And running away from a real fight......man up and take some shots.
Mayweather vs Canelo: your pick?
- Thread starter oakeshott
- Start date
Let's see, Alvarez 23 and Floyd 37. Yup, Floyd knew how to frustrate a younger fighter and he knew how to stay away from his power. That is not schooling, that is more like avoiding a fight. Floyd just jabbed and ran.
Love this, Epic!!Thought this was funny:
You keep saying floyd ran, he didn't. What he showed that night was boxing in its purest form.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to see high volume power punching, knockdowns, back and forth exchanges, and high landing percentages in fights. To each their own. luckily for me, i enjoy both. Everyone that has watched Floyd for years, knows that's not what they are gonna get. They're seeing one of the best boxers go out there and box, frustrate his opponent and make them look bad.
But at the end of the day, the guy who is winning the fight can't be blamed for how he's fighting. The losing fighter is another story. The losing fighter who is content to sit back and lose a decision is not doing his job. The losing fighter who does not take risks to turn the tide is not doing his job. Canelo was content in eating jabs and getting countered.
You said "And running away from a real fight". This is a boxing match. In a real fight you use your legs, knees, elbows, etc. Therefore, mayeather fought a great boxing match.
Maybe boxing isn't for you if you expect fighters to just stand there and exchange punches to the face with no sort of slipping/defense.
oakeshott said it perfect here.
Last edited:
I had the opportunity to meet Howard Davis, 1976 gold medalist, years ago. I asked him what he thought of folks who claimed he was boring and not willing to mix it up. He said they can feel that way when they're the ones taking the shots. He was a defensive genius, and voted the outstanding boxer of the '76 games from a squad that included the Spinks brothers and Ray Leonard. Boxing is as much about not getting hit as hitting the other guy.
+1 on Floyd teaching a boxing clinic last Saturday might. Saul had plenty of heart but nothing else to offer Money. I actually thought that Floyd mixed it up more than I had expected. That was an impressive display of pure boxing.
Yeah, I remember that stuff.
I'm sure both camps have their "official version" of what went down, and we can each have our own favourite and all that ... but the bottom line is even if they DO fight now/soon, it'll be in the shadow of "man, too bad you guys didn't fight back in your prime!"
Sad when the fans are deprived of that.
I said real fight, as in boxing not UFC. Real fight as in stay in your opponents face and box/FIGHT. Floyd kept on pestering Canelo on each hold. Canelo had to give him a low tap and on several occasions he had to push him off with his shoulders, for which the ref warned Canelo because
Sugar ray Leonard stood in your face all 12 rounds, Roberto Duran, Mark Breland, Julio Chavez, Joe Luis, Dempsey, Marciano, Archie Moore, Smokin Joe, Hopkins, Roy Jones, Alexis Aguelo, Jake lamota, Thomas Hearns, De la hoya, Marvin Hagler, Willie Pepp ........ you see, i dont have anything against Floyd, i just dont like the way he wont go toe to toe like like these few past in your face fighters.
Here are a few side show antics by Floyd
View attachment 368989View attachment 368991View attachment 368992View attachment 368993View attachment 368994
View attachment 368989View attachment 368991View attachment 368992View attachment 368993View attachment 368994
I dont dislike Floyd, he is a popular boxer and hangs with top singers like Wayne and Beiber. He dont have many sponsors or marketing power due to various reasons but he is still the top earning athlete without top sponsors.
View attachment 369000
View attachment 369000
It started when Sylvester Stallone asked Manny Pacquiao. They talked about the movie being planned by Stallone, which is not a boxing movie but something like “Rush Hour” a Jacky Chan-Chris Tucker hit type of film according to Pacquiao’s business manager Erik Pineda. Stallone was busted with 48 vials of HGH/steroid type supplements in Australia. This led to Floyds camp wanting to drug test Manny before and after the proposed fight. The Manny camp had issues becuase taking blood from Manny before the fight would physically weaken Manny which would give Floyd the advantage.
Manny claimed in the suit that he has never tested positive for any performance-enhancing drugs, but that Mayweather, Mayweather's father and uncle, Oscar De La Hoya and Golden Boy Promotions' Richard Schaefer embarked on a campaign to make people think he used drugs. Pacquiao's attorney said his client's professional career would suffer if boxing fans believe he used steroids or human growth hormone to win titles in seven weight classes.
