Because he's just a walking pile of excuses. Always has been. He fought mandatories, which no great champions do unless they are actually worthy opponents. He should have been fighting the toughest opponents from 168-190lbs, which at the time included oh so many good opponents, but he found his home at light heavyweight, which was a dead division at the time. Montell Griffin was the best that division could come up with aside from Roy, which is a joke. He could have made a lot of fights at 168 and 190 that he never attempted to make. Then he called out the one heavyweight champion whose style was a guaranteed win for Roy, beat him, and claimed he was the heavyweight champion. Then of course he got beat up by my boy Tarver and used an excuse to write Tarver off. Thankfully Tarver knocked his bitchass out 6 months later in my 2nd favorite night of boxing of all time.
He was to small to be a Heavyweight, and even Cruiser would be pushing it. He was 5'11 and a natural 175. His body really took a toll from gaining all that weight and dropping it as well improperly.
Montell Griffin was a quality opponent at the time Roy faced him. He's faded now, but was certainly never a bum. It should also be important to note that Roy also faced the likes of Bernard Hopkins and James Toney, handing both a relatively easy defeat. Jones also handed 8 undefeated opponents their first losses. One of those undefeated contenders was Eric Harding who, need I remind you, had defeated "your boy Tarver" by a relatively easy decision as well just one match prior to his fight against Roy. And we all know what happened to Tarver when he fought the "past his prime" Bernard Hopkins.
keep in mind, this article is by Dan Rafael who runs boxing for ESPN and used to run it for USA Today so his opinion is pretty damn influential.
Yeah, you're right. If Dan Rafael said it, it must be true.
So Roy was cocky and made excuses... and? He's definately not the first great to do such. Doesn't really say much about his legacy or natural ability now does it? Anyone knowledgeable in nutrition and weight training knows going up and down in weight like that isn't healthy, so his original excuse is valid. The rest is more egocentric, but doesn't really prove anything at all. Seems like a petty attempt to create hatred for a boxing legend to down play his status and future legacy. Try not to promote character assasinating opinionated diatribes in the future if you wish to be successful in making your point of a particular fighter being overrated, or whatever it was that you were trying to prove...
Maybe I'm missing your point...
Are you serious. Hmmmm, how about Corrales after his loss to PBF then Casamayor had a tremendous run with wins over Casa, Castillo and Freitas and made it back on to many peoples p4p list. .
How about Duran after losses to SRL and Benitez won a few good fights and put himself back towards the top. He then lost to Hearns and Hagler but made it back to the top again and beat Iran Barkley.
Winky Wright after losing to Vargas. Went and became a p4p after that loss.
Barrera had a few ups and downs in his career.
So before you call a great fighter stupid why dont you look sit down and think about what you write.
Don't forget Foreman before winning the Heavyweight title at age 45. Or Evander Holyfield. How about Bernard Hopkins after losing his first fight? Oscar De La Hoya after Trinidad and Mosley. Shane Mosley after Forrest and Wright. Vernon Forrest has had a rocky career as well. How about Ricardo Mayorga after losing 3 out of his first 11 professional fights, losing his first fight by TKO in the 6th... Up and down careers are nothing new to boxing. Losing isn't necessarily an indefinate indication of decline.
I think it's safe to say Mayweather won the fight. I can't see why an unbiased analyst could have scored it for De La Hoya, but granted it wasn't necessarily a dominant performance I feel Mayweather did more than enough to win the rounds. Even in statistical review, Mayweather clearly dominated in punches connected as well as his percentage. I think this particular poll might be a bit skewed on the De La Hoya side by die-hard fans and Mayweather negativists as well as the hopeful opinionated amatuer boxing fan majority of the community.
thats alot of writing im not going to read,but it seems like your angry.but ne way,it was a good fight.
It was sarcasm. I feel Mayweather is unjustly discredited by amatuer boxing fans fueled more by their heart when it comes to ranking boxers rather than unbiased analysis of overall skill and performance. Bias runs rampant, especially on forums such as these. Angry words and inflated suggestive opinions don't change the facts.
I agree with the fact that Judah knocked Floyd down, but what I meant was that it was not official. Bad choice of words I guess. However, I reviewed the fight several times thereafter. The punch that caused the knockdown didn't seem to cause any lingering inflicted effects on Mayweather, which leads me to believe it wasn't a necessarily effective punch. It seems more as if Mayweather lost his balance, but it still should have been called. Regardless of the call I think it's safe to say Mayweather won the fight easily in points regardless of whether or not you count the knock down on your scorecards. It certainly isn't a legitimate reason to doubt his skill or status.
