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

Henno30

walshb wrote: »

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.

Well JMM doesn't have anywhere near Floyd's athleticism, which is a major factor in the success of outside fighters. You hear people go on about backfoot outside-fighting being the pinnacle of the sweet science, but it isn't. A fighter like Amir Khan is capable of being a very effective outside fighter despite not being that good technically at all. The pinnacle of the sweet science is not needing your legs and oceans of space to beat a man.

That said, the difference between Pac-Floyd and Pac-JMM III was that Floyd's offence was much better than JMM's. Marquez nullified Manny's offence but he didn't land anywhere near as many clean shots as Floyd did.

walshb

Henno30 wrote: »

That said, the difference between Pac-Floyd and Pac-JMM III was that Floyd's offence was much better than JMM's. Marquez nullified Manny's offence but he didn't land anywhere near as many clean shots as Floyd did.

I disagree. JMM out more a beating on Manny and IMO landed with more conviction and substance throughout.

FTA69

Likewise JMM and Manny traded shots with each other furiously and both took a beating, Floyd managed not to get hit, land significantly more shots and slow the pace down totally. JMM did have success against Manny, but he also lost twice against him.

Also I'm sick of hearing about shoulder injuries. It's very unbecoming at this level. If you're injured then don't fight. Simple as.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

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.

Out of interest would you consider the canelo win as stinking out the place? I thought that was an impressive performance and it's only 3 fights ago

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Out of interest would you consider the canelo win as stinking out the place? I thought that was an impressive performance and it's only 3 fights ago

That fight went exactly like I thought. It wasn't a stinker. Floyd did better offensively there, but many moments of offense were overrated. Canelo was ok in defence. Floyd should have done better and imposed himself more on Manny than on Canelo. He didn't.

MisterAnarchy

walshb wrote: »

Rds in that fight should have been drawn because neither man showed anything of substance.

Exactly ,neither fighter did enough to win most rounds in my opinion .
Its nonsense giving rounds to Mayweather when he spent most of the round on the defensive ,and barely landed a meaningful punch.

If anything the more offensive fighter should get the benefit of the doubt in a tight round ,something that didn't happen.

walshb

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Exactly ,neither fighter did enough to win most rounds in my opinion .
Its nonsense giving rounds to Mayweather when he spent most of the round on the defensive ,and barely landed a meaningful punch.

If anything the more offensive fighter should get the benefit of the doubt in a tight round ,something that didn't happen.

That is what I felt. But with Mayweather it seems his D gets him rounds.

RoryMac

walshb wrote: »

That is what I felt. But with Mayweather it seems his D gets him rounds.

I don't think it was his defence that necessarily gave him the rounds, I think the judges felt they needed to give 10-9 rounds and went with the guy that got 5 or 6 shots off rather than the guy that got 3 - 4.

I'd agree with your earlier comment that these rounds should really be scored 10 - 10 rounds unless one fighter has a clearly better round.

It'd be interesting to see how that would have led the fight to be scored, 118 - 118, 2 rounds each and the rest drawn?

walshb

RoryMac wrote: »

I don't think it was his defence that necessarily gave him the rounds, I think the judges felt they needed to give 10-9 rounds and went with the got that got 5 or 6 shots off rather than the guy that got 3 - 4.

I'd agree with your earlier comment that these rounds should really be scored 10 - 10 rounds unless one fighter has a clearly better round.

It'd be interesting to see how that would have led the fight to be scored, 118 - 118, 2 rounds each and the rest drawn?

Bottom line was that this was far from a masterclass. That's really what I have been trying to say. Just going a really long way in saying it.

And, if I was new to the sport and witnessed it I would be far from in awe. I am a long time fan and both men disappointed me. Mayweather more so.

Panic E

FTA69 wrote: »

Also I'm sick of hearing about shoulder injuries.

You might as well get used to it, it's the only thing that will be remembered about this fight (other than Floyd's stinking thinking)

walshb

FTA69 wrote: »

Likewise JMM and Manny traded shots with each other furiously and both took a beating, Floyd managed not to get hit, land significantly more shots and slow the pace down totally. JMM did have success against Manny, but he also lost twice against him.

Also I'm sick of hearing about shoulder injuries. It's very unbecoming at this level. If you're injured then don't fight. Simple as.