I remember similar discussions in the MMA thread, around 'boring' fighters like GSP who would 'lay and pray' instead of really mixing it up. Ultimately, I think it boils down to a difference of opinion/preference between those who appreciate the technical aspects of the "safe" sort of fighting, and those who long to see high-impact ferocity from beginning to end. I think there is a lot to be said for those fighters who are smart enough (or well-coached enough) to understand the rules and the scoring criteria for their chosen sport, and who understand their opponent, and tailor their strategy to maximise the chance of success.
And yes, there is a great deal to be said for making sure you are not getting hit, rather than just hitting. One moment of too much attack and not enough defence, and ...
... well, you know.
I think that every combat-oriented sport will have a certain set of "unwritten rules" ... some of which may actually be written down as technical details, if you will ... about what is and is not the minimum amount of aggression required of the participants. Running away is generally frowned upon, and I think every combat sport has a way of dealing with what it sees as the excessively passive. Fighters are usually allowed to "protect a lead", though, within limits.
In a sad boxing related note (which should merit its own thread), Ken Norton died. 
I wholeheartedly agree with your analytical and very insightful view and opinion, but who are you going to blame for not wanting to get hit hard or even knocked out. I know that boxing is a brutal sport which entails a certain amount of intellingence mixed in with some special world class athletic abilities. Boxing can have various styles as you eloquently put it. The sport requires some survival mode type of defense which i understand is applied by even the greatest brawlers or technicians of the ring.I remember similar discussions in the MMA thread, around 'boring' fighters like GSP who would 'lay and pray' instead of really mixing it up. Ultimately, I think it boils down to a difference of opinion/preference between those who appreciate the technical aspects of the "safe" sort of fighting, and those who long to see high-impact ferocity from beginning to end. I think there is a lot to be said for those fighters who are smart enough (or well-coached enough) to understand the rules and the scoring criteria for their chosen sport, and who understand their opponent, and tailor their strategy to maximise the chance of success.
And yes, there is a great deal to be said for making sure you are not getting hit, rather than just hitting. One moment of too much attack and not enough defence, and ...
... well, you know.
I think that every combat-oriented sport will have a certain set of "unwritten rules" ... some of which may actually be written down as technical details, if you will ... about what is and is not the minimum amount of aggression required of the participants. Running away is generally frowned upon, and I think every combat sport has a way of dealing with what it sees as the excessively passive. Fighters are usually allowed to "protect a lead", though, within limits.
As i keep on emphasizing that i have nothing against Floyd. I give him respect for his accumulated boxing wins and entertaining factor that he has brought to the sport. What i don't like is his pretty boy approach and his constant bragging. He considers himself one of the All Time greats. He may be one of the all time greats in wins, but when it comes to real technical wins he is not in the top 30. He basically has achieved wins from not going toe to toe against opponents .
In a sad boxing related note (which should merit its own thread), Ken Norton died.
He was 70....Now talk about Toe to Toe boxers, he got so close that he broke Ali's jaw. And Ali was a in your face boxer too, and he proved it by getting his jaw broke, he did not run away from power.
Hagler vs. Hearns=boxing awesomeness.
Very true, but round 15 of Norton-Holmes was one of the best rounds in boxing history as well.
I don't know Floyd well enough to comment on whether or not he's a bragging pretty-boy, but I can certainly agree with you that bragging pretty-boys are annoying.
Let me comment on the last two sentences ... in general, I don't have a problem with boxers who adopt a fighting style of not going toe-to-toe with their opponents. I appreciate a boxer who understands his strengths and weaknesses, and who maximises the former and minimises the latter. Maybe that means avoiding toe-to-toe, or maybe it means trying to get there, depending on the boxer.
Let's assume for sake of argument that Floyd's style of fighting is designed by him and his trainers to maximise his strengths and minimise his weaknesses (IMHO a reasonable assumption for that level of boxing). I'm guessing that if he HAD done a lot more toe-to-toe fighting over his career, his won/lost record would not be as good.
It's not like I want to "defend" Floyd here or anything. I'm just suggesting that "toe to toe" is a boxing style ... an option ... rather than a requirement to be a great boxer, regardless of whether Floyd is a great boxer or not.
Hagler vs. Leonard = robbery
