The mystique of Floyd Mayweather

[Showtime..]

Wow I'm impressed by your toughness!

My monitor is breaking, my keyboard is shaking, my mouse is trembling!

All that without even throwing a punch, wow!

Your words are like bullets!

That's not the message, ******. I'm not threatening you. I'm giving you advice on what to do because of your ****** actions (action being making this **** thread).

[Johnwoo8686]

Floyd is a manufactured boxing star, but kudos to him for doing his part by at least not getting knocked out.

Floyd is and always been seen as a star as soon as he came out of the Olympics much like ODH.

Somehow fights he clearly lost (Maidana 1 and Castillio 1) he won widely on the score cards. And fights that were extremely close ( Manny and Cotto) had super wide score cards. It's so obvious that either the judges are judging Floyd's performance on a curve or they're being paid off.

Clearly you don't know how a fight is scored. You probably think Manny Pacquiao won the first three Marquez fights by a large margin.

[Zaryu]

I actually agree with a lot of what you said TS, I just don't feel Floyd has ever lost clearly. I thought that Castillo edged their first fight and lost the rematch, I also feel Cotto did better than given credit for in the scorecards, but nothing close enough to warrant a rematch. I thought the first Maidana fight was a draw, and Floyd won the second one.

Other than that I pretty much agree with what you posted. Especially the thought about more fighters making more money, I just wish it didn't come at the cost of not seeing the best face the best because of networks, promotors, adviser, and all that bullcrap.

[HarvardBlue]

Mayweather is great at controlling the pace of a fight. It's hard to look good against him. The Pacquiao fight was an example of how he's able to take a great offensive fighter and minimize their effectiveness. That is one of the reason he gets the benefit the doubt in close fights. Castillo and Maidana I were close but at best they were draws. Only people that don't like him consider those fights as losses. The Cotto fight was not close to me. He had one good round and the others were either close with a slight edge for Cotto (1 or 2 rounds) or clearly won by Mayweather.

There is no home cooking for Mayweather. It's just hard for judges to rule against him because he is so good at fighting his type of fight no matter who the opposition is... Incidentally, I thought the Hatton fight was a lot closer and the KO saved it from a being a controversial decision.

[-PBP-]

Cut it to 2 paragraphs and I'll read and respond

[Fearless Angel]

I actually agree with a lot of what you said TS, I just don't feel Floyd has ever lost clearly. I thought that Castillo edged their first fight and lost the rematch, I also feel Cotto did better than given credit for in the scorecards, but nothing close enough to warrant a rematch. I thought the first Maidana fight was a draw, and Floyd won the second one.

Other than that I pretty much agree with what you posted. Especially the thought about more fighters making more money, I just wish it didn't come at the cost of not seeing the best face the best because of networks, promotors, adviser, and all that bullcrap.

If by clear you mean Floyd losing 9 or 10 rounds in a fight, I agree nobody has won 9 or 10 rounds against him.

But Castillo in the first fight won 8 rounds. I mean unless you dont give him credit for all the body shots he landed, of course you would think the fight was closer or draw. And it wasn't like the rounds were super closed.

Mayweather was doing a lot of holding an grabbing, but he wasnt landing enough punches. Castillo out landed him in those rounds by a lot.

The referee took a point away from Castillo in round 8 for a low blow, but he won that round clearly. Then he took a point away from Floyd for usin his elbow in round 10, another round that Castillo won. So the point deductions didn't affect either fighter.

In the end i thought Castillo won by 4 points and thats pretty clear to me.

Like i said, i thought Maidana won the first fight 7-5. But if you think the fight was a draw, ok. Its not that far fetched that people diagree in close fights.

Just like the second Castillo fight, that fight was very close.

In the second Maidana fight, I thought Maidana out landed him in 8 rounds. So imo he won that fight also. Just because he wasnt putting a ton of pressure like the first fight that doesnt mean he wasnt landing punches. The referee took a point away from him, but in the end I thought he won by 3 points.

But of course the commentators and the media in general say that Floyd won by a landslide. And people are lazy, they dont care. They dont know what to judge when they are scoring a fight, so they take the word of the media and believe its the truth.

I listed all the rounds that i thought Cotto, Maidana and Castillo won so if you have time to watch the fights, tell me why do you think they lost some of those rounds. We can debate no problem.

[Publius]

If you are too lazy/****** to read the thread, or simply uninterested in the thread, then why post in it? GTFO.

I find it interesting how the Floyd fans automatically assume you are hating when in reality it's a fairly nuanced take on his career.

As for the judging, I don't know whether there is direct corruption but there is certainly a great deal of incentive for Vegas judges to award him favorable decisions. It benefits their careers and the city as a whole. Not to claim he has or hasn't been gifted decisions, because I don't consider myself informed enough to comment on that. But it is certainly a possibility given his position.

[Fearless Angel]

Mayweather is great at controlling the pace of a fight. It's hard to look good against him. The Pacquiao fight was an example of how he's able to take a great offensive fighter and minimize their effectiveness. That is one of the reason he gets the benefit the doubt in close fights. Castillo and Maidana I were close but at best they were draws. Only people that don't like him consider those fights as losses. The Cotto fight was not close to me. He had one good round and the others were either close with a slight edge for Cotto (1 or 2 rounds) or clearly won by Mayweather.

There is no home cooking for Mayweather. It's just hard for judges to rule against him because he is so good at fighting his type of fight no matter who the opposition is... Incidentally, I thought the Hatton fight was a lot closer and the KO saved it from a being a controversial decision.

"Fighting his type of fight" what does that even mean? LOL.

In the boxing community people have grown accustomed with viewing Mayweather as an undefeated fighter that nobody can touch. And if you say he has lost a few times they look at you like you're an alien from another planet.

If you dont bow down to everything he says, you're a hater. Thats why i said that if you dont beat him within an inch of his life, you're not winning a round against him.

But Mayweather can complain and question the judges decision in other fights, and its not a problem. I've seen him do that a lot of times.

Just recently he said that Ali really lost to Norton and i agree with him. Even my old man dont agree with people saying that Ali is the GOAT. He tells me that a lot of people say that because of what he was able to accomplish outside the ring.

[Fearless Angel]

If you are too lazy/****** to read the thread, or simply uninterested in the thread, then why post in it? GTFO.

I find it interesting how the Floyd fans automatically assume you are hating when in reality it's a fairly nuanced take on his career.

As for the judging, I don't know whether there is direct corruption but there is certainly a great deal of incentive for Vegas judges to award him favorable decisions. It benefits their careers and the city as a whole. Not to claim he has or hasn't been gifted decisions, because I don't consider myself informed enough to comment on that. But it is certainly a possibility given his position.

Thank you!

If you have to time to watch and score his fights, go ahead and tell me what you think about them.

[Fearless Angel]

That's not the message, ******. I'm not threatening you. I'm giving you advice on what to do because of your ****** actions (action being making this **** thread).

I chuckle, no lie