Floyd did get hit. And from my viewing he didn't land significantly more, unless you are counting blocked shots and arm shots and thin air shots? If so, I will count Manny's as well.

cowzerp

It's ridiculous, Manny didn't engage so is every bit as much to blame as Floyd
Floyd was doing what he needed to win, Manny was not
how can people not see this, Manny was the biggest fraud in the fight, If he engaged as he needed to to win, it would have been a busier fight
Floyd just done what he always done but his opponent just didn't do anything
What did he do? maybe 2-3 flurrys in the whole fight

Panic E

Halloween Jack wrote: »

I don't understand how the accusation of 'running away' is anyway valid whatsoever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNpj03sZkic

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

It's ridiculous, Manny didn't engage so is every bit as much to blame as Floyd
Floyd was doing what he needed to win, Manny was not
how can people not see this, Manny was the biggest fraud in the fight, If he engaged as he needed to to win, it would have been a busier fight
Floyd just done what he always done but his opponent just didn't do anything
What did he do? maybe 2-3 flurrys in the whole fight

And what Flurries did Floyd get off? What offense did Floyd show us? Pointing to compu box can be misleading. Manny hadn't a single mark on him. That is because Floyd didn't hit him with any conviction.

I just don't see how you, as a big Floyd fan could be at all impressed by that. I am a fan and I was not one bit impressed. BTW, the video above is very informing!

MisterAnarchy

walshb wrote: »

BTW, the video above is very informing!

I especially liked the comments

Somebody please tell Mayweather that he has to hug his wife at home and punch the guy in the ring and not the other way round.

and

Mayweather hugging Pacquiao more in this fight than my father did to me my entire life.

Halloween Jack

Panic E wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNpj03sZkic

That pretty much proves my point, what did you want floyd to do, stand in front of manny and let him wail away?

You could just as easily call that clip 'pointlessly coming forward and landing nothing'.

The fact is manny had no answer to floyd's evasion and couldn't draw him into exchanges and that's why he lost the fight.

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

That pretty much proves my point, what did you want floyd to do, stand in front of manny and let him wail away?

You could just as easily call that clip 'pointlessly coming forward and landing nothing'.

The fact is manny had no answer to floyd's evasion and couldn't draw him into exchanges and that's why he lost the fight.

This is ridiculous, and exactly what I am talking about. Manny pushes the action in the clip and Floyd does next to nothing apart from run and hold and dodge and it's Manny who is getting criticized and Floyd praised? That is what is wrong with the sport. Manny deserves more credit for at least trying to box and fight than Floyd deserves for surviving and running. Plus, Manny did land in this clip.

Go watch some vintage Toney and Pea to see how a defensive fighter deserves credit whilst in defensive mode.

Anyone want to post up an opposing clip of Floyd's best bits and Floyd's masterclass?

FTA69

Panic E wrote: »

You might as well get used to it, it's the only thing that will be remembered about this fight (other than Floyd's stinking thinking)

Imagine if Floyd lost and then came out and blamed an injury? There'd be howls of derision. This is pro-boxing like, pretty much every boxer goes into a fight carrying some sort of injury. If the fighter is unable to box then he shouldn't fight, you don't get to come out afterward and blame injuries. Im not trivialising his injuries either by the way, I've had to pull out of a fight for rotator cuff injuries before and only last week had to pull out two days before a bout due to a hand injury. However, I've also fought and lost while injured and didn't crib about it afterward because I was beaten. Pacquiao was beaten because he wasn't good enough, end of story really.

Walsh,

Yes Floyd got hit but not as much as Manny and nowhere near the level of punishment that JMM took in his fights. I know compubox is flawed, but Floyd threw and landed more than his opponent and dictated the pace of the fight. Sin é.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

This is ridiculous, and exactly what I am talking about. Manny pushes the action in the clip and Floyd does next to nothing apart from run and hold and dodge and it's Manny who is getting criticized and Floyd praised? That is what is wrong with the sport. Manny deserves more credit for at least trying to box and fight than Floyd deserves for surviving and running.

Go watch some vintage Toney and Pea to see how a defensive fighter deserves credit whilst in defensive mode.

Hang on, everybody knew floyd was going to fight this way, in order to win the fight manny had to find a way to make his offense count. He failed to do that, as the clip illustrates. Why would you reward somebody just for coming forward relentlessly while landing bugger all?

FTA69

cowzerp wrote: »

It's ridiculous, Manny didn't engage so is every bit as much to blame as Floyd
Floyd was doing what he needed to win, Manny was not
how can people not see this, Manny was the biggest fraud in the fight, If he engaged as he needed to to win, it would have been a busier fight
Floyd just done what he always done but his opponent just didn't do anything
What did he do? maybe 2-3 flurrys in the whole fight

Only because he was injured. If he wasn't injured then he would have battered the cowardly Floyd and everything would be right in the world again.

:rolleyes:

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Hang on, everybody knew floyd was going to fight this way, in order to win the fight manny had to find a way to make his offense count. He failed to do that, as the clip illustrates. Why would you reward somebody just for coming forward relentlessly while landing bugger all?

You seem to be rewarding Floyd for the clip. That is what I find bizarre. Running and dodging and not fighting should not be rewarded. Criticizing Manny for the clip when it's Manny who is actually trying something (successful or not) and Floyd is intent on not wanting to do anything is what is wrong. Even a balanced criticism would be better. Can you watch that clip and criticize only Manny, or can you also show us where you could or would criticize Floyd?