Jose Luis Castillo is far from fast and he gave Floyd a close battle.
Floyd had a hurt hand and torn rotator cuff. Regardless of his controversial decision in the first fight, he won the rematch definitively.
As for the thread topic, I agree with your logic to a degree, however I feel Mayweather would beat both Hatton and Cotto. I've watched Hatton many times and have been consistently unimpressed by his boxing style, skill and technique as well as ring intelligence. He's a crowd pleaser though and great to watch, certainly an entertaining fighter. He reminds me a bit of Arturo Gatti; more of a fighter than a boxer. I think Floyd's speed, technique and ring intelligence would frustrate Hatton and Floyd's occasional jabs and quick hooks would be more than enough to win on points. Hatton isn't very hard to hit either. He's hard to knock down, but his defense is porous.
As for Cotto, I feel his power and discipline could be a factor. He fights with confidence and throws effective power punches with a decent balance of offense and defense. He could potentially give Mayweather trouble, or at least more than Hatton. But in my opinion Mayweather is the more pollished fighter. Looking back on the Corley fights Cotto had a slight bit of trouble whereas Mayweather seemingly dominated from start to finish. Cotto has what Mayweather lacks, however -- Knockout potential. Mayweather could be cruising on points, but if he lets one clean punch slide in it could cost him...
He's good, but he blew it today. Actually they both blew it, but Delahoya's legacy will be intact. No one cares about Floyd Mayweather Jr. He talked so much crap about how he was going to do this and that, how it was going to be a massacre, didn't see anything resembling that. He's a good boxer, but his style doesn't win over people and if he's suppose to be the face of the future that saves boxing, he failed miserably today.
Yeah, your right. People don't like Floyd, so he's not a legitimate Hall of Famer. He didn't win impressively. Hmmm... I guess he's not a good fighter then. It doesn't matter that De La Hoya was his opponent, Mayweather just bored him to death. It doesn't matter that De La Hoya lost the fight, people remember this as the day Mayweather showed the world that he's not a top contender. More words and inflated opinions to substantiate an illegitimate reality.
Like I said, you can hate him all you want, but that doesn't change much of anything. So he's "boring", but does he win fights? Consistently? Effectively? Against good opponents? Hmmm...
Mayweather isn't my favorite boxer either, but the general public opinion is laughable; it makes me sick. It goes to show you how biased the average boxing fan is in terms of rationality. They go by their heart and avoid rationalization only justification in confirmation of their biased subjective opinions. Another reason why I hate this world -- no one thinks.
P.S. Unscarred, I appreciate your input on my thread and apologize if my rant seems demeaning. I wasn't directing my response at you necessarily, it was simply a general statement as many seem to have the same opinion.
You are the first person that I recall that feels definitively that De La Hoya has absoultely zero chance of landing.. Interesting.
It was a general exaggeration to prove a point... Obviously no one can dodge everything. But can Oscar land accurately, decisively, and consistently enough to rock Mayweather and knock him off his feet? With Mayweather's smart, swift boxing style I have reason to doubt that scenario. Again, let us refer to the Mayweather-Gatti fight to see why the punching power factor isn't as much a factor as it is made out to be. A boxer beats a puncher any day of the week.
That said, Oscar is a well accomplished "boxer" himself that just happens to have the strength that Mayweather (supposedly) does not. However, Mayweathers offensive style is illusive enough to score here and there all the while not really landing anything substantial, however it is enough to appeal to the judges in addition to the factor of Mayweathers superb defensive advantage.
It should be an interesting fight no doubt, but I don't see Mayweather nor De La Hoya being knocked out. I see a Unanimous decision in favor of Mayweather in this one.
This question is irrelevant. Sure, Oscar may have the heavier punch. And sure, maybe Oscar can take more punishment being the bigger of the two. That seems to be the logic behind the argument. But does it matter when he can't land a punch? Floyd's outstanding defense and speed overshadows Oscar's heavy punching offensive advantage. Whether Floyd can truly hurt Oscar is irrelevant. Can he beat him? Definately. To hit and not be hit is the key to winning on the scorecards.
Need I remind you, this was the same argument pre-Gatti-Mayweather, and we all know how that turned out.
What a worthless lengthy diatribe. Yes, some good logic used, but the great majority of the persuasive statements used to prove the point are subjective reasoning based on personal opinion and bias emphasizing immature behavior and counteractive statements. Nothing of substance here.
All in all, the fact of the matter remains. Floyd is unbeaten. 37 fighters have tried to rob the king of his crown, 37 have failed -- and failed miserably! Floyd has won world titles in 5 different weight classes. Need I remind you that this feat has never been accomplished before in the history of boxing.
