McGirt (rematch) or Rodriguez in terms of fights where he focussed less than normal on defence and forced the issue a bit more, dishing out punishment.

Even the Chavez fight, particularly the second half of it, isn't a bad example. There's the Nazario blowout as well, I guess.

As you've said though, even the younger, more aggressive Whitaker just didn't have the same kind of power as a 130 lb Mayweather did. But all of the above guys knew they'd been in a real fight rather than just a boxing clinic afterwards I'm sure.

I would add that if FMJ is borderline top 10, then Whittaker is too. But Whittaker suffers as he operated in an era when boxing had many more real stars to compete for the accolades. Floyd's brilliance is magnified but the paucity of game over the last few years- outside of FMJ and Manny we have no real stars.

I could go top 15 right now and top 15-20 if being ultra cautious, but then I only saw him for the first time against Hatton. His talent would get him in the top ten , his record probably not quite. Not the best ever but in with a shout of best defensive fighter ever, the defensive masters usually just sit outside the top 10, I mean he could only dream of having Ray Leonard's equipment.

Is he greater than Leonard or Whittaker just to take two examples? It has crossed my mind before but it would be wrong to say that. After last night you could make a case though, he just oozes pure quality, the fight was over by the seventh with Manny firmly under control, this the Manny considered amongst the finest offensive fighter's of his generation. I think about 116-112, got to be honest I could have gone 117-111. Manny a bit classless in defeat, it has to be said. But not nearly as sharp as he was five years ago.

... he certainly had a bit of a go at uncle rog chris... a few after the bell and a decent left hook on the ref too!

I certainly haven't watched too much of whittaker's early days, but from what i have seen, i'd describe him as higher output than mayweather and  less of a potshotter, worked the body more. Never what you'd call really call an aggressive fighter even in his youth, but he wasn't a guy on his bike either.

Similarities with Floyd obviously defensively, subtle movements.... George Benton old school defensive tricks,,, like a bar of wet soap in the way he'd be there in front of you but still hard to catch clean,

Think floyd sparred with him as kid, maybe he picked up a few tricks.

Incidentally, I do think its a much better fight in 2010. I think the result is most likely the same, but a more mobile and energetic manny forces more action.

Manny definitely didn't look his best, if he had a tear that could hamper his movement quite a bit.

If that was the case Herman then they should have put in the proper paperwork when it happened instead of trying to fudge it now.
I get Manny's feeling a bit humiliated but he should come out, hold his hands up and be the gracious opponent.

Hay guys writing this from the sunny Caribbean where, to my amazement, I was able to watch the fight LIVE no PPV just watched it on an ordinary terrestrial channel.

Here is my views on the fight.

1) Mayweather was happy to do the bare minimum to win the fight. I found it boring and as with every Maywaether fight I was eager for Floyd to do more.

2) This fight just proves that had the 2 met 6 years ago as was expected then Mayweather would have outboxed Manny or even worse.

3) Manny is was NEVER on Floyds level as a fighter.

4) The whole escapade was a joke. Fight of the Century and it was not even a tough sparring session for both guys. he last fight of the century between Ali and Frasier was a classic. What I saw the other night was not even close.

Enjoy yourself 1/2, whereabouts in the carribean are you???.

Derbymanc wrote:Enjoy yourself 1/2, whereabouts in the carribean are you???.

cheers derby

St Lucia

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Hay guys writing this from the sunny Caribbean where, to my amazement, I was able to watch the fight LIVE no PPV just watched it on an ordinary terrestrial channel.

Here is my views on the fight.

1) Mayweather was happy to do the bare minimum to win the fight. I found it boring and as with every Maywaether fight I was eager for Floyd to do more.

2) This fight just proves that had the 2 met 6 years ago as was expected then Mayweather would have outboxed Manny or even worse.

3) Manny is was NEVER on Floyds level as a fighter.

4) The whole escapade was a joke. Fight of the Century and it was not even a tough sparring session for both guys. he last fight of the century between Ali and Frasier was a classic. What I saw the other night was not even close.

I agree with these two points.

I picked Floyd to win, I wanted him to win and I thought he easily deserved the decision so I have no reason at all to be bitter. Having said that though, the fight was dull and I didn't see the master class that some are talking about.

It's almost as if Floyd and Manny got together months ago and decided to cash in before it was too late. Not once during this 'fight of the century' did I get excited or stand up in excitement. If people buy into Manny's excuse that he had a bad shoulder and there's a rematch I can't see it doing big numbers. Everybody who was there watching the fight with me were disappointed, they all expected more. I can't see enough people being gullible enough be burned twice.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Enjoy yourself 1/2, whereabouts in the carribean are you???.

cheers derby

St Lucia

St Lucia. I've been to the capitol there twice, Castries. Nice island and nice people.

Have fun.

Lance wrote:Some people see fights differently wether they hate Mayweather or not.

Your persecution complex is both boring and stupid. I guess you come here because you get frustrated nobody listens to you at home. Plenty agree with your love of Mayweather some dont.

Hopkins is my favourite boxer, I dont need to get upset that you, Haz, Catweight and others hate him. Im not that insecure.

You're entitled to believe I have a persecution complex and you're entitled to speculate what happens behind closed doors in my house.......You're probably not far wrong either !!

But regarding Hopkins I have always been a big fan.............Wonderful fighter and I rate him at middle above Hagler..........and would also pick him to beat him..............That's before all his other accomplishments..

My problem is that I don't believe it's good for the game that a) Someone is fighting at/near fifty.............b) That it's good for the game he's having relative success at that age !!.....

Glad I cleared that up for you chuck !!

Doesn't matter if Pac was injured, he wouldn't have won anyway and he wouldn't have won 5 years ago, the book was well and truly shut on that debate.

St Lucia's nice, you lucky sod. Enjoy the weather but stay away from that Bacardi 151

How does a fight with two guys considered past their best end the debate on who wins in their primes. It might give an indication, but it depends how much each has slipped. You can make a good case that the smarter defensive fighter is better suited to fighting past prime than the all action guy.

As i've said all along, I always reckoned that floyd would beat manny whenever they fought, but i don't think what we witnessed at the weekend rubber stamps it as a certainty.

Leonard pulled off the win against hagler (apologies for mentioning it) when both were past their best, I'm not sure i'd pick him to have won 4 years earlier. An old hopkins avenged an old jones. I'm not saying the declines are comparable, I'm saying it doesn't actually take much of a slip on one side or the other to dramatically alter the result and that's true of all top class sport. The margins are fine.