Comments Thread For: Roach: Mayweather Tasted Defeat, He'll Taste It Again!

[Joe Beamish]

How do you know for sure if something sucks? Whenever Roach says it

[aboutfkntime]

Floyd won the golden glove nationals 3 times in separate weight classes.

Mayweather had an amateur record of 84-6 and won national Golden Gloves championships in 1993 (at 106 lb), 1994 (at 114 lb) and 1996 (at 125 lb)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_M...r_and_Olympics

Its an outstanding record, no question.

Oscars record is something like 225-5 (Olympic gold medal).

Lomachenko is something like 300-1 (avenged), or was that Golovkin.

[aboutfkntime]

excuses just got burnt

Lets see now, what was it , hmmmmmmm oh yes,,,, if you've ever been defeated its always in your mind. by May JR.

I was SHOCKED at TBE not winning a Nationals title !!!!!

To hear that JR lost many fights in the amateurs and to KNOW that he LOST the OLYMPICS,,,,,,well enough of that if you've ever lost s###!!!!!!!

The difference in Jr's Amateur and Olympic days

vs

his Pro days , is simple:

He was TOLD who he was fighting in the Amateur's and in the OLYMPICS but in the PRO's he picked and chose.

Note: In the Pro's he for the past ten years ducked prime elites but come MAY 2 he is facing a prime elite that has had 6 years of hearing slanderous insults against him, his nation, and his culture, with wile insufferable arrogant vomitious spew, that will come against this cherry picking JR with great Power and astonish the world. Fraud Jr will come to his end and all he will be doing is stuttering !

So, Manny is prime ?

So, there will be no excuses on May 3rd ?

[deliveryman]

Its an outstanding record, no question.

Oscars record is something like 225-5 (Olympic gold medal).

Lomachenko is something like 300-1 (avenged), or was that Golovkin.

Yes.

Lomachenko's amateur record is just ridiculous.

Although the point of that post was correct Freddie Roach's notion that Floyd never even won nationals...

While Floyd has a great amateur record, it is no where near the best. I fully acknowledge that.

[ADP02]

"... And in the post fight morning of the long awaited mega fight, an unusual scene is played out as Freddie, otherwise known as "The Joke Coach" Roach kneels before Floyd Mayweather junior in the battle worn and blood soaked squared circle and reluctantly, but humbly exclaims... "I was wrong Floyd, you are The Best Ever."

The Joke (your post)..... that is all you got right.

[D4thincarnation]

Yes.

Lomachenko's amateur record is just ridiculous.

Although the point of that post was correct Freddie Roach's notion that Floyd never even won nationals...

While Floyd has a great amateur record, it is no where near the best. I fully acknowledge that.

Lomachenko's is something like 401-1 and he avenged that 1 defeat twice.

[aboutfkntime]

Lomachenko's is something like 401-1 and he avenged that 1 defeat twice.

Yea, thats insane.

Actually I think I remember now.....

396-1 (avenged) 2 gold medals, 2 world amateur championships

could be slightly wrong there

its insane !

[-Kev-]

He beat him in the rematch, you can't lose a fight if you throw more punches and land more punches, period. Mayweather don't have enough power to make one of his punches worth more than the SEVERAL punches Castillo would land.

I won't even give my opinion on this fight, i'm just gonna say something about your post.

Technically, you can lose a fight even if you throw more punches and land more punches, and I don't mean with a KO loss only, that's obvious. Basically it depends when you landed them in the fight.

How can someone get the decision if he only landed 150 punches, to his opponent landing 200? Easy, if the opponent who landed 200 punches landed most of them within like 5 rounds and was slow in the other 7 rounds, but still ended up with 200 vs 150, that doesn't change the fact that the other fighter outboxed him in 7 other rounds. So the guy who landed 200 punches, and had 4-5 great rounds to get that number, does not win the fight just because of that.

Is this the scenario that happened in the Mayweather-Castillo fight? I forgot, honestly, I just took their punches landed as an example. Who I feel won is another argument. I am just saying how a fighter who threw/landed more punches can lose.

Dawson outlanded Pascal. Problem for Dawson is that the only reason he outlanded Pascal was because he came on strong, but coming on strong and outlanding Pascal overall doesn't change the fact that Pascal won beginning rounds, and most of the rounds, and won fair and square despite being outlanded.

[Rath]

I won't even give my opinion on this fight, i'm just gonna say something about your post.