Until he loses, there is absolutely no legitimate reason for criticism considering the fact that he is 18-0 in world title bouts, some of which were big name opponents, all the while never once even coming close to defeat. Until he loses, any knocks on his ability, potential and legacy are simply angry anti-fanatic ad hominem attacks, plain and simple.
lightweigh ill give him cred for castillo and corrales etc.. but yah since then he really stepped his game up by fighting the best like Judah, Baldomir and Gatti:rolleyes:
I'm not talking about his level of competition. His stamina, endurance, conditioning, footwork, defense, reaction time, jab, overall speed, power, and ring intelligence. It is irrelevant who he steps in the ring with, a veteran of the sport can recognize such improvement regardless of the level of competition he faces.
And just for the record, Judah, Baldomir and Gatti were quality opponents. The anti-Mayweather fan base simply shun their credibility as an excuse for Mayweathers dominance as far as I'm concerned. All were accomplished atheletes whom many anti-Mayweather enthusiasts claimed were faster (Judah), more experienced (Baldomir), and stronger (Gatti) than Mayweather, and to whom Pretty Boy would see his first defeat. The next excuse will be that Oscar was to old and out of his prime. Excuses, excuses...
At the end of the day he remains unbeaten. A champion among champions.
I watched that fight live as a matter of fact. I disagreed with the negative reception of the HBO announcers then, and now. I had Mayweather winning 115-111 with the benefit of the doubt in rounds going to Castillo for activity. I don't think there was any question whatsoever about the rematch now was there?? At the time I was rooting for Castillo, btw.
It is also important to keep in mind that Floyd is certainly not the fighter he used to be. Reviewing tape of his early fights in comparison to his most recent performances, to any whom are knowledgable of the sport of boxing can clearly see a difference. Floyd has stepped his game up considerably.
So far Mayweather is landing the more accurate and effective punches. De La Hoya is flurrying and pleasing the crowd on occasion, but I have Floyd ahead on points so far.
Pavlik Exposes Miranda
Miranda officially dropped drastically in my personal middleweight rankings after that horrid performance. It was entertaining to see them exchanging, standing toe-toe and competing blow for blow, but Miranda looked tired from the start. His defense was nonexistant and his punches consistently were off target and looping often lacking power as well -- extremely inefficient. If he doesn't drastically change his fighting style, he will never be ranked #1 in the middleweight division -- ever. Needless to say I was very disappointed by Miranda's sloppy performance, but I was impressed by Pavlik, or at least to a degree. However, the fact that some of those sluggish looping Miranda power punches landed is proof enough that Pavlik has fine tuning to do if he wants to challenge Taylor. As for Miranda, I can't see him ever being a serious top ranked contender ever again after that pathetic performance.
I don't necessarily agree on the 'age' factor; I think Mesi's a young 32 and has not taken alot of punishment in his career, save the Jirov fight. As for unifying the titles, I don't think that this will happen but I do think that he could possibly win one of the titles that are floating around. What Joe has to do is start fighting some decent competition so that the boxing world can see how deserving he is of a top ten ranking and eventual title shot. I like that he's been so busy but his level of competition isn't helping to make the case...
One would think subdural hematoma is an indication of heavy physical punishment. You don't get bleeding around the brain without punishment.
Mesi did fight a quality Heavyweight in Monte Barrett that aired on HBO back in 2003 prior to his subdural hematoma condition. It was an exciting fight that saw each fighter knocked down as Mesi won a majority decision. Barret was down in the 5th, Mesi in the 7th.
The two year absense from boxing really appeared to create a lot of ring rust. Prior to the injury Mesi was on the rise, but since then he has had a few lack luster victories against low rank opponents which doesn't do much to garner attention. His fights against Ronald Bellamy (14-4-4) and Stephane Tessier (3-7) are two prime examples. They were his first two opponents after suffering his subdural hematoma injury.
As boxrec put it: "Mesi clearly outmached Tessier, but in turn was clearly not at 100% due to his 2-year absence from the ring; he seemed to lack the hand speed that characterized his earlier fights, and could not generate enough power to knock Tessier down. In a post-fight interview, Mesi indicated his frustration that Tessier could land punches on him; before his layoff, Mesi contended, Tessier wouldn't have been able to lay a glove on him.
Tessier was announced as Mesi's opponent only a day or so before the fight."
Also for the record, Mesi is 33 and will turn 34 in November. I agree with his activity though, he has kept busy, but in so doing has lost credibility by choosing easy low rank, low risk opponents.
