Schaefer's Praise: Accurate or Apple Shining?

[koolkc107]

Ran across this article today speculating on whether Floyd will actually try for #50. In it, Richard Schaefer lays out some pretty high praise for Mayweather's career. Among the highlights:

"He made Juan Manuel Marquez look ordinary, he probably didn’t win a second of the fight."

and

"When you look at Mayweather fighting Miguel Cotto, it was criticised because Cotto was too old. But he went on to beat Sergio Martinez and fight Canelo. Shane Mosley was considered an old Shane Mosley but then he went on to fight Manny Pacquiao and that’s okay. Oscar De La Hoya the same, Mayweather first – when he’s too old – but then he fights Pacquiao. The same with Ricky Hatton, Floyd fought Hatton who then And what about Juan Manuel Marquez? He’s too old, he’s too small, he’s past his prime, and then he fights Pacquiao and gets the better of him each time."

My question is this. We know Schaefer and Floyd are good friends, but is his assessment of Mayweather's accomplishments fair and accurate? Or is it simply a function of their friendship, and therefore lacking objectivity?

If so, why?

http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/the-floyd-mayweather-comeback/

[LADIV]

Ran across this article today speculating on whether Floyd will actually try for #50. In it, Richard Schaefer lays out some pretty high praise for Mayweather's career. Among the highlights:

"He made Juan Manuel Marquez look ordinary, he probably didn’t win a second of the fight."

and

"When you look at Mayweather fighting Miguel Cotto, it was criticised because Cotto was too old. But he went on to beat Sergio Martinez and fight Canelo. Shane Mosley was considered an old Shane Mosley but then he went on to fight Manny Pacquiao and that’s okay. Oscar De La Hoya the same, Mayweather first – when he’s too old – but then he fights Pacquiao. The same with Ricky Hatton, Floyd fought Hatton who then And what about Juan Manuel Marquez? He’s too old, he’s too small, he’s past his prime, and then he fights Pacquiao and gets the better of him each time."

My question is this. We know Schaefer and Floyd are good friends, but is his assessment of Mayweather's accomplishments fair and accurate? Or is it simply a function of their friendship, and therefore lacking objectivity?

If so, why?

http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/the-...ther-comeback/

Didnt marquez go up 2 divisions to fight mayweather only to get fcked at the scales..thats not an accomplishment

[Redd Foxx]

I'm not trying to discredit Mayweather, but Schafer is not being objective there.
"Mosley was considered an old Shane Mosley but then he went on to fight Manny Pacquiao and that’s okay."
No, it wasn't ok. Everyone moaned about that and no one brings up Mosley when they talk about Pac's accomplishments. He's making up stuff to validate his opinion. You don't have to lie to make Mayweather sound good.

[Wolfie*]

Ran across this article today speculating on whether Floyd will actually try for #50. In it, Richard Schaefer lays out some pretty high praise for Mayweather's career. Among the highlights:

"He made Juan Manuel Marquez look ordinary, he probably didn’t win a second of the fight."

and

"When you look at Mayweather fighting Miguel Cotto, it was criticised because Cotto was too old. But he went on to beat Sergio Martinez and fight Canelo. Shane Mosley was considered an old Shane Mosley but then he went on to fight Manny Pacquiao and that’s okay. Oscar De La Hoya the same, Mayweather first – when he’s too old – but then he fights Pacquiao. The same with Ricky Hatton, Floyd fought Hatton who then And what about Juan Manuel Marquez? He’s too old, he’s too small, he’s past his prime, and then he fights Pacquiao and gets the better of him each time."

My question is this. We know Schaefer and Floyd are good friends, but is his assessment of Mayweather's accomplishments fair and accurate? Or is it simply a function of their friendship, and therefore lacking objectivity?

If so, why?

http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/the-...ther-comeback/

These points are ****ing ****** and shows obvious bias. Anyone can see through that ****. Come on now.

[original zero]

I'm not trying to discredit Mayweather, but Schafer is not being objective there.
"Mosley was considered an old Shane Mosley but then he went on to fight Manny Pacquiao and that’s okay."
No, it wasn't ok. Everyone moaned about that and no one brings up Mosley when they talk about Pac's accomplishments. He's making up stuff to validate his opinion. You don't have to lie to make Mayweather sound good.

But it shows a clear pattern of people trying to downplay Mayweather's resume, even though most of Pacquiao's biggest wins are guys Mayweather already beat first.