Technically, you can lose a fight even if you throw more punches and land more punches, and I don't mean with a KO loss only, that's obvious. Basically it depends when you landed them in the fight.

How can someone get the decision if he only landed 150 punches, to his opponent landing 200? Easy, if the opponent who landed 200 punches landed most of them within like 5 rounds and was slow in the other 7 rounds, but still ended up with 200 vs 150, that doesn't change the fact that the other fighter outboxed him in 7 other rounds. So the guy who landed 200 punches, and had 4-5 great rounds to get that number, does not win the fight just because of that.

Is this the scenario that happened in the Mayweather-Castillo fight? I forgot, honestly, I just took their punches landed as an example. Who I feel won is another argument. I am just saying how a fighter who threw/landed more punches can lose.

Dawson outlanded Pascal. Problem for Dawson is that the only reason he outlanded Pascal was because he came on strong, but coming on strong and outlanding Pascal overall doesn't change the fact that Pascal won beginning rounds, and most of the rounds, and won fair and square despite being outlanded.

your analysis i think is flawed because you are seem biased against one boxer, to justify that who landed more punches does not necessarily wins

what you presented in your analysis is that one boxer landed his punches more in 5 rounds, while the other landed his punches evenly distributed on all rounds. (disregard the exact figure ie 100, 75 and 60, it was use to make sample easier to understand)

look at the example below:

Example A

boxer A landed 100 punches for 5 rounds = 500 punches whether it was from 1-5 or 6-10 or 5 rounds total out of 12 rounds. then landed 60 punches the remaining rounds = 420 a total of 920 punches landed

Boxer B landed 75 evenly distributed along 12 rounds = 900 punches landed.

Boxer B wins the fight for more rounds won but landed less.

now you see why it is Flawed?

Example B

Boxer A landed same as Example A = 920 punch

Now Boxer B landed 80 punches first 6 rounds = 480 and 75 punches the next 6 rounds = 450 total 930

This time Boxer B wins with 7 rounds won and still wins with 10 more punches landed.

i could go on and on and i think you already got the picture.

in short the possibility of a boxer winning while being out punched is very little, percentage wise.

meaning if you were not able to watch a fight and you were presented the given data and was asked who won.

Boxer A punch landed 500
Boxer B punch landed 320

boxer A would be a good bet.

it is 3x more possible that Boxer A won the fight

than using your example that landing more punch does not equate automatically to winning the fight. it is not kind of 50/50 chance

or maybe i am wrong.

[Brassangel]

your analysis i think is flawed because you are seem biased against one boxer, to justify that who landed more punches does not necessarily wins

what you presented in your analysis is that one boxer landed his punches more in 5 rounds, while the other landed his punches evenly distributed on all rounds. (disregard the exact figure ie 100, 75 and 60, it was use to make sample easier to understand)

look at the example below:

Example A

boxer A landed 100 punches for 5 rounds = 500 punches whether it was from 1-5 or 6-10 or 5 rounds total out of 12 rounds. then landed 60 punches the remaining rounds = 420 a total of 920 punches landed

Boxer B landed 75 evenly distributed along 12 rounds = 900 punches landed.

Boxer B wins the fight for more rounds won but landed less.

now you see why it is Flawed?

Example B

Boxer A landed same as Example A = 920 punch

Now Boxer B landed 80 punches first 6 rounds = 480 and 75 punches the next 6 rounds = 450 total 930

This time Boxer B wins with 7 rounds won and still wins with 10 more punches landed.

i could go on and on and i think you already got the picture.

in short the possibility of a boxer winning while being out punched is very little, percentage wise.

meaning if you were not able to watch a fight and you were presented the given data and was asked who won.

Boxer A punch landed 500
Boxer B punch landed 320

boxer A would be a good bet.

it is 3x more possible that Boxer A won the fight

than using your example that landing more punch does not equate automatically to winning the fight. it is not kind of 50/50 chance

or maybe i am wrong.

You are wrong...

And terrible with English.

That said, judges aren't just given data and told to decide who won. They watch the fights. They score round-by-round.

It's about winning rounds, not throwing the most punches.

Mayweather often gives up more punches, and loses the first 2-3 rounds, because he knows he can slow the fight WAY down and win each round thereafter.

A guy can throw 110 punches in round one, 210 total, and still lose to a guy who throws 95 all fight if the guy who threw 95 won the rounds.