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

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.

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

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

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.

In fairness though despite the 'running' throughout the fight he managed to throw and land more punches than the aggressor.

walshb

Levra wrote: »

Failing to land a punch should not be rewarded either.

Who said it should? But if one man is trying nothing apart from disengaging and surviving and the other is letting his hands go and trying to hit then one man deserves scores and credit, and it's not the runner. In that clip shots did land.

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

In fairness though despite the 'running' throughout the fight he managed to throw and land more punches than the aggressor.

Based on compu box? That can be challenged and refuted. I'll just as easily score all those hip and arm connections that Manny landed. I am sure compu box scored many shots from Floyd that didn't connect clean or to areas of the body that one would consider scoring zones.

Halloween Jack

Panic E wrote: »

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

That's 69 seconds of my life I ain't getting back...

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Who said it should? But if one man is trying nothing apart from disengaging and surviving and the other is letting his hands go and trying to hit then one man deserves scores and credit, and it's not the runner. In that clip shots did land.

Bren that is the point, Floyd threw more than Manny in the fight
Manny didn't try to win, he just done the bare minimum, Floyd was chalking up the rds, may not have excited you but it's just a fact, As i said already
If Manny tried to win it probably would have been a good fight, and Manny probably would have been ko'd

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

Based on compu box? That can be challenged and refuted. I'll just as easily score all those hip and arm connections that Manny landed. I am sure compu box scored many shots from Floyd that didn't connect clean or to areas of the body that one would consider scoring zones.

Based on what I saw I felt floyd landed more and better shots. I'm sure some will disagree, that's how we get contentious decisions.

walshb

RoryMac wrote: »

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

The injury may have worsened through the fight. May have bee passed fit to fight but that doesn't mean an old or recent injury cannot come back to haunt you.

efb

Panic E wrote: »

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

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

Avoiding being hit- clinching it was only a minute in the whole fight

efb

walshb wrote: »

Based on compu box? That can be challenged and refuted. I'll just as easily score all those hip and arm connections that Manny landed. I am sure compu box scored many shots from Floyd that didn't connect clean or to areas of the body that one would consider scoring zones.

If you want to score not scoring shots you will always get the score different

TheNap

Its funny .

Why is all the talk about Mayweather.

Why isn't all the talk about the shocking performance Manny gave us.

It really was terrible.

He offered nothing but glimpses in round 4 and 6. People can say what they want about Floyd, but when Manny did get close ( which he did throughout the fight ) he was afraid to let his hands go . He knew he would / assumed he would be countered.

He spent the whole fight worrying about Floyds counters that he gave away round after round.

Can you really blame Floyd ?? Biggest fight of his career and he knows he doesnt have to break sweat and doesnt have to take a real punch in 12 rounds ( bar the 4th )


Why risk being KO'd when you are going to cruise to a win .

Near the end of the fight it was so one sided it was embarassing. Manny had given up and Floyd was doing as he pleased. Thank god for him boxing is no longer 15 rounds.


I put the blame of this being a terrible fight on Manny and Freddie Roach.