[Superthread] Mayweather vs Pacman **NO STREAMING REQUESTS**

Deiseboy01

Someone posted that Manny needs surgery on a rotator.

I know there must have been huge pressures on Manny to fight the other night, possibly including financial penalties, but if he turned up badly injured he's effectively cheated the fans and has gone down a lot on my estimation.

Halloween Jack

Deiseboy01 wrote: »

Someone posted that Manny needs surgery on a rotator.

I know there must have been huge pressures on Manny to fight the other night, possibly including financial penalties, but if he turned up badly injured he's effectively cheated the fans and has gone down a lot on my estimation.

Don't know what's gone on there tbh, he didn't disclose the injury before the fight and may be fined for that reason, but was looking for a TUE for painkillers, sounds like a clerical error by whoever filled out the form.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Panic E

Deiseboy01 wrote: »

Someone posted that Manny needs surgery on a rotator.

Yeah, it's looking like he will be out for up to a year. Doesn't look like there will be a rematch in September now.

He was getting anti inflammatory shots (approved by USADA) beforehand but was denied them on the night it seems.

RoryMac

Panic E wrote: »

Yeah, it's looking like he will be out for up to a year. Doesn't look like there will be a rematch in September now.

He was getting anti inflammatory shots (approved by USADA) beforehand but was denied them on the night it seems.

I doubt the public would've had the appetite for a rematch

efb

Panic E wrote: »

What did he do though really, land some jabs and the occasional potshot while retreating from a smaller man for 12 rounds.

I didn't see any clear winner in a lot of those rounds. It's almost as if Mayweather won the fight just by virtue of not losing it.

That's how you win, hit and avoid being hit- it's not rocket science

Panic E

RoryMac wrote: »

I doubt the public would've had the appetite for a rematch

I don't think the bandwagoners would but it would still do bigger numbers than any other fight.

Plenty of people calling for one. Ironically it's main selling point is the same thing that rules it out.

walshb

efb wrote: »

That's how you win, hit and avoid being hit- it's not rocket science

Come on. Surely we can hope for an expect a little more from the supposed best on earth? I agree, he won by not losing. He didn't win the fight in any convincing manner. This whole "hit and not get hit" has been used too much concerning Floyd. Manny hit Floyd on Floyd's body every bit as much as Floyd hit Manny.

You follow boxing a lot. Was what you saw impressive? The bigger man, the real WW eking out a weak offensive display against the smaller and less strong man?

As a Floyd fan in his prime I think he has become next to unwatchable. It's more desperation and OTT defense than boxing and winning and seizing. He is getting lauded for it when he shouldn't be. He should be called on it for what it is.

Maidana said it, Guerrero said it about him running away. He promised us a toe to toe masterclass vs. Guerrero and we didn't get it. Against Maidana he fouled every chance he got and failed to out on any effective hurt or offense on Maidana. Hell, Broner did as well at times.

efb

walshb wrote: »

Come on. Surely we can hope for an expect a little more from the supposed best on earth? I agree, he won by not losing. He didn't win the fight in any convincing manner. This whole "hit and not get hit" has been used too much concerning Floyd. Manny hit Floyd on Floyd's body every bit as much as Floyd hit Manny.

You follow boxing a lot. Was what you saw impressive? The bigger man, the real WW eking out a weak offensive display against the smaller and less strong man?

As a Floyd fan in his prime I think he has become next to unwatchable. It's more desperation and OTT defense than boxing and winning and seizing. He is getting lauded for it when he shouldn't be. He should be called on it for what it is.

Maidana said it, Guerrero said it about him running away. He promised us a toe to toe masterclass vs. Guerrero and we didn't get it. Against Maidana he fouled every chance he got and failed to out on any effective hurt or offense on Maidana. Hell, Broner did as well at times.

Seriously when I go into judging mode it's just that - I don't look for thinks that don't count.

I knew that fight would pan out pretty much the way it did- I expected Manny to be more offensive- he wasn't so Floyd didn't have to do as much

Mister Vain

walshb wrote: »

Come on. Surely we can hope for an expect a little more from the supposed best on earth? I agree, he won by not losing. He didn't win the fight in any convincing manner. This whole "hit and not get hit" has been used too much concerning Floyd. Manny hit Floyd on Floyd's body every bit as much as Floyd hit Manny.

Make em miss, make em pay. Yes Floyd's style may not be the most exciting to watch, but he was the better boxer on the night and deserved to win. Although watching MayPac made me want to watch the first Maidana fight again as that was entertaining.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

Come on. Surely we can hope for an expect a little more from the supposed best on earth? I agree, he won by not losing. He didn't win the fight in any convincing manner. This whole "hit and not get hit" has been used too much concerning Floyd. Manny hit Floyd on Floyd's body every bit as much as Floyd hit Manny.

