Tweet
Ha... here we go again... who else can we add in to the mix? Let's trash Mayweather some more, shall we? Maybe we can confuse some laypersons into believing Mayweather to be an incompetent boxer. How else can we undermine his accomplishments? Let's think...
Personally, I think there are a lot of negativists out there that give any round they conceivably can to the opposing boxer in hopes that Mayweather be discredited once and for all -- because they dislike him as a person, and therfore as a boxer as well. I can honestly say, I can see why he is hated, but there isn't any reason to undermine his accomplishments. He's a definate Hall of Famer regardless of public opinion.
I see a consistent digging for any conceivable flaw anti-Mayweather advocates can find to discredit Floyd's skill and high echelon status. I will cite for example the Castillo fight of which I scored a win by Floyd by just one point, although I do solemnley admit that the fight was close and could certainly be argued as a win for Castillo. However, shouldn't it be important to consider the fact that Mayweather was fighting with a hurt hand and torn rotator cuff? Wouldn't it make sense to add these advantages/disadvantages into the equation? Shouldn't the definitive result of the rematch be considered when arguing that Castillo was the better fighter? Even if Castillo managed to pull off a decision, he lost the rematch. One should recall the fact that Lennox Lewis lost a few in his time as well, but he rematched and defeated every fighter that he lost to. Now he is considered one of the greatest of all time regardless of the losses, why not Floyd? De La Hoya has lost 4, now 5 times, and yet there is no reason to doubt his skill? That's a clear indication of confirmation bias by the incompetent amatuer analyst.
You can't say he hasn't fought anyone; he has. There's no reason to question his chin; he's never been knocked out. No reason to doubt his stamina; he's gone the distance and shown no indications of tiring in more than a few fights against legitimate competition. There's no reason to question past losses; he has none.
So what has he done? Why should he be considered one of the greatest all-time? Well, for starters, as an amatuer boxer he won the National Golden Gloves Championship, three times (1993, 1994, 1996). He won the bronze medal in the 1996 olympics. Hes never been (legitimately) knocked down in his entire professional career after 38 fights. He consistently dominated the scorecards sometimes winning complete consensus shut outs against top ranked boxers. He is 17-0 in World Title Bouts. He ripped through competition to win world titles in 4, now 5, different weight classes. He defeated a boxing legend and future Hall of Famer in Oscar De La Hoya.
They said he couldn't beat Gatti because Gatti had power Mayweather had never encountered before -- Mayweather dominated. They said he couldn't beat Judah because Judah would match or even exceed Mayweathers speed -- Mayweather took him to school winning an easy decision. Some even stretched it as much to say he couldn't beat Baldomir because he lacked the experience -- Mayweather won by a complete shut out on 2 out of 3 scorecards. They said he couldn't beat a legend like Oscar, he did...
Why can't people just suck it up and accept his status as the best pound for pound fighter in the world? No one said you had to like him, but you have to respect him for what he is -- One of the greatest boxers of all time.
Personally, I think there are a lot of negativists out there that give any round they conceivably can to the opposing boxer in hopes that Mayweather be discredited once and for all -- because they dislike him as a person, and therfore as a boxer as well. I can honestly say, I can see why he is hated, but there isn't any reason to undermine his accomplishments. He's a definate Hall of Famer regardless of public opinion.
I see a consistent digging for any conceivable flaw anti-Mayweather advocates can find to discredit Floyd's skill and high echelon status. I will cite for example the Castillo fight of which I scored a win by Floyd by just one point, although I do solemnley admit that the fight was close and could certainly be argued as a win for Castillo. However, shouldn't it be important to consider the fact that Mayweather was fighting with a hurt hand and torn rotator cuff? Wouldn't it make sense to add these advantages/disadvantages into the equation? Shouldn't the definitive result of the rematch be considered when arguing that Castillo was the better fighter? Even if Castillo managed to pull off a decision, he lost the rematch. One should recall the fact that Lennox Lewis lost a few in his time as well, but he rematched and defeated every fighter that he lost to. Now he is considered one of the greatest of all time regardless of the losses, why not Floyd? De La Hoya has lost 4, now 5 times, and yet there is no reason to doubt his skill? That's a clear indication of confirmation bias by the incompetent amatuer analyst.
You can't say he hasn't fought anyone; he has. There's no reason to question his chin; he's never been knocked out. No reason to doubt his stamina; he's gone the distance and shown no indications of tiring in more than a few fights against legitimate competition. There's no reason to question past losses; he has none.
So what has he done? Why should he be considered one of the greatest all-time? Well, for starters, as an amatuer boxer he won the National Golden Gloves Championship, three times (1993, 1994, 1996). He won the bronze medal in the 1996 olympics. Hes never been (legitimately) knocked down in his entire professional career after 38 fights. He consistently dominated the scorecards sometimes winning complete consensus shut outs against top ranked boxers. He is 17-0 in World Title Bouts. He ripped through competition to win world titles in 4, now 5, different weight classes. He defeated a boxing legend and future Hall of Famer in Oscar De La Hoya.
They said he couldn't beat Gatti because Gatti had power Mayweather had never encountered before -- Mayweather dominated. They said he couldn't beat Judah because Judah would match or even exceed Mayweathers speed -- Mayweather took him to school winning an easy decision. Some even stretched it as much to say he couldn't beat Baldomir because he lacked the experience -- Mayweather won by a complete shut out on 2 out of 3 scorecards. They said he couldn't beat a legend like Oscar, he did...
Why can't people just suck it up and accept his status as the best pound for pound fighter in the world? No one said you had to like him, but you have to respect him for what he is -- One of the greatest boxers of all time.
Comment