I agree with this statement but let me take it a bit further....We need a unified hw champion who's willing to fight the best and fight somewhat frequently and I think that Wlad Klitschko may be that guy..Anyway, if you're looking for a good American hw, try checking out Joe Mesi. Mesi's undefeated at 36-0 and is determined to get back into the top ten.
Mesi is one of my favorite current heavyweights, however, his time is extremely limited. His age is catching up to him, so if he wants to unify the belts (extremely unlikely at this point) he's gotta act quickly and fight often.
Being a pretty boy doesn't make you gay. He just likes to look good. Ladies like it. I'm a bit of a pretty boy myself, or so at least I've been called (never waxed my eyebrows before though). I just like to dress nice and look good (what's wrong with that?), but I know for a fact that I'm nowhere near gay. When it comes down to it, these fighters such as Joel Julio, Miguel Cotto, Paul Malignaggi etc. that wax their eyebrows, maybe even go tanning and such could care less what the guys think. It's not their job to act manly, it's their job to win fights and that they do well. Whether guys like their grooming style or not is the least of their worries. All that matters to them is their boxing legacy and whether the ladies like their style, which it appears they do. With the women, money and fame nothing else matters as far as public opinion of sexual orientation goes.
no. He's too small. I dont even know that he's naturally bigger than Hagler.
All that bulking up he did was probably bad for his health, even if he never went back down to Light heavyweight.
Roy Jones Jr. in his prime would have made a much better Heavyweight than James Toney at least... It would have brought more excitement to the Heavyweight division whether he could truly dominate or not. But you're right, he's far to small to be great at that weight. He's a natural 175 pounder and a bit short at 5'11" to jump two weight classes and take on natural 220 pounders. Bernard Hopkins would have made a better Heavyweight than Roy Jones at 6'1", but it's far to late for that now. Hopkins lacked the punching power to excel at that weight anyway...
I think it would be a safe bet to say Winky would win by decision. Calzaghe is one of the best pound for pound fighters in the sport right now, but the only person I have rated higher than Winky is Floyd. Winky has a very disciplined, intelligent boxing style that is far less than glamarous or entertaining, but is probably one of the most efficiently utilized strategies out there today. Winky has been very impressive in the past few years as well as in recent fights and I don't see him losing to Calzaghe.
Winky has good D, but he still gets hit a decent amount.
I think Winky has great defense for that style of boxing. As opposed to the popular illusive defensive style of Mayweather and Leonard, I've never seen a boxer with such an effective toe-toe defensive appoach. Winky gets hit, yes, but he has proven to be able to take a hit as good as anyone and more often than not the heavy power punches that he gets hit with are partially deflected and slightly buffered reducing the impact and thus the effectiveness of the power punch. He could frustrate Hagler, but I doubt he'd win on points.
Regardless of Wright's boxing prowess, I'm taking Hopkins over Wright come July. But maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part... I'm not sure.
Arreola is a heavy hitting crowd pleasing bruiser of a heavyweight, but he lacks the potential to contend at a high level with tough competition on a consistent enough basis to be considered great in my opinion. I'm probably the only one here who has seen Eddie Chambers fight more than a half dozen times in the past 5 years and he has continued to improve and win more impressively even as his competition got tougher. He consistently dominates the scorecards and has above average ring intelligence, movement, defense and pretty good hand speed for a heavyweight. I've also seen him land some very powerful shots, so I'm pretty sure he has the power to knock people out, he just doesn't utilize this aspect of his repertoire all to often for some reason, and he needs to work on that.
I see Eddie Chambers as a more promising prospect with more upside than Arreola, and I think he could be a quality top rank heavyweight in the future IF he can fine tune his power punching ability. Or, he may never develop the consistent power punch he is capable of and for that reason or another he could end up as a bust, who knows. He certainly hasn't fought anywhere near quality competition throughout most of his career up until recently...
Arreola has the more entertaining fighting style though, which is why he has a larger fan base and a greater volume of supporters/believers, but I don't see anything overly special. Once he fights top competition he will be tested and I believe more often than not will be outlasted and sometimes out classed unless his opponents unwisely decide to slug it out, which I see unlikely. Arreola is fighting his best right now and I don't see much room for improvement as far as his potential goes which makes me question his future value.
Wladimir Klitschko and Sam Peter are the best Heavyweights at the moment by far, in my opinion. The future of the Heavyweight division rests on the shoulders of guys like Eddie Chambers, Chris Arreola, and Jonathon Banks.
Winky has the better defense by far (some of the best toe-toe defense I've seen... ever), but Hagler's offensive aggression and activity would be enough to win on points. I don't see a knockout either way.