Mayweather-De La Hoya: Great Fight, Wrong Decision

[El Jesus]

being the more accurate puncher is sort of negated when your the much the weaker the puncher.

"Its called boxing, not knockouts"-Winky Wright

[The Troll]

You are dumb because you're hung up in the analogy.
Did I call De La Hoya Jeff Lacy? No. I stated that in these two fights, De La Hoya and Lacy were clearly the bigger punchers. However, being a big puncher shouldn't score points unless you LAND EFFECTIVE to utilize that power. And sorry, but when you're the bigger puncher, and your jab is your most consistent and best punch of the fight, you are not winning and not utilizing the power advantage.

So, genius, anymore points that complete kabashes your opinion you want to ignore, or am I done here?

You obviously want to talk about Lacy Calzaghe in comparion to De La Hoya Mayweather. I'll say this, if Lacy was able to do against Calzaghe what he did against most ofhis other opponents prior to fighting Calzaghe, he would have been effective and won the fight. Obviously he wasn't. And I don't know what jab your talking about in reference to Lacy, he doesn't really have one.

[Super_Lightweight]

Floyd's activity level was very low and many of his own punches were blocked or hardly had an affect. This is part of why the fight was so close. I think a rematch is in order but honestly the fight was lackluster (not boring) and I don't salivate to see it again.

[Mattyp151]

You obviously want to talk about Lacy Calzaghe in comparion to De La Hoya Mayweather. I'll say this, if Lacy was able to do against Calzaghe what he did against most ofhis other opponents prior to fighting Calzaghe, he would have been effective and won the fight. Obviously he wasn't. And I don't know what jab your talking about in reference to Lacy, he doesn't really have one.

And if your Aunt had balls she'd be your Uncle, so what?

As is the case with either fight IN REALITY (not this dream land you live in where Lacy would've beaten Joe that night), neither of the bigger punchers won the fight because their biggest asset, power, was rendered ineffective by either 1) workrate (in the case of Calzaghe) or 2) defense and movement (in the case of Mayweather).

So, do you really want to hang on to the notion that the bigger puncher should get the benefit of the doubt, or should the guys who actually outbox the bigger puncher win the fight because, well, they won the fight?

[The Troll]

And if your Aunt had balls she'd be your Uncle, so what?
As is the case with either fight IN REALITY (not this dream land you live in where Lacy would've beaten Joe that night), neither of the bigger punchers won the fight because their biggest asset, power, was rendered ineffective by either 1) workrate (in the case of Calzaghe) or 2) defense and movement (in the case of Mayweather).

So, do you really want to hang on to the notion that the bigger puncher should get the benefit of the doubt, or should the guys who actually outbox the bigger puncher win the fight because, well, they won the fight?

So your saying that if Lacy did Calzaghe what he did to most of his other opponents he did would have lost. How did he ever win a fight then.

[Mattyp151]

Floyd's activity level was very low and many of his own punches were blocked or hardly had an affect. This is part of why the fight was so close. I think a rematch is in order but honestly the fight was lackluster (not boring) and I don't salivate to see it again.

A rematch would be a much wider decision. Floyd found out Oscar doesn't like when you throw rights over his jab, and doesn't like to deal with speed. Too bad it took him 7 rounds to see this, or the fight wouldn't be as discussed.

[The Troll]

And if your Aunt had balls she'd be your Uncle, so what?

As is the case with either fight IN REALITY (not this dream land you live in where Lacy would've beaten Joe that night), neither of the bigger punchers won the fight because their biggest asset, power, was rendered ineffective by either 1) workrate (in the case of Calzaghe) or 2) defense and movement (in the case of Mayweather).

So, do you really want to hang on to the notion that the bigger puncher should get the benefit of the doubt, or should the guys who actually outbox the bigger puncher win the fight because, well, they won the fight?

People say I am random. Where do you get this. When did I ever say that I thought Lacy would beat Calzaghe, I could see he would have problems with Calzaghe because of weaknesses I saw of his in prior fights against guys like Rubin Williams.

[The Troll]

And if your Aunt had balls she'd be your Uncle, so what?

As is the case with either fight IN REALITY (not this dream land you live in where Lacy would've beaten Joe that night), neither of the bigger punchers won the fight because their biggest asset, power, was rendered ineffective by either 1) workrate (in the case of Calzaghe) or 2) defense and movement (in the case of Mayweather).

So, do you really want to hang on to the notion that the bigger puncher should get the benefit of the doubt, or should the guys who actually outbox the bigger puncher win the fight because, well, they won the fight?

Lacy's punching power I've always felt was overrated but that's irrelevant. He didn't land anything in fight vs Calzaghe so it didn't matter.

[Mattyp151]

So your saying that if Lacy did Calzaghe what he did to most of his other opponents he did would have lost. How did he ever win a fight then.

You're completely avoiding my point.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT LACY DID, HE WAS THE BIGGER PUNCHER. HE DIDN'T LAND, THUS POWER NEGATED. THE SAME CAN BE SAID ABOUT OSCAR/FLOYD. OSCAR WAS THE BIGGER PUNCHER, DIDN'T LAND ENOUGH BIG SHOTS, POWER NEGATED.

Stop twisting from the point that it doesn't matter who the heavier hitter is, you still have to land to be effective.

[Mattyp151]

Lacy's punching power I've always felt was overrated but that's irrelevant. He didn't land anything in fight vs Calzaghe so it didn't matter.

Thanks for proving my point. Oscar landed nothing big against Floyd, thus the whole premise of "the heavier hitter should get the benefit" is negated, and frankly, utterly ****** from the jump.