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

Bubor

Mayweather won that fight clearly but he's still a mere shadow of his peak self, it seems like he's afraid to hurt his hands when he punches so he never puts his weight being them as much as he used to.

Did anyone else notice Burger King in his entourage?

walshb

pac_man wrote: »

His analysis is based on boxingnews24,seriously? The epitome of lazy journalism but I wouldn't expect any different from The Daily Mail.

You haven't said anything, other than to dismiss a report. Let's dismiss compu box on the night then?

It's Jeff Powell reporting. That is all. The Daily Mail has nothing to do with it. Powell is quite a respected boxing reporter.

Anyway, it's interesting that the compu box on the night was so skewed in Floyd's favor. I had a feeling it was well off, and this backs that feeling up. Ridiculous analysis on fight night.

walshb

The PPV buys exceeds 4 million buys and the live gate exceeded 70 million dollars. Not bad for a night of tag boxing!

http://www.news.com.au/sport/boxing/floyd-mayweather-vs-manny-pacquiao-official-pay-per-view-numbers-are-staggering/story-fndkzthy-1227352853214

SHOVELLER

I enjoyed the fight and IMO talk of it being boring and doing nothing for the sport is missing the point. No surprise with the decision at all. Mayweather as a champion has the right to defend himself and try and not to get hit!

Did people really expect a war here?!

Rematch next April could be the perfect ending for a 50-0.

walshb

SHOVELLER wrote: »

Did people really expect a war here?!

No, I didn't think we did. I didn't. I knew that their styles would likley make for a pretty tame affair, but I did hope that we would see some effective offense. We got next to nothing. They are touted as the two best of their generation and they sparred and tipped each other for 12 rds.

walshb

Petroleum Jelly wrote: »

What do you expect, they are both well past their best.

Well past their best is a separate argument. Past their best or not we got a stinker of a fight as regards offensive output and substance. Floyd not wanting to make much of a fight, and Manny happy to coast along with the odd attack here and there. Add in a lot of threatening and posturing and there's your 500 million dollar extravaganza.

Joeseph Balls

pac_man wrote: »

What's the story with the ticket? Did you pay $30 to watch the fight in a pub?

I'd say so Pac man, pubs in the US were charging anything up to 1k in for it.

SHOVELLER

pac_man wrote: »

What's the story with the ticket? Did you pay $30 to watch the fight in a pub?

$33 with tax. Standard in NYC that weekend. Still with fair drink promotions the total was less than paying the PPV price.

Some bars were charging 3k for VIP packages!

Going back to the fight Manny didnt seem too upset to lose. Waving and smiling after and the bizarre scene pre fight when Roach took a selfie walking to the ring:eek:

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

we got a stinker of a fight as regards offensive output and substance. Floyd not wanting to make much of a fight, and Manny happy to coast along with the odd attack here and there.

Bren it's not fair and very biased of you, Floyd's output will always be related to his opponents and we knew that from the start, and Manny was the one who changed up his usual self and didn't look to win and done pretty much 2 attacks in a 12 round match

If you cant see Manny been the reason this was a stinker then it's either biased or just silliness

Manny was the big let down who didn't do what he is loved for, Floyd done exactly what Floyd does

SHOVELLER

pac_man wrote: »

Why is it expensive? Is it standard practice to charge for ppv in pubs in the states? I remember reading an article saying that it costs pub a fair bit to get a fight in but can't remember if that was hotels looking for exclusivity in Vegas.

Not really. This fight was the exception. For example for the last Maidana fight bars were not charging in but still had specials.

As an aside to watch the rugby in Manhattan bars will charge $20 at the door as they get in Premium Sports but that's a scam as you can watch it in bars in DC for free.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Bren it's not fair and very biased of you, Floyd's output will always be related to his opponents and we knew that from the start, and Manny was the one who changed up his usual self and didn't look to win and done pretty much 2 attacks in a 12 round match

It's not biased. I was clear in my criticisms of both men for the makings of a pretty poor spectacle. Criticizing just Manny is where the bias is, as well as the inaccuracy. Big time. Manny tried to fight, and Floyd did what he does. They both played a part in it. Manny not trying hard enough, and Floyd not trying hard enough, but you're making excuses for Floyd's part in it. That's where the bias is!

