114-114 is fair.
I scored it 115-113 for Floyd on the night of the fight, and again when I re-watched it recently. It was a close fight.
Regarding the 11th round, I gave it to Floyd because Floyd really dominated the first 1:45 of that round and did a lot of good work early. He had one of his best combinations just 10seconds into the round, for example, and he deserves credit for it even if it did happen early on.
Maidana dominated the next 45 seconds, and then Floyd got him with a couple of quick hooks before Maidana tackled him. Floyd landed a couple decent shots after getting up at the end of the round.
Again, it was a close fight, and I don't have a problem with anyone scoring it a draw even though I had Floyd in a close win.
The biggest problem is soo many ppl ignore DEFENSE and body work!
Some people seem to simultaneously ignore good defense AND give way too much credit the other fighter who isn't landing cleanly just because he's "more active" which creates an even further problem.
Activity level can obviously be the difference in close rounds, but straight up failing to be effective while being the aggressor should also count against a fighter at some point.
I definitely think in-fighting is a bit of a lost art.
In addition to the guys you mentioned, I think Errol Spence has a pretty solid inside game, and Orlando Salido also comes to mind (even though he's not an active fighter anymore).
What happened? Mayweather won by UD. :lol1:
Think I had it 115-113 Mayweather, my RBR is on here somewhere.
I also had Mayweather winning. It was a weird fight to score because neither guy did all that much, and a lot of rounds could've gone either way. I know the media scorecards were split pretty much 50/50.
I want Porter vs Crawford too.
But Thurman vs Crawford would also be a damn good fight. And Thurman says it's a lie that he asked for $10 million.
Honestly I'd be okay with Crawford fighting Thurman, on second thought, even though I'd definitely rather see Porter. Thurman has at least been in with top guys and has two fights under his belt since returning, so he definitely shouldn't have any "ring rust" at this point.
I also believe Thurman if he said he didn't demand $10 million. He only earned $2.5 million against Pacquiao, who's still a bigger draw than Crawford despite being past his prime, and Crawford's biggest career purse is $5.5 million. Can't imagine Thurman would seriously think he should get $10 million for fighting Crawford.
Porter is the only guy I want to see Crawford fight next. Porter has consistently looked good in recent years, even in his losses to Thurman and Spence. I also think his style could present a real challenge to Crawford (even though I still think Crawford would win).
I like Kell Brook but I think his best days are behind him. He also hasn't fought at welterweight since he fought Spence in May 2017, and he hasn't been too active in general since then.
Pacquiao is obviously still better than a lot of the other guys at 147, but he's almost 42-years-old. I just don't really care to see this fight happen.
Thurman hasn't shown much since coming back from his injury.
If Spence is willing to fight Danny Garcia in his first fight back after the car accident, Crawford has no reason not to take a challenging fight too.