(05-04-2015 12:08 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  Mayweather has fought to not lose fights for his last 5 fights. He knows that there is zero chance of him losing if it goes to the card.

smart though. He isn't the same guy he was 8 years ago. nowhere near the same power. Why try to fight like you are 28?

for Mayweather this fight was about the money, for Pac it was about his legacy, first to admit Mayweather is probably the greatest defensive boxer of his generation, and Pac isn't the same fighter he was 5 yrs ago. If Mayweather wanted to give himself the best chance to win, then the way he fought was smart and the correct strategy, but it doesn't help his argument that he is one of the bests of all time, if he didn't answer the question of whether he can take a punch or give one. Personally, I think if he really was about proving his naysayers wrong, and cement his legacy as one of the greats, he would have come out with the attitude and game plan that he would stand toe to toe with Pac and make this a five round fight. I would have had alot more respect for him if he would have stood toe to toe with Pac and lost in 5 rounds, than winning the way he did.

(05-04-2015 12:34 PM)moehler Wrote:  for Mayweather this fight was about the money, for Pac it was about his legacy, first to admit Mayweather is probably the greatest defensive boxer of his generation, and Pac isn't the same fighter he was 5 yrs ago. If Mayweather wanted to give himself the best chance to win, then the way he fought was smart and the correct strategy, but it doesn't help his argument that he is one of the bests of all time, if he didn't answer the question of whether he can take a punch or give one. Personally, I think if he really was about proving his naysayers wrong, and cement his legacy as one of the greats, he would have come out with the attitude and game plan that he would stand toe to toe with Pac and make this a five round fight. I would have had alot more respect for him if he would have stood toe to toe with Pac and lost in 5 rounds, than winning the way he did.

You might have been the only one. If that happened, everyone would have been screaming "see, he isn't that good of a boxer!" Only way he would have completely made everyone happy was to knock out Mayweather. But then after that, the haters would have come out saying it is because Manny isn't as good as he used to be and if the fight happened 5 years ago, it would have been different. People just enjoy hating on Mayweather because he is cocky, flashy, and undefeated.

think back to the Hearns/Hagler fight in the, I believe the early 90's. Every expert said the only chance Hearns had against Hagler was to jab and play defensive, the exact same way Mayweather fought last night. Anyway, Hagler was the biggest baddest boxer in the world, he had the strongest jaw in the sport and he was the hardest hitter, no one stood toe to toe with Hagler and made it past the 3rd round. Instead Hearns, did the exact opposite stood toe to toe with Hagler, and even though he got knock out in the 4th? round, that fight is considered the greatest of all time, and Hearns became one of the most beloved and respected fighters of his generation, and a lot of boxing historians immediately moved him up to one of the greatest fighters of all time. My point is Mayweather had the exact same opportunity in this fight to cement his legacy and become one of the greatest and most beloved boxers of all time and prove his naysayers wrong if he would have had the guts to stand in the middle of the ring, go toe to toe with Pac for 5 rounds. Even if he lost, his status would have been elevated to one of the greatest of all time. Now, he did the smart thing to win the fight, run, hide, tie up Pac on the ropes, but he did nothing to enhance his legacy, and he certainly didn't change the opinion of the public, that he is a cocky, arrogant, that cares more about the money than his legacy.

another thing to take into consideration with how boxing is changed:

Look at a lot of the old time boxers. Brain damaged. Can barely talk. Barely walk. Everyone sees how NFL has evolved. Boxing is on the path to doing the same thing. Guys want to protect the rest of their lives, so they are choosing to not go out and get in an all out slug fest.

agree 100%, truth is the only person Mayweather has to answer to is himself, if he is okay with his place history, and how he is perceived by the historians and the public than that's really all that matters. But ultimately, and I think this is one of the reasons boxing has lost momentum to the casual US fan is boxers do not want to get into slugfest anymore, they just want to dance and jab and collect a paycheck. That's fine for them, but it makes for very boring event that the casual fan doesn't care about watching.

The fight sucked and mayweather looked like a coward. A casual fans point of view.

(05-04-2015 02:01 PM)moehler Wrote:  agree 100%, truth is the only person Mayweather has to answer to is himself, if he is okay with his place history, and how he is perceived by the historians and the public than that's really all that matters. But ultimately, and I think this is one of the reasons boxing has lost momentum to the casual US fan is boxers do not want to get into slugfest anymore, they just want to dance and jab and collect a paycheck. That's fine for them, but it makes for very boring event that the casual fan doesn't care about watching.

And that is part of the reason why MMA has become way more popular. A lot more action in an MMA bout, even if it isn't all punching. You have leg kicks, take downs, wrestling, etc, and it is much more fast paced.

you are correct

MMA is not way more popular. Boxing destroys it in terms of popularity. Paychecks do the talking.

(05-05-2015 02:03 AM)eagleskins Wrote:  MMA is not way more popular. Boxing destroys it in terms of popularity. Paychecks do the talking.

