Why do some fans tout PBF's victory over a 7-1 underdog?

I don't think it's that he improved so much. Sometimes guys underperform. Sometimes they do better than expected. It's not some unknown concept.

People are trying to use Maidanas odds against Mayweather to make Maidana appear worse than he is. The only reason he was such a big price was because he was fighting Mayweather. Any other fighter including Pacquiao and Maidana would have much shorter odds. I understood the odds..Let's be real the odds reflected most peoples feeling about this fight(which was it was a mismatch)..I won't lie,Maidana did better then I thought he would..He imposed himself on the fight better then I thought he ever could.. It does not change that Floyd deserves credit for beating him,and Maidana deserves credit for showing up(look to Mayweather Alvarez to see a fighter not show up,it looks horrible)and giving a great effort.. These boxing fans are always ready to detract for one reason or another..It's really :lame:..May deserves credit for a hard fought fight,and Maidana deserves credit for not laying down(which I thought he would after a few rds)..Happy to be proven wrong..

lmao at floyd stans suddenly claiming chino has improved ten fold when in actual fact he is still the same c level fighter who exposed the cherry picking of floyd, chino had to be robbed of a win, it now makes sense why floyd ducked the best fighters, to avoid being beaten

He was only so long in the odds because he was fighting Mayweather. If he was fighting Pacquiao he'd be like 3/1. Pac would have beat the hell out of Maidana,not because he's the better fighter(even tho I wish Floyd and him would prove this once and for all)..Pac's style is big trouble for a fighter like Maidana imo.. I expected Floyd to have to deal with some roughhouse stuff(which he did)yet knew his class would tell and he would run away with the fight..Which he did..

PBF is the real deal, but, how good is he really when he couldn't cruise through victory against a 7-1 underdog. Yes, Maidana has improved. But, he was still an overwhelming underdog despite his recent improvements(I'm pretty sure the oddsmakers took that into consideration). What does that tell ya about PBF? Let's be real,Maidana was not coming for a boxing match,he was coming for a fight..No matter what,he was not going to have respect for Floyd and was going to take risk a lot of Floyds other opponents would not have took to try and land on him.. IMO I thought Floyd was even more impressive in this fight then in a lot of his fights in recent memory(Guerrero and Alvarez)for one reason..His opponent brought the fight and Mayweather answered with toughness and grit..He fought the other guy's fight and beat him at his own game..He did the same with Cotto as well..I think Floyd deserves credit for beating up a young hungry fighter..Who was on a winning streak btw.. 7-1 dog or not,Maidana would have giving a lot of fighters a hard time that night..Floyd won clearly imo,and that's something to give credit for in my book..

Maidana was never +1800 but Floyd was -1800. That means he was a 18-1 favorite which means Maidana was a 18-1 underdog https://i.imgur.com/xO1QNyQ.jpg Its under StanJames That's not what it means. If it were -1800/+1800 it would.

I never saw him as +1800. And I saw the sig you had, and it didn't say it either. Maidana was never +1800 but Floyd was -1800. That means he was a 18-1 favorite which means Maidana was a 18-1 underdog https://i.imgur.com/xO1QNyQ.jpg Its under StanJames

What about his previous 40+ fights?

No one went crazy over the win, he won as expected. stop acting like Maidana is some scrub who cares about who is the favorite or underdog? Name one fighter at 147 who would be the odds on favorite over himMayweather will be the favorite over everyone fighting at or around his weight class....you cant expose a hall of famer, let alone a guy that has been undefeated beating world class competition since 1998 stop reaching

Theres some awfully strange analogies on this thread trying to support Floyds performance with tennis analogies. The fact is allowing Floyd to not perform against heavy underdogs and not penalizing him, is giving him a green light to not take the strongest challenges and continue to cherry pick. Because even if he fights a bum, and looks bad he wont suffer the consequences and be penalized, how is that right, its like one rule for Floyd and another for everyone else. So if Pac went life and death with Rios and lost 5 rounds are Floyd fans or Pac detractors pretending they wouldn't downgrade Pac for it? Pinochio wouldn't even dare tell that lie. Fact is if you fight heavy underdogs you better look fantastic and perform otherwise you will be heavily criticised and lose your no1 p4p in the process. The alternative is fight on paper stronger opponents and fights.

I said years a go and I still say today.. Floyd is a high performance race car who races mini vans and then claims he is fastest car on the block.. When another race car comes along Floyd claims it is using nitro injections or alien technology, calls it cheater and then goes back to racing family sedans.. When he did race other race cars ,, They were obsolete and had been in a few crashes before he would even get on the same track as them. This is the way it has been for some time now.

Who rates this as a good win? It was an average win floyd should have won easy but he didn't.

He also dominated Canelo as a 2.5 to 1 favorite. So basically according to that logic, everyone should be giving him huge amounts of credit for that fight. After all, odds are the only thing that matters.

In other news, it's ridiculous to use Vegas odds to support an argument after the fight. Believe it or not , sometimes Vegas gets it wrong. Underdogs do better than expected all the time. It's just a completely ignorant way to support an argument.

Maidana was never a 7-1 underdog, I have a screenshot of him as a 18-1 underdog I never saw him as +1800. And I saw the sig you had, and it didn't say it either.

Maidana was never a 7-1 underdog, I have a screenshot of him as a 18-1 underdog

Everyone is an underdog against Floyd. Should he never get credit for his wins?q

If we're gonna play the who was favorite/who was underdog game then there are many fights to discredit throughout history. An underdog giving the favorite a tough fight or even a loss, is as common as Floyd/Pac threads in NSB.

it was actually an 11-1 underdog

Quoting odds is ridiculous.... who in the welterweight division would be bookmakers favorite to beat Floyd? He is favorite to beat everyone (hence being ranked P4P #1) and therefore saying 'beating somebody he was favored to win against isn't impressive' is a redundant statement. Bookmakers odds are based on what we think will happen in a fight the majority of the time based on previous perceptions... but what is most likely to happen doesn't always happen... if it did, what would be the point in watching any sport? If in tennis Rafael Nadal has a close first round match against a non-ranked opponent, do we then write him off as overrated and believe he has no chance in the tournament? No, of course not. The true great sportsman are the ones who achieve at the highest level the majority of the time. Blips happen but the key is remaining as consistent as possible.... which is precisely what Floyd has done throughout his career.