Which is more flawed - GGG's defence or Floyd's offence?

[KJB]

*Shrug* Floyd gives you a jazz exhibition, not a rock concert. Some people can't appreciate that. They've all still paid money to watch him fight and win. As a boxing fan I can appreciate a destructive killer (Triple G) or a brilliant tactician.

[Weebler I]

Well no one is saying that.

No one in their right mind would say that.

lol you actually posted it but I'm assuming it's a typo.

[$Bullsfam$]

Floyd is a defensive genius, probably the best ever. His stance is near perfect, in that you can barely land on him without taking a counter straight hook/digging right hook in return.

But to get to that point of defence, he has sacrificed hugely offensively. To the point where it's an eye-sore watching him fight. When you're so defensive-minded, you lose something the other way. Same with GGG in terms of offence.

I know people diss on the casual fans but it's a problem when people come up to you and call the fight of the century trash and ask you what the hell Mayweather was doing in there.....and you have no answer. In a way, the casual fans can see the problems with his style more clearly than the rest of us, who are so used to it.

But at what point does Mayweather stop getting a free-pass for stinking fights up? Pac, Marquez, DLH, Guerrero, Maidan, Canelo.....all usually in exciting fights.

They fight Mayweather and.....it's a complete eye-sore. But here's the brilliant thing. They get blamed for not making Floyd's ass less boring

I don't know man. I usually ignore casuals or keep my opinion to myself and laugh because usually they say the most ridiculous things haha. Like how can you have an opinion when you've seen 1 fight in 5 years haha. I actually thought the Oscar, Cotto, Hatton, Maidana and Manny fights were all pretty good. From a knowledgeable fans point of view you knew Fliyd would do what he did and I enjoyed watching all of them try to crack it. It's not like they stood there and starred at each other like 75% of the people who saw the fight and are bitter Manny loss would leave you to believe.

You can't predict Gatti-Ward classics and anybody who knows Floyd knows that was NEVER a possibility to begin with. I enjoy watching people try to crack his defense. Maidana, Cotto and Manny did so good but faded down the stretch.

[Porter's Dad]

He hurt Maidana, Canelo, Guererro, Cotto, almsot every fighter he fights he will land a punch that momentarily hurts them.

You don't need to close the show to be offensively good. Do you consider Whitaker offensively good? Because he rarely closed the show nor could he really punch.

Floyd's offense is clearly better than Golovkin's offense. Especially considering the ridiculously large gap in level of opposition.

Pernell didn't have the power to close shows. But he was way more interesting than Floyd offensively, he could/would fight in the pocket more. If Floyd hurts these guys, why doesn't he follow up? Why does he literally run in the final round (or final two in some cases?)

I mean, wasn't Mayweather going to destroy Pac on the inside? And instead we had to watch him clinch repeatedly?

[b00g13man]

Loooooooooooool

[Crazylegs77]

*Shrug* Floyd gives you a jazz exhibition, not a rock concert. Some people can't appreciate that. They've all still paid money to watch him fight and win. As a boxing fan I can appreciate a destructive killer (Triple G) or a brilliant tactician.

What I dont get is how excessive clinching shows brilliance..I dont get how referees not allowing inside fighting shows great tactics..Side stepping quickly around the ring isnt good defense or boxing either. GGG wants to win, he fights with vigor, Floyd knows he will win if he follows the usual recipe and has all the usual ingredients, he phones it in with as little risk as possible..whats brilliant is somehow he made millions from it while also managing to avoid fighting the best guys in their primes.

[IronDanHamza]

lol you actually posted it but I'm assuming it's a typo.

That's correct.

[IronDanHamza]

Pernell didn't have the power to close shows. But he was way more interesting than Floyd offensively, he could/would fight in the pocket more. If Floyd hurts these guys, why doesn't he follow up? Why does he literally run in the final round (or final two in some cases?)

I mean, wasn't Mayweather going to destroy Pac on the inside? And instead we had to watch him clinch repeatedly?

Floyd doesn't have the power to close shows either.

And regardless my question was do you think Whitaker isn't good offensively? By some of the logic you're using he wasn't.

Floyd does fight in the pocket. He's not going to fight in the pocket or "destroy" Pacquaio on the inside because Pacquaio doesn't stay or fight on the inside.

He doesn't follow up but at this stage in his career he's lacking killer instinct that he used to have. But that doesn't mean your isn't good.

[KJB]

What I dont get is how excessive clinching shows brilliance..I dont get how referees not allowing inside fighting shows great tactics..Side stepping quickly around the ring isnt good defense or boxing either. GGG wants to win, he fights with vigor, Floyd knows he will win if he follows the usual recipe and has all the usual ingredients, he phones it in with as little risk as possible..whats brilliant is somehow he made millions from it while also managing to avoid fighting the best guys in their primes.

If it was as simple as stepping quickly and clinching, the whole world of boxing isn't worth a damn for not being able to beat him.

There were some clinches, but clinching is part of the game and older fighters tend to clinch more. It was nothing like a Wlad fight where the clinch was his only defense, far from it as a matter of fact. Watch the fights, Floyd makes people miss, often standing right in front of them with his hands down, and lands almost at will. That's pretty much the definition of boxing brilliance.

[jas]

Ggg ko's mayweather