Maybe so, but that is probably because Boxing has ton of old money involved.

MMA is young, and I would imagine the demographics the same pattern as well.

Boxing might be more popular at this time, but MMA is putting up a better product.

Boxing has major egg on their face after calling this the "Fight of the Century".

MMA caters to the lowest common denominator. Very little talent in the sport.

(05-06-2015 03:47 AM)eagleskins Wrote:  MMA caters to the lowest common denominator. Very little talent in the sport.

See you won't even discuss the points of the argument, you simply deflect and name call. Typical Skins, not sure what I was thinking.

I'm not a boxing guy, so take my thoughts for what they are, but I thought I'd share as a bit of an outsider. Mayweather keeps catching heat for the way he went about the fight...and apparently the way he's fought his entire career...but the guy's never lost and is at least getting thrown around in talks of the best pound-for-pound fighters ever. If this is what works, then maybe the problem isn't with him, but with people's expectations from the sport...? It feels a bit like hating on the triple option while watching a certain team succeed with it.

(05-06-2015 07:02 AM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  I'm not a boxing guy, so take my thoughts for what they are, but I thought I'd share as a bit of an outsider. Mayweather keeps catching heat for the way he went about the fight...and apparently the way he's fought his entire career...but the guy's never lost and is at least getting thrown around in talks of the best pound-for-pound fighters ever. If this is what works, then maybe the problem isn't with him, but with people's expectations from the sport...? It feels a bit like hating on the triple option while watching a certain team succeed with it.

totally agree. Just because you don't like the style, doesn't mean he isn't good. People say "ah, he's a crap fighter, he only runs around". Tons of people tried Mayweathers strategy against Manny and got knocked the hell out. lol.

cant argue, his style of being a pure defensive boxer has made him one of best boxers of his generation. The question is, how does he rank as one of the greatest of all time? I think he is the greatest defensive boxer ever to fight, but, he became so specialized, other aspects of his game, taking a punch, and his knockout ability have always been questioned, bottom line he only knows one way to fight, that's why I don't believe he is even the best of his weight class, that honor belongs to Sugar Ray, (I think their in the same class), who ultimately was a much more complete boxer who could fight you straight up, or fight you defensively.

(05-06-2015 07:02 AM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  It feels a bit like hating on the triple option while watching a certain team succeed with it.

Exactly. I was making the Alabama analogy after the fight. Alabama doesn't have a hurry up, flashy offense. It's really kind of boring to watch. They score points, make no mistake, but it's their defense that wins games. They don't let anyone "hit" them.

In the same light, Floyd is a defensive fighter. And like Alabama, his offense is overshadowed by his defense. He still had 148 landed punches to Pacquiao's 80+. That's almost double. He may have done a lot of running around, but he still outboxed Manny.

I'm still a big #pacfan and look forward to seeing what the future holds for The Filipino Warrior.

* I didn't watch much Alabama football this year so I can't speak on what kind of changes Lane Kiffin has made to the Alabama offense. I've heard they've gone to a faster tempo than in previous years.

(05-04-2015 01:28 PM)moehler Wrote:  think back to the Hearns/Hagler fight in the, I believe the early 90's. Every expert said the only chance Hearns had against Hagler was to jab and play defensive, the exact same way Mayweather fought last night. Anyway, Hagler was the biggest baddest boxer in the world, he had the strongest jaw in the sport and he was the hardest hitter, no one stood toe to toe with Hagler and made it past the 3rd round. Instead Hearns, did the exact opposite stood toe to toe with Hagler, and even though he got knock out in the 4th? round, that fight is considered the greatest of all time, and Hearns became one of the most beloved and respected fighters of his generation, and a lot of boxing historians immediately moved him up to one of the greatest fighters of all time. My point is Mayweather had the exact same opportunity in this fight to cement his legacy and become one of the greatest and most beloved boxers of all time and prove his naysayers wrong if he would have had the guts to stand in the middle of the ring, go toe to toe with Pac for 5 rounds. Even if he lost, his status would have been elevated to one of the greatest of all time. Now, he did the smart thing to win the fight, run, hide, tie up Pac on the ropes, but he did nothing to enhance his legacy, and he certainly didn't change the opinion of the public, that he is a cocky, arrogant, that cares more about the money than his legacy.

Hagler was able to maintain his image though in that fight as well. Yes Hearns stood toe to toe and it became anyones match because you just knew that one guy wouldnt be able to continue and it was very close. I watched that fight it was in the mid 80's. One of the best fights I ever saw. It was like a street fight for 3 rounds. No boxing, just a knockdown drag out fight.

I care very little for boxing, but the Hagler/Hearns fight is my all time favorite sporting event, after all these years I still can see almost every punch of that fight in my mind, and your right, Hagler maintained his image as well, best fight of all time!!

Ah, Tommy the "Hitman" Hearns... my hero as a young amateur / recreational boxer. I was built a lot like him and tried to model my style after him as much as possible. We all see how that worked out in the long run since none of you've ever heard of me