Mister Vain

walshb wrote: »

It's not biased. I was clear in my criticisms of both men for the makings of a pretty poor spectacle. Criticizing just Manny is where the bias is, as well as the inaccuracy. Big time. Manny tried to fight, and Floyd did what he does. They both played a part in it. Manny not trying hard enough, and Floyd not trying hard enough, but you're making excuses for Floyd's part in it. That's where the bias is!

He did enough to win the fight so you can't really accuse him of not trying hard enough. It may have been a dull spectacle but it was never going to live up to the hype anyway.

walshb

Mister Vain wrote: »

He did enough to win the fight so you can't really accuse him of not trying hard enough. It may have been a dull spectacle but it was never going to live up to the hype anyway.

Not in everyone's eyes he didn't win. And in saying this then I feel it's valid to criticize both men for failing to try hard enough. I saw a tag boxing match/spar. Both made it that way.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Criticizing just Manny is where the bias is, as well as the inaccuracy. Big time. Manny tried to fight, and Floyd did what he does. They both played a part in it. Manny not trying hard enough, and Floyd not trying hard enough, but you're making excuses for Floyd's part in it. That's where the bias is!

Bren seriously this is like talking to someone who started watching Boxing last week!


Manny changed his style, Floyd didn't. That is the fact of the matter and what made this fight uneventful

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Bren seriously this is like talking to someone who started watching Boxing last week!


Manny changed his style, Floyd didn't. That is the fact of the matter and what made this fight uneventful

I am well aware of their styles and their history. I have watched them many times. Bottom line is that last week both made for a stinker. Both. Neither man looked like they wanted to really take the fight and win it. It was a glorified spar! I feel you are far too pro Floyd, and always have been, not allowing you to be in any way subjective.

BTW, I don't think Manny changed his style at all. Did he change his style in fight IV vs. JMM? The man in front of you has a lot to do with that. Manny's style is speed and volume, but against punchbags that can look spectacular. It doesn't work like that against all opponents, and especially not ones like Mayweather.

Mayweather made it very difficult for Manny to get off his combinations in rhythm and fluidity, and fair play to Floyd for that, but Floyd also didn't punish Manny at all in retaliation. Like I said, both made for a stinker. Had Floyd stood his ground more and countered more off Manny's attacks then we would have had a better fight, and IMO a firm Mayweather win. For whatever reason Mayweather didn't feel up to that, and instead he moved a lot and flicked and swiped and didn't get any impacting offense off.

Mayweather fight fans, and I would include myself as one, should really be let down by Floyd's display. I am sort of surprised that you weren't let down. It's almost like you don't want to admit that he was very disjointed and off. Winner or not. Remember, you did predict an easy win for Floyd. Did you really believe that he would barely put a mark on Manny's face? Surely you were expecting or hoping for a bit of a one sided beating? That did not happen.

cowzerp

it was an easy win, and if Manny had tried to win it would have been the same easy with Manny bust up bad.

ps. where am i saying it was awesome etc, I'm simply saying the hatred for Mayweather and fools blaming him when he done as expected to do is embarrassing to say the least

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

I am well aware of their styles and their history. I have watched them many times. Bottom line is that last week both made for a stinker. Both. Neither man looked like they wanted to really take the fight and win it. It was a glorified spar! I feel you are far too pro Floyd, and always have been, not allowing you to be in any way subjective.

BTW, I don't think Manny changed his style at all. Did he change his style in fight IV vs. JMM? The man in front of you has a lot to do with that. Manny's style is speed and volume, but against punchbags that can look spectacular. It doesn't work like that against all opponents, and especially not ones like Mayweather.

Mayweather made it very difficult for Manny to get off his combinations in rhythm and fluidity, and fair play to Floyd for that, but Floyd also didn't punish Manny at all in retaliation. Like I said, both made for a stinker. Had Floyd stood his ground more and countered more off Manny's attacks then we would have had a better fight, and IMO a firm Mayweather win. For whatever reason Mayweather didn't feel up to that, and instead he moved a lot and flicked and swiped and didn't get any impacting offense off.

