All it takes is one person in the situation to live overseas for it to be an attempted violation of privacy.
Look at you replying with the exact same thing I said. You're really a thesaurus of comebacks.. NOT.
Don't know who any of your past e-friends are and I don't care.
Of course you're excited. If you feel the need to respond back to me then that means you're excited. If you don't respond back, you'll feel as if you've lost and that I won.
Even if I'm telling you this now, you'll still respond back.
Poet I'll agree with you that the Welterweight Mayweather doesn't have nearly the punch output that he did at the lower weight classes but to say all he does is run is a bit silly. He put his track shoes on against Oscar De La Hoya, but against the rest of his last 5 opponents I think claiming he ran is a bit silly.
He obliviously didn't run against Judah as he fought coming forward for most of the fight.
Against Baldomir he spent a good portion of the fight right in front of Baldomir but Baldomir was so bloody slow he couldn't get to him if Mayweather's feet were cemented in place.
Against Hatton he spent the majority of the time elbowing Hatton away from him in close range and when he finally got range he used his movement to tear Hatton apart.
Against Marquez he was both coming forward and backing up during different periods of the bout.
Also I don't care what era it is if you out land your opponent by these numbers,
290 to 63 (JMM)
207 to 122 (ODH)
129 to 63 (Hatton)
199 to 79 (Baldomir)
205 to 89. (Zab)
Your going to win.
Again I would point out Leonard - Duran II as a prime example of how these things were viewed in past eras. Unfortunately I don't have access to the punch stats for the fight but my general impression from watching it a number of times is that Leonard was clearly outlanding Duran. Yet the fight was just about even on the cards at the time Duran quit. This was mostly because Leonard's pot-shot and run tactics didn't play well with the judges. Now my personal inclination regarding the fights you mentioned is that neither opponent in any of them deserved to win the fights on the cards: Mayweather for his low work-rate and his opponent for not scoring. In other words when I see a round where one fighter doesn't land anything and his opponent throws very few punches neither deserve to have the round scored in their favor.
Again I would point out Leonard - Duran II as a prime example of how these things were viewed in past eras. Unfortunately I don't have access to the punch stats for the fight but my general impression from watching it a number of times is that Leonard was clearly outlanding Duran. Yet the fight was just about even on the cards at the time Duran quit. This was mostly because Leonard's pot-shot and run tactics didn't play well with the judges. Now my personal inclination regarding the fights you mentioned is that neither opponent in any of them deserved to win the fights on the cards: Mayweather for his low work-rate and his opponent for not scoring. In other words when I see a round where one fighter doesn't land anything and his opponent throws very few punches neither deserve to have the round scored in their favor.
Poet
But if the fighter is out landing his opponent by such a wide margin you don't think he deserves to get the nod? How do you feel about say Niccolino Locche who from what I have seen(to be honest only 3 fights, so I could be wrong) he wins many of his fights with a very low work rate but he clearly out lands his opponents and lands the cleaner blows. Do you think that Locche should not have been given the nod in his fights due to his lack of activity?
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point because I'm of the opinion that if the other fighter lacks the ability to force a fighter like Mayweather to fight(Like Castillo did) and gets pot shotted to death by a wide margin the blame is on his shoulders for not forcing the action.
But if the fighter is out landing his opponent by such a wide margin you don't think he deserves to get the nod? How do you feel about say Niccolino Locche who from what I have seen(to be honest only 3 fights, so I could be wrong) he wins many of his fights with a very low work rate but he clearly out lands his opponents and lands the cleaner blows. Do you think that Locche should not have been given the nod in his fights due to his lack of activity?
I've watched plenty of fights where I've thought neither fighter deserved to win. In a perfect world maybe there would be a system where BOTH fighters could be judged the loser but unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world. As for Locche, I haven't seen enough of his fights to judge one way or another.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point because I'm of the opinion that if the other fighter lacks the ability to force a fighter like Mayweather to fight(Like Castillo did) and gets pot shotted to death by a wide margin the blame is on his shoulders for not forcing the action.
I'm inclined to be more sympathetic to a fighter who wants to force the action (but is unable to do so against an opponent who avoids action like the plague) than I am with a fighter who actively avoids engaging. I think it's a misnomer that a fighter can't generate offense while avoiding his opponents punches. Prime Ali used his legs and upper-body movement to make his opponents miss but still let his hands go: He had a pretty high workrate for a Heavyweight and would batter his opponents with combinations. Whitaker too let his hands go: He stood more in the eye of the storm and still made his opponents miss while putting out a solid volume of punches.
Comment