You follow boxing a lot. Was what you saw impressive? The bigger man, the real WW eking out a weak offensive display against the smaller and less strong man?

As a Floyd fan in his prime I think he has become next to unwatchable. It's more desperation and OTT defense than boxing and winning and seizing. He is getting lauded for it when he shouldn't be. He should be called on it for what it is.

Maidana said it, Guerrero said it about him running away. He promised us a toe to toe masterclass vs. Guerrero and we didn't get it. Against Maidana he fouled every chance he got and failed to out on any effective hurt or offense on Maidana. Hell, Broner did as well at times.

I don't understand how the accusation of 'running away' is anyway valid whatsoever. Surely if your opponent is doing that and you are good enough you can cut off the ring/trap him on tbe ropes etc.

If you can't you're effectively criticising your opponent for being clever enough not to fight exactly the type of fight you wanted to fight.

It's like arsene wenger or somebody criticising Stoke for playing defensively, to their strengths rather than try and play open free flowing football which wouldn't suit them at all.

I do agree in a sense with the idea that if mayweather really cared about his legacy or the fans he should be more aggressive, but he probably and legitimately sees his only job as winning fights, which he does in a way that is very effective

walshb

Mister Vain wrote: »

Make em miss, make em pay. Yes Floyd's style may not be the most exciting to watch, but he was the better boxer on the night and deserved to win. Although watching MayPac made me want to watch the first Maidana fight again as that was entertaining.

That's just it, he wasn't making him pay. I wouldn't laud him for that.

Panic E

efb wrote: »

That's how you win, hit and avoid being hit- it's not rocket science

I'm just curious as to which out of those 2 categories this stuff falls under?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAOlGOGWJA4

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

I don't understand how the accusation of 'running away' is anyway valid whatsoever. Surely if your opponent is doing that and you are good enough you can cut off the ring/trap him on tbe ropes etc.

If you can't you're effectively criticising your opponent for being clever enough not to fight exactly the type of fight you wanted to fight.

It's like arsene wenger or somebody criticising Stoke for playing defensively, to their strengths rather than try and play open free flowing football which wouldn't suit them at all.

I do agree in a sense with the idea that if mayweather really cared about his legacy or the fans he should be more aggressive, but he probably and legitimately sees his only job as winning fights, which he does in a way that is very effective

No issue with any boxer moving and winning. Pea Whitaker could do it and you would watch him all night, because it was honest and sincere and very offensive as well. Mayweather used to be a whole lot better at being offensively defensive. He has not shown that recently.

Panic E

walshb wrote: »

Anyway, I was just very displeased at both men really, and astonished at some of the OTT praise for Floyd.

x2

Big Ears

walshb wrote: »

No rule changing. If Floyd's getting praised and scored for his weak and paltry offense (as well as getting lauded for dodging punches by whatever means) then Manny should get the same praise and points for his weak and paltry offense, as well as his blocking and dodging shots by Floyd. No real mention at all about Manny's defense. But anytime Floyd managed to wiggle out of trouble people were in awe.

In a nutshell Floyd was getting scored for two areas. Defense and offense. Manny was only being scored for offense. That's what I sawy. That is wrong.

Walshb I'd be interested to see how you scored the fight on a rbr basis.

RoryMac

walshb wrote: »

Manny does not all fight like Maidana.

Anyway, I was just very displeased at both men really, and astonished at some of the OTT praise for Floyd. He was far from great in there. He won a close and dull fight. Compu box only tells half the story. Floyd fans seem incapable of criticizing him. Apart from some. I am one of them.

You could say the same for the Manny fans, there has been no criticism of Manny's performance that I've seen. Manny was a no-show on Saturday so as dull as Mayweather's performance was(and it was) the biggest factor in the fight not living up to billing was the lack of fight from Manny.

The only real hope that the fight lived up to the billing was if Manny got off to a good start and got a few rounds in front forcing Mayweather to chase the fight.

walshb

Big Ears wrote: »

Walshb I'd be interested to see how you scored the fight on a rbr basis.

I'd nearly have to watch it again. I could have "two" scores, the fight as a whole and rd for rd basis. Some rds could have gone either way depending on what you like.

As a whole fight it was a toss up for me, and hence why Manny's surprised look at the end didn't surprise me. There was just far too much non scoring moments. Very very few clear and impacting scoring moments. Should Manny get credit for pressing the fight when the fight was not delivering much?

Should Floyd get credit and scores for throwing out tag like jabs and single rights that mainly didn't connect when the action was stagnant? Should Manny get points and credit for the many times he trapped Floyd and was forced to hit down and down as Floyd hugged the floor and hugged Manny's hips?

