Remember how easily Floyd Mayweather beat Canelo?

Where have I discredit this win at all? I'm not the one trying to inflate this win to make it seem way more dominate or one-sided than it actually was.

 

Your memory really is something else.

This content is protected

Why don't you do the same then?

Were you bottle fed as an infant? You're a sensitive wee fella. Cute that you couldn't help but mention Golo

 

LOL I'm not the one trying to argue it was some kind of domination / shut out / master class. You are. I saw it as the close competitive fight that all 3 judges saw it as.

 

This content is protected

I understand your limited IQ means you struggle with the scoring system, but that is not considered 'close' by any means.

 

it's a masterclass because of the quality of opposition.
you keep referencing scorecards when you debate this because that one dire card implies that floyd didn't control that fight as well as he did.

the win doesn't need "inflating".
floyd could have just about won the second half of that fight with the jab alone.

and you didn't answer why you are so combative about this fight in particular?

 

Canelo won 1 maybe 2 rounds if you want to be super generous against Mayweather yet somehow managed to get a 114-114 scorecard

 

But, but, but Floyd did lots of feints and weight drained Canelo. So it evens it up... and, and, and Floyd ran.

 

Apologies for the trolling of Shadow btw @Aussie Invader - I'm not willing to actually invest the time in debunking his nonsense today.
Respect for the above. It's always nice to see objective posters taking the time to have an educated discussion.

 

no probs.
that's between you and shadow.

 

So it's not really a master class persay, it's only a master class because of the level of opposition? So we're grading master classes on a curve now?

Just admit it, it wasn't anywhere near an actual master class. It's only a master class as a means to exaggerate what happened, to make something that wasn't all that be better than it was. In a poor attempt to prop up Mayweather and try to downgrade Canelo. It's a riot.

Again I'm not backing Ross's card. I made it very clear that I disagreed with her card, not only with her final score but also the specific rounds she gave Canelo. I made it very clear that I had Floyd winning rounds 1 and 8, for example, while Ross gave those rounds to Canelo. So I'm not in any way shape or form backing her card. On the other hand, there were rounds like 4 that all the judges gave to Floyd and he didn't win that round. So in this case, it just so happens that wrong scores in specific rounds balance out when it comes to the final totals. I'm merely pointing out that all 3 scorecards were relatively close and niether of those scores are remotely close to what could be considered a Master class. For something to be a master class, you really need to win pretty much every round and Floyd didn't come close to doing that. (aside from inside people's imaginations)

Sure it does, otherwise you and many other posters wouldn't be arguing that it was much more one-sided than the judges had it. I'm simply saying the judges had it right. Close fight. You're saying, no it wasn't close, the judges had it wrong. That it was actually a shutout or whatever you believe. Just like in every Canelo fight. It's always some kind of a judging conspiracy. How GGG didn't really lose, or how Jacobs wasn't schooled, or how Lara didn't really lose, or how Trout didn't really lose, etc. The judges constantly have it wrong every time Canelo is in a close fight right.

I'm just setting the record straight. I would argue that the creator of this topic is being combative. To rehash all this and argue that Floyd beat Canelo "easily" that it was a supposed master class. It's an absolute riot to believe such a thing. I mean it's one thing to praise Mayweather's performance, he fought out of his mind but lets not get crazy.

 

If you were the least bit objective or interested in fact checking you would review the first 3 rounds, verify what I'm saying about the feints, then go to Round 10 and confirm what I'm saying about the battle of the ropes. But you continue to ignore what happened, you're flying blind on this one.

 

if you're not fighting top opposition, how can a fight be considered a masterclass?
many fighters look good against sub-par opposition, but only one has ever dominated canelo, and that was a guy who started at super featherweight.

 

masterclass (definition) : "a class given by an expert to highly talented students".
google it.

 

A master class is a master class. There's no points in a master class where it isn't a master class. You don't bite on literally 35 feints while dishing out a master class. You don't get taught how to fight on the ropes while putting on a master class.

You wanna talk about a Master class - See Mayweather vs Marquez.

You wanna talk about a Master class - See Winky vs Trinidad.

Don't start try to make something a master class that wasn't even close to one because you want so desperately to cling to the one time a fighter you don't like didn't win. Mayweather is a great fighter, but the lengths that some posters here go to try and make him better than he was is completely ludicrous. He had a good night when he fought Canelo, but it was nowhere near what people on this forum act like it was. Canelo fought him tooth and nail and taught him a thing or two along the way.

 

And when in a master class does a student get up out of his seat and start making the teacher flinch 35 times during a lesson? And when does a start student get up out of his seat and start teaching the teacher how to do something? Never, never during a schooling let alone a supposed master schooling.