Panic E

Halloween Jack wrote: »

You could just as easily call that clip 'pointlessly coming forward and landing nothing'.

No, you could call it 'running away from your opponent, from one side of the ring to the other'

I posted one of him hugging on the other page if you would care to explain that too? Running and hugging!

Boxing: the sport or practice of fighting with the fists, especially with padded gloves in a roped square ring according to prescribed rules

walshb

FTA69 wrote: »

Only because he was injured. If he wasn't injured then he would have battered the cowardly Floyd and everything would be right in the world again.

:rolleyes:

Nobody is saying that Manny batters Floyd without the injury. Here's one for you. If Floyd tried more and decided to impose his will more I see a landslide win for him. And no, I don't think he gets ko'd by being more authoritative. All we got the other night was a stinker, and as far from a masterclass as possible; unless that clip posted is a masterclass?

FTA69

walshb wrote: »

Nobody is saying that Manny batters Floyd without the injury. Here's one for you. If Floyd tried more and decided to impose his will more I see a landslide win for him. And no, I don't think he gets ko'd by being more authoritative. All we got the other night was a stinker, and as far from a masterclass as possible; unless that clip posted is a masterclass?

I'm not in the masterclass category and it isn't a fight I'll be watching in ten years time. All I'm saying is that Floyd did enough to win, landed more shots, threw more shots and dictated the pace really. Pacquiao didn't throw or land as many because he couldn't deal with Floyd's movement.

I'm not saying this was a fight for the ages mate, just that Floyd won that fight and fairly convincingly too under current rules.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

And what Flurries did Floyd get off? What offense did Floyd show us? Pointing to compu box can be misleading. Manny hadn't a single mark on him. That is because Floyd didn't hit him with any conviction.

I just don't see how you, as a big Floyd fan could be at all impressed by that. I am a fan and I was not one bit impressed. BTW, the video above is very informing!

Bren rd by rd i scored the fight, Manny i gave 2 rds and it was very simple
Manny done nothing for 10 rds, Floyd done slightly more and that won him the rounds, Forget about impressive, he done what he needed to do and clearly won, it wasn't close

Panic E

FTA69 wrote: »

Imagine if Floyd lost and then came out and blamed an injury? There'd be howls of derision. This is pro-boxing like, pretty much every boxer goes into a fight carrying some sort of injury. If the fighter is unable to box then he shouldn't fight, you don't get to come out afterward and blame injuries. Im not trivialising his injuries either by the way, I've had to pull out of a fight for rotator cuff injuries before and only last week had to pull out two days before a bout due to a hand injury.

No need to imagine that as it's not what happened. Did you see the fight? There already were howls of derision all for Floyd!

I think where the controversy lies is where Pacquiao was denied the treatment he had already been taking going into the fight?

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

You seem to be rewarding Floyd for the clip. That is what I find bizarre. Running and dodging and not fighting should not be rewarded. Criticizing Manny for the clip when it's Manny who is actually trying something (successful or not) and Floyd is intent on not wanting to do anything is what is wrong. Even a balanced criticism would be better. Can you watch that clip and criticize only Manny, or can you also show us where you could or would criticize Floyd?

I just don't get the clip. In a scoring sense it obviously does nothing for floyd, but it is an example of good defensive work surely? Manny a fast and ferocious puncher, known for dynamite offence whereas floyd is a known slick and elusive counter puncher. Why would anybody expect floyd to just stand there and get hit? Like I say he was always going to fight like this and why wouldn't he? It plays to his strengths while neutralising manny's.

As for criticising floyd, there is definitely a case for stating that toward the end of the fight, when manny looked a bit tired and disheartened floyd could have tried to take back the middle of the ring and sat down on a few punches etc and actually, after watching the fight you realise manny is a bad stylistic match up for floyd and floyd should have won better.

With that in mind I can see how you would be annoyed at commentators calling it a master class etc.

RoryMac

Panic E wrote: »

No need to imagine that as it's not what happened. Did you see the fight? There already were howls of derision all for Floyd!

I think where the controversy lies is where Pacquiao was denied the treatment he had already been taking going into the fight?

If the injury was that bad he shouldn't have fought, simple as that.

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

I just don't get the clip. In a scoring sense it obviously does nothing for floyd, but it is an example of good defensive work surely? Manny a fast and ferocious puncher, known for dynamite offence whereas floyd is a known slick and elusive counter puncher. Why would anybody expect floyd to just stand there and get hit? Like I say he was always going to fight like this and why wouldn't he? It plays to his strengths while neutralising manny's.
.

I don't expect him to stand there and get hit, but at the same time he is not getting credit for fleeing and avoiding fighting. On a pure case of being elusive and hard to hit, yes, credit, but not credit in the sense that I am happy or in awe, or the clip showing him as more deserving of credit than the aggressor.

Panic E

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