Mosley had just knocked out Margarito as was the WBA welterweight super champion when he faced Mayweather and had won 7 of his last 8. It's unfair to Mayweather to act like he caught Mosley when he was over the hill. Mosley was a world champion and fresh off a huge win.

[JJRod]

Ran across this article today speculating on whether Floyd will actually try for #50. In it, Richard Schaefer lays out some pretty high praise for Mayweather's career. Among the highlights:

"He made Juan Manuel Marquez look ordinary, he probably didn’t win a second of the fight."

and

"When you look at Mayweather fighting Miguel Cotto, it was criticised because Cotto was too old. But he went on to beat Sergio Martinez and fight Canelo. Shane Mosley was considered an old Shane Mosley but then he went on to fight Manny Pacquiao and that’s okay. Oscar De La Hoya the same, Mayweather first – when he’s too old – but then he fights Pacquiao. The same with Ricky Hatton, Floyd fought Hatton who then And what about Juan Manuel Marquez? He’s too old, he’s too small, he’s past his prime, and then he fights Pacquiao and gets the better of him each time."

My question is this. We know Schaefer and Floyd are good friends, but is his assessment of Mayweather's accomplishments fair and accurate? Or is it simply a function of their friendship, and therefore lacking objectivity?

If so, why?

http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/the-...ther-comeback/

He on point with most things except the Mosley Pacquiao fight.

[Johnwoo8686]

I'm not trying to discredit Mayweather, but Schafer is not being objective there.
"Mosley was considered an old Shane Mosley but then he went on to fight Manny Pacquiao and that’s okay."
No, it wasn't ok. Everyone moaned about that and no one brings up Mosley when they talk about Pac's accomplishments. He's making up stuff to validate his opinion. You don't have to lie to make Mayweather sound good.

Very few people were calling Shane over the hill BEFORE the Floyd fight even if that might have been the case. Many people gave Shane a seriously shot in that fight including myself. When Shane cracked Floyd in the second round I thought to myself "here we go" but Floyd bounced back like a true champion in that same round.

Schaefer's other points were spot on. For example: You can't take credit away from Floyd for beating Cotto then turn around and give Canelo credit for beating Cotto more than 3 years later.

[Redd Foxx]

But it shows a clear pattern of people trying to downplay Mayweather's resume, even though most of Pacquiao's biggest wins are guys Mayweather already beat first.

Mosley had just knocked out Margarito as was the WBA welterweight super champion when he faced Mayweather and had won 7 of his last 8. It's unfair to Mayweather to act like he caught Mosley when he was over the hill. Mosley was a world champion and fresh off a huge win.

Yes, people do that, and I think it's foolish, but I'm saying he doesn't have to use such weak arguments to bolster Mayweather. Like when you said, "most of Pacquiao's biggest wins are guys Mayweather already beat first." That's an exaggeration and ignores the fact that Pac destroyed a prime Cotto while Mayweather decisioned the Cotto who got clowned by Trout. It goes both ways.

Again, what I'm saying is that there are a thousand strong arguments that could be made for Mayweather, Schafer doesn't need to stretch the truth to make his point.

Also, people don't have to bash Pac to praise May and vice versa. Those of us standing in the middle look at both sides and see the holes in both their arguments. It's hard for me to understand how any true boxing fans can be impressed by one and not the other.

[Redd Foxx]

Very few people were calling Shane over the hill BEFORE the Floyd fight even if that might have been the case. Many people gave Shane a seriously shot in that fight including myself. When Shane cracked Floyd in the second round I thought to myself "here we go" but Floyd bounced back like a true champion in that same round.

Schaefer's other points were spot on. For example: You can't take credit away from Floyd for beating Cotto then turn around and give Canelo credit for beating Cotto more than 3 years later.

I'm not against Mayweather so I'm not going to belabor this but I remember people saying Mosley was past prime before May fought him. Also, it's not unfair to look back and say that now because Shane hasn't done anything good since Margs. Remember, my point was that he's embellishing about Pac getting treated like he fought a prime Mosley after May fought am old one. That's not how it happened. Total byllshyt. Maybe a few haters, but I don't consider their opinions to be valid anyway. People on both sides use a handful of truth with lies peppered in to make one guy sound better than the other. I don't this it's necessary.

[Madison Boxing]

marquez went up two divisions and was half the size so yeah, not shocked he looked ordinary.