What do you think of Boxing Historian Bert Sugar's take on Mayweather....

Didn't listen to Sugar, but about Pac/Matweather, Floyd gets bothered about it, Manny doesn't. In many people's minds, Floyd ain't **** without that fight, and he knows it.

I concur. In my honest opinion, he had the liberty and luxury to "know" history but using that to gauge other boxers could be too "linear" in comparison. Thus it is akin to just having a notebook filled with notes but his memory is his notebook. While I agree with his opinion on Mayweather (not entirely but slanted towards it), I don't think it has something to do with HISTORY if you will. If we can compare him into his place in a TV NEWS NETWORK, he would be strictly a reporter/journalist but not with the editorial/commentary slant. He would just report what's there to be seen. But not relegating his contributions to pugilism, he earned his credentials and much kudos to him. It is just that people would readily agree to him just because of his wealth of knowledge (memory) of boxing in general. I guess. I can't see whatever video you placed here but I know his opinion on Floyd changes every week. Hard to take it seriously.

Sure they have weight. When he talks about old fighters, I listen - he is a true historian and is 400yrs old, so he definitely knows his stuff. As far as anything I've seen with my own two eyes? His opinion is no more valid than yours or mine, as far as I'm concerned. I concur. In my honest opinion, he had the liberty and luxury to "know" history but using that to gauge other boxers could be too "linear" in comparison. Thus it is akin to just having a notebook filled with notes but his memory is his notebook. While I agree with his opinion on Mayweather (not entirely but slanted towards it), I don't think it has something to do with HISTORY if you will. If we can compare him into his place in a TV NEWS NETWORK, he would be strictly a reporter/journalist but not with the editorial/commentary slant. He would just report what's there to be seen. But not relegating his contributions to pugilism, he earned his credentials and much kudos to him. It is just that people would readily agree to him just because of his wealth of knowledge (memory) of boxing in general.

Indeed, that is the funniest part of that whole argument to me. I also don't get how even if he knew that and knew Manny would ***** out, how does that reflect on Mayweather really. If I play chicken with someone and they blink first they lose, it doesn't matter if I know for a fact they will blink first, in fact the first rule of chicken is "knowing" that the other guy will blink first or else that is a dumb contest to get into. The excuses are priceless though, as they have entertained me for the year. Well said, G. Well said and well-played.

It's kinda stupid because you really have to delude yourself in order to believe that. "Floyd was playing mind games but it backfired." Obviously, Floyd knew in advance Manny's a b*tch when it comes to testing and would conjure up excuse after excuse. Well, whatever makes people feel better. Indeed, that is the funniest part of that whole argument to me. I also don't get how even if he knew that and knew Manny would ***** out, how does that reflect on Mayweather really. If I play chicken with someone and they blink first they lose, it doesn't matter if I know for a fact they will blink first, in fact the first rule of chicken is "knowing" that the other guy will blink first or else that is a dumb contest to get into. The excuses are priceless though, as they have entertained me for the year.

No, he sucks at a lot of opinions and is great at a lot of others. He's human. He is a tool. A knowledgeable man who knows way more about boxing than most but often says nonsensical bullcrap to gain attention or says things to validate the popular opinion of the masses of dumb fans. He knows better, ofcourse he knew Marquez had no chance and it was a **** fight but he said the absolute opposite, at this moment in time, hes a sad old man.

I can agree with that. He is strictly that, a boxing historian who has his own strong opinions just like all of us. His knowledge about boxing history is impeccable but opinions that pertains to boxing could be of another thing. So you don't think that any of his opinions have any weight in it at all? Not one? Sure they have weight. When he talks about old fighters, I listen - he is a true historian and is 400yrs old, so he definitely knows his stuff. As far as anything I've seen with my own two eyes? His opinion is no more valid than yours or mine, as far as I'm concerned.

No, he sucks at a lot of opinions and is great at a lot of others. He's human. I can agree with that. He is strictly that, a boxing historian who has his own strong opinions just like all of us. His knowledge about boxing history is impeccable but opinions that pertains to boxing could be of another thing. So you don't think that any of his opinions have any weight in it at all? Not one?

Yeah, I actually spoke to him prior to that fight and he kept reiterating that. I am pretty sure he said Gatti would be a tough fight also, but my memory of him saying that is more fuzzy. Sharing your opinion on fights will make you look like a fool more often than not. but come on now. At some point a guy just has the wrong read on a guy.