This is the confusion. I have no issue with it, but what I don't get is how fans (and some knowledgeable posters) come on and make out that they witnessed brilliance and a masterclass. What fooking matserclass?

What I felt was that Floyd was getting scored and praised in all areas in the ring. Manny was not. It was all about Manny's offense, and if that didn't deliver then he has to be a loser?

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

No issue with any boxer moving and winning. Pea Whitaker could do it and you would watch him all night, because it was honest and sincere and very offensive as well. Mayweather used to be a whole lot better at being offensively defensive. He has not shown that recently.

Whittaker is a little before my time, what was the main difference in styles, or to phrase differently, what would you want to see more of from floyd in these big big fights?

Big Ears

walshb wrote: »

I'd nearly have to watch it again. I could have "two" scores, the fight as a whole and rd for rd basis. Some rds could have gone either way depending on what you like.

As a whole fight it was a toss up for me, and hence why Manny's surprised look at the end didn't surprise me. There was just far too much non scoring moments. Very very few clear and impacting scoring moments. Should Manny get credit for pressing the fight when the fight was not delivering much?

Should Floyd get credit and scores for throwing out tag like jabs and single rights that mainly didn't connect when the action was stagnant? Should Manny get points and credit for the many times he trapped Floyd and was forced to hit down and down as Floyd hugged the floor and hugged Manny's hips?

This is the confusion. I have no issue with it, but what I don't get is how fans (and some knowledgeable posters) come on and make out that they witnessed brilliance and a masterclass. What fooking matserclass?

What I felt was that Floyd was getting scored and praised in all areas in the ring. Manny was not. It was all about Manny's offense, and if that didn't deliver then he has to be a loser?

and that's what I'm getting at really. You know aswell as I do, boxing is judged one way and that's round by round. I can definitely see how judging the fight as a whole it appears it could have gone either way, because Manny's big moments (particularly the 4th and 6th round) were far more memorable than anything else that happened in the fight. But scored on a rd by round basis, this simply wasn't that close a bout.

Defensively it was a brilliant display in nullifying Pacquiao's attack (by whatever means necessary), but you are completely right that, that was no offensive masterclass. Offensively it was actually a very poor display, but he nullified Pacquiao so much with his defensive that it really didn't take much in offensive output to take the fight.

Mister Vain

Halloween Jack wrote: »

I don't understand how the accusation of 'running away' is anyway valid whatsoever. Surely if your opponent is doing that and you are good enough you can cut off the ring/trap him on tbe ropes etc.

If you can't you're effectively criticising your opponent for being clever enough not to fight exactly the type of fight you wanted to fight.

It's like arsene wenger or somebody criticising Stoke for playing defensively, to their strengths rather than try and play open free flowing football which wouldn't suit them at all.

I do agree in a sense with the idea that if mayweather really cared about his legacy or the fans he should be more aggressive, but he probably and legitimately sees his only job as winning fights, which he does in a way that is very effective

Yeah people used to criticise Italy for playing defensively. But they were very good at it and it won them games. The way they play still requires a lot of skill even if its not as easy on the eye.

FTA69

I don't think it's massively complicated to be honest. Floyd's movement prevented Manny from getting off his combos like he normally does, in effect he neutralised him and then threw and connected more punches than his opponent. Thus winning the fight clearly. He pretty much slowed down the action and then won from the outside, Pacquiao was unable to impose himself as a result.

The fact it wasn't an utter bloodbath with digs thrown all over the place doesn't negate the above fact. To be able to nullify a fighter like Pacquiao is an achievement, but it wasn't the most aesthetic of performances by any means.

Big Ears

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Whittaker is a little before my time, what was the main difference in styles, or to phrase differently, what would you want to see more of from floyd in these big big fights?

Whitaker would sit in the pocket, duck & dive, move his hips all over the place and come back with counters. He loved to fight, he just didn't like to get hit while doing it.

walshb

Big Ears wrote: »

and that's what I'm getting at really. You know aswell as I do, boxing is judged one way and that's round by round. I can definitely see how judging the fight as a whole it appears it could have gone either way, because Manny's big moments (particularly the 4th and 6th round) were far more memorable than anything else that happened in the fight. But scored on a rd by round basis, this simply wasn't that close a bout.

Defensively it was a brilliant display in nullifying Pacquiao's attack (by whatever means necessary), but you are completely right that, that was no offensive masterclass. Offensively it was actually a very poor display, but he nullified Pacquiao so much with his defensive that it really didn't take much in offensive output to take the fight.