Mayweather fight fans, and I would include myself as one, should really be let down by Floyd's display. I am sort of surprised that you weren't let down. It's almost like you don't want to admit that he was very disjointed and off. Winner or not. Remember, you did predict an easy win for Floyd. Did you really believe that he would barely put a mark on Manny's face? Surely you were expecting or hoping for a bit of a one sided beating? That did not happen.

Decent post. I still think it's that poxy zero that has prevented mayweather becoming as good as he could have been.

He wasn't too keen on taking any shots (and in fairness manny definitely buzzed him once) with the zero in mind.

If floyd already had a couple of defeats he'd probably take a few more risks and we'd have a more entertaining fighter.

That being said if they were to fight again Id predict the type of mayweather victory we expected first time out.

T-K-O

cowzerp wrote: »

it was an easy win, and if Manny had tried to win it would have been the same easy with Manny bust up bad.

ps. where am i saying it was awesome etc, I'm simply saying the hatred for Mayweather and fools blaming him when he done as expected to do is embarrassing to say the least

Tell us again how the most ~aggressive fighter of a generation is a coward, after all, tis the weekend and time for laugh.

FTA69

Again, nobody said this was a fight for the ages, rather just pointing out that Floyd won it and landed more scoring shots. There is absolutely no argument whatsoever that Floyd didn't win it, none. The only people I've seen even attempting to make such a farcical point have been on here.

Panic E

Lewis Hamilton thought that Pacquaio won it

Joeseph Balls

Panic E wrote: »

Lewis Hamilton thought that Pacquaio won it

Lewis should stick to driving and blaming others when he dosnt win.

cowzerp

T-K-O wrote: »

Tell us again how the most ~aggressive fighter of a generation is a coward, after all, tis the weekend and time for laugh.

he wasn't brave in the Mayweather fight.
my comment was based on that 1 night and it still stands

efb

Are we still on this?

walshb

efb wrote: »

Are we still on this?

It seems so. As the thread is abut the fight, and still open, I am surprised you are surprised?

T-K-O

cowzerp wrote: »

he wasn't brave in the Mayweather fight.
my comment was based on that 1 night and it still stands

So he should have walked him down ala Cotto , Dela Hoya etc. He wasn't fighting those guys and it would have been stupid and reckless if he fought that way.

Pac hasn't displayed that aggression in a few years. The fire is gone, sadly.

walshb

T-K-O wrote: »

So he should have walked him down ala Cotto , Dela Hoya etc. He wasn't fighting those guys and it would have been stupid and reckless if he fought that way.

Pac hasn't displayed that aggression in a few years. The fire is gone, sadly.

And cowzerp thinks that had Manny tried harder he would have gotten knocked out, correct me if I am wrong, Paul? So Manny can't get any credit here. He doesn't "try" hard enough to attack against a defensive fighter and mover like Floyd he gets criticized, (called cowardly) and if he tries harder and becomes more gung ho he gets knocked out, and he gets criticized. It's a no win situation for Manny in some people's eyes.

Bottom line is that there is no way Manny gets the same volume and aggression against a fighter like Mayweather compared to some other punch bag type fighters that he has fought. Floyd takes that away from Manny. That's Floyd's talent!

T-K-O

Exactly, Cowzerp has no interested in Manny putting in an aggression performance. He wanted Manny to be stupid. We all have our favorites and there are no prizes for guessing which camp cowzerp falls in to.

Fact of the matter is, he's not the Pac that beat up Oscar, Cotta, Margarito et al and he was fighting PBF, those two combined = less shots thrown and landed.

Panic E

Yeah cowzwerp, what are ya like man :rolleyes: Fred Mayweather is the total goose


'Lewis Hamilton should stick to race cars & Evander Holyfield is punch drunk'

And Shane Mosley? Lemme guess, "don't know skit about boxing" I'm takin it


Anyway Pacquioa maintains if you score the fight that he won it 7-5 just sayin

T-K-O

If he wasn't before, he is now

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/17/mitt-romney-lasts-2-rounds-with-evander-holyfield-in-charity-boxing-match/

Panic E

I'm only having the craic. Yeah seen that! Fair play to Romney