Mayweather unbeatable?

[deejd]

What?

So winning a rematch justifies a controversial decision? That makes no sense.

If you don't understand what I mean... see Williams-Martinez I... A lot of people, myself included, felt Martinez won the first fight.... he lost.

What happened in the rematch?

[-Kev-]

Seeing how Pacquiao reacted to Marquez and Mosley's back peddeling, becoming "stiff legged", I don't think he beats Mayweather. If Mayweather was a come forward fighter with no defense or good counterpunching, Pacquiao decisions him.

Amir Khan didn't look impressive against McCloskey who used just a bit of defense but what was still flawed in which his counterpunching was almost non-existent. But he did make Khan miss a lot with the little head movement and defense he used.

Martinez, being big, having good handspeed, moves well, has good power, lacks great defense as I saw Pavlik and Williams hit him at will and they are just workrate fighters but their accuracy sucks. Dzinzuruk also caught Martinez any time he threw punches which was rare.

Martinez definitely has the better chance out of those 3.

To be completely honest, I can see Paul Williams giving Mayweather the most hell out of those 4 fighters. I don't know why, maybe it's his work rate and long arms. I can see Mayweather giving Williams trouble with counterpunching and defense, and I see Williams giving Mayweather trouble with workrate and reach. Remember Mayweather does have Martinez type power, so he can't do to Williams what Martinez did.

[Frogs!]

Did Lewis-Rahman I go to the scorecards?

doesn't matter.

your point was the 2nd fight justified the first.

those are 2 totally different fights.

1 has got ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the other.

[BTL]

I dont see anyone beating that guy.

[-Kev-]

Seeing how Pacquiao reacted to Marquez and Mosley's back peddeling, becoming "stiff legged", I don't think he beats Mayweather. If Mayweather was a come forward fighter with no defense or good counterpunching, Pacquiao decisions him.

Amir Khan didn't look impressive against McCloskey who used just a bit of defense but what was still flawed in which his counterpunching was almost non-existent. But he did make Khan miss a lot with the little head movement and defense he used.

Martinez, being big, having good handspeed, moves well, has good power, lacks great defense as I saw Pavlik and Williams hit him at will and they are just workrate fighters but their accuracy sucks. Dzinzuruk also caught Martinez any time he threw punches which was rare.

Martinez definitely has the better chance out of those 3.

To be completely honest, I can see Paul Williams giving Mayweather the most hell out of those 4 fighters. I don't know why, maybe it's his work rate and long arms. I can see Mayweather giving Williams trouble with counterpunching and defense, and I see Williams giving Mayweather trouble with workrate and reach. Remember Mayweather does have Martinez type power, so he can't do to Williams what Martinez did.

Does not have*

[betmen]

The only three boxers i see giving Mayweather a possible loss is Pacman,Sergio Martinez and Amir Khan.Out of these 3 who has the best chance relistically if they fought?

listen, mayweather will never lose to little man, except martinez i think 2008 Margarito can took something from maywther, Margo maybe lose but it will rough for PBF.

[deejd]

doesn't matter.

your point was the 2nd fight justified the first.

those are 2 totally different fights.

1 has got ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the other.

Yet you're using an example that involves a first fight that wasn't controversial.

[deejd]

Does not have*

Great points, man. That's what I thought; Martinez has the best chance. But to be honest, I don't think either of the three, or even PWill at that beat Mayweather. The guy is beatable but I think it's going to take a fighter that can cut it mentally.

For instance, if JMM was naturally bigger, that would be very interesting. High speed chess.

[BTL]

Only a fellow black fighter can beat mayweather, I don't know why but it makes the most sense

[Frogs!]

Yet you're using an example that involves a first fight that wasn't controversial.

it doesn't matter how controversial the first fight was.

2 different fights.

why do you keep linking them together?

judges and fans make their own determination based on what they witness in a specific fight.

they don't go "floyd clearly won the 2nd fight so he definitely won the 1st."