Defense should not win fights, unless extremely close and looking for something to separate them. Scoring shots and substance should. In that regard it was difficult to split the two of them. Both offensive displays were very weak and difficult to separate. I felt that Floyd's offense was being given a lot more undeserved and unfair credit. Any time he was offensive, whether he touched Manny or not he seemed to be getting praised.

Manny's offense was almost flipped. When he attacked and didn't succeed he was almost criticized and Floyd praised. Ridiculous. Then when Floyd attacked and Manny nullified it we heard nothing, and at times we heard Floyd being praised for leading.

Strongbow10

Halloween Jack wrote: »

I don't understand how the accusation of 'running away' is anyway valid whatsoever. Surely if your opponent is doing that and you are good enough you can cut off the ring/trap him on tbe ropes etc.

If you can't you're effectively criticising your opponent for being clever enough not to fight exactly the type of fight you wanted to fight.

It's like arsene wenger or somebody criticising Stoke for playing defensively, to their strengths rather than try and play open free flowing football which wouldn't suit them at all.

I do agree in a sense with the idea that if mayweather really cared about his legacy or the fans he should be more aggressive, but he probably and legitimately sees his only job as winning fights, which he does in a way that is very effective

An all time great fighter would be capable of fighting both off the front and back foot. Now Mayweather was a superb fighter in his prime, capable of taking the fight to his opponent, but now he has devised a way of winning without mounting any real credible offence.

Your analogy has Floyd Mayweather on par with Stoke City FC, a side who found success against more illustrious opponents by playing on particular style of football.

If Arsenal (Floyd) were an ATG side then they should be capable of beating Stoke playing their normal game, playing Stoke at their own game or whatever.

If thats how you see him then maybe, even subconsciously, you don't hold him in the highest of esteem either at this stage of his career.

walshb

For me JMM contained and nullified Manny more than Floyd. Yes, close fights with Manny and JMM, but I was much more impressed with JMMS handling of Manny than Floyd's.

FTA69

I don't think that was the case Walsh. Floyd simply landed more power punches (i.e. the straight right) than Manny did. The last few rounds Pacquiao did nothing bar fend off jabs and get hit with the straight right, he didn't impose himself at all. Both offenses were low but Floyd's was the most accurate and the most prolific.

Halloween Jack

Strongbow10 wrote: »

An all time great fighter would be capable of fighting both off the front and back foot. Now Mayweather was a superb fighter in his prime, capable of taking the fight to his opponent, but now he has devised a way of winning without mounting any real credible offence.

Your analogy has Floyd Mayweather on par with Stoke City FC, a side who found success against more illustrious opponents by playing on particular style of football.

If Arsenal (Floyd) were an ATG side then they should be capable of beating Stoke playing their normal game, playing Stoke at their own game or whatever.

If thats how you see him then maybe, even subconsciously, you don't hold him in the highest of esteem either at this stage of his career.

Slightly flawed analogy, as a poster above pointed out, the great italian teams were 1-0 defensive specialists, could make a similar argument for a mourinho team, in either case very, very effective.

Would they be held in the same vein as some of the best Brazilian sides? Maybe not but they'd give most of them a good game.

I've watched some of the older more exciting floyd fights, gatti and corrales spring to mind, but as you say is it fair to expect him to fight like that at 38?

Panic E

Masterclass my ass. If that was the case he wouldn't have been boo'ed out of the place from all sections of the crowd. Too many questions left.

He was boo'ed on his performance alone and its because he stunk the joint out. He didn't win convincingly by any means. No exclamation mark.

RoryMac wrote: »

You could say the same for the Manny fans, there has been no criticism of Manny's performance that I've seen. Manny was a no-show on Saturday so as dull as Mayweather's performance was(and it was) the biggest factor in the fight not living up to billing was the lack of fight from Manny.

Agree with that. Manny was a shade of what was expected but it had little to do with Floyd. At the same time he didn't lose it convincingly either.

The shoulder injury seems to be a big factor. I think they should do it again & maybe even again after that. That should have been their third fight.

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Whittaker is a little before my time, what was the main difference in styles, or to phrase differently, what would you want to see more of from floyd in these big big fights?

I want to see Floyd seizing fights. Taking educated chances. Not stinking the place out by almost refusing to engage whilst being lauded and praised for it. Call a spade a spade. Rds in that fight should have been drawn because neither man showed anything of substance.

Pea was a buzzsaw of offense whilst also being very slick and defensive. He didn't stink the joint out in his prime. Nor has Floyd, but recently he has. Pea also had some stinkers late in his career. So, maybe I am being OTT on an older and less brilliant offensive Mayweather. But, at the same time I won't sit back and pretend that what I saw was a masterclass or brilliant. It was far from it.