I think Bert has a point about Mayweather. He's the type of fighter that focuses on the mental aspects of boxing just as much as the physical one's and it looks like he might have psyched himself out of the fight with Pac...Floyd is usually great at getting inside people's heads, but I think it backfired with Pacquiao I think that Bert does have a great point about Mayweather or two most specially about his "0"...though blaming it on Mayweather "entirely" is what I disagreed with. But clearly we can see both extremes in these forums, the PACTARDS and the FLOMOS. Gosh I hate these name-calling on everyone. But back to Bert Sugar. Though he has some very valid points, I wonder how much is it also from his uprbringing being an "old-timer" and from eons ago generation have something to do with it that connotes to racism. Notice I used "connotes" because he isn't necessarily a racist but in these contemporary times, he would be easily be labeled as such.

People watch him jedi mind trick people in the ring so they assume that applies to his overall abilities in life. That is my hypothesis anyways since I have yet to come up with a reason for how Floyd is suppose to know what other guys are thinking It's kinda stupid because you really have to delude yourself in order to believe that. "Floyd was playing mind games but it backfired." Obviously, Floyd knew in advance Manny's a b*tch when it comes to testing and would conjure up excuse after excuse. Well, whatever makes people feel better.

I love how people like to pretend that Mayweather can read minds too. People watch him jedi mind trick people in the ring so they assume that applies to his overall abilities in life. That is my hypothesis anyways since I have yet to come up with a reason for how Floyd is suppose to know what other guys are thinking

He contradicts himself often on Mayweather and flip flops often. I remember right after the JMM fight he was talking about Floyd as one of the greatest defensive fighters ever saying that in that area he is in the same breath as anyone and saying how impressive it was that the lay off really didn't effect him much. Bert Sugar also said Baldomir would be Floyd biggest test since he has never fought anyone so big and strong. Sugar has never really been a hater of Mayweather and generally talked pretty highly of him (when not judging him against history), so his recent run of anti Maywether talk is kind of surprising. I honestly can't remember a Mayweather fight where he said before hand the other guy has no shot, he always gives reasons why the guy should be challenging for Floyd, so really my issue with what he is saying is a matter of consistency and continuity from his past views. Yeah, I actually spoke to him prior to that fight and he kept reiterating that.

I posted this to ask anyone's opinion. I have never issued a statement regarding what you just said. And I agree, that his BOXING HISTORIAN-ess has nothing to do with his opinion with Mayweather. Thus I want to hear from all angles and sides of Bert Sugar's reading on Pacquiao. The next logical question would be: • would it be fair to say he is a great boxing historian but "sucking" at this specific Mayweather opinion? No, he sucks at a lot of opinions and is great at a lot of others. He's human.

He contradicts himself often on Mayweather and flip flops often. I remember right after the JMM fight he was talking about Floyd as one of the greatest defensive fighters ever saying that in that area he is in the same breath as anyone and saying how impressive it was that the lay off really didn't effect him much. Bert Sugar also said Baldomir would be Floyd biggest test since he has never fought anyone so big and strong. Sugar has never really been a hater of Mayweather and generally talked pretty highly of him (when not judging him against history), so his recent run of anti Maywether talk is kind of surprising. I honestly can't remember a Mayweather fight where he said before hand the other guy has no shot, he always gives reasons why the guy should be challenging for Floyd, so really my issue with what he is saying is a matter of consistency and continuity from his past views.

His "take on mayweather" has nothing to do with him being a historian. Could you tell me what your referring to in the bolded, you should take every bert sugar media video with a grain of salt. I posted this to ask anyone's opinion. I have never issued a statement regarding what you just said. And I agree, that his BOXING HISTORIAN-ess has nothing to do with his opinion with Mayweather. Thus I want to hear from all angles and sides of Bert Sugar's reading on Pacquiao. The next logical question would be: • would it be fair to say he is a great boxing historian but "sucking" at this specific Mayweather opinion?

I think Bert has a point about Mayweather. He's the type of fighter that focuses on the mental aspects of boxing just as much as the physical one's and it looks like he might have psyched himself out of the fight with Pac...Floyd is usually great at getting inside people's heads, but I think it backfired with Pacquiao I love how people like to pretend that Mayweather can read minds too.

I think Bert has a point about Mayweather. He's the type of fighter that focuses on the mental aspects of boxing just as much as the physical one's and it looks like he might have psyched himself out of the fight with Pac...Floyd is usually great at getting inside people's heads, but I think it backfired with Pacquiao

bert sugar= primo carnera < the klitschskos :dunno:

He's shot.