Floyd Keeps Saying There's no "Blueprint" to beat him...

Shane doesn't have the feet to beat Floyd.

Pac has everything in his arsenal to win a whitewash, stylistically.

 

BOLD: Exactly, very true. I'm not a believer in his supposedly insurmountable skillset until he employs it against someone who makes it real hard for him.

lined; don't agree. Too many intangibles push the fight in Floyd's favour (yet again) IMO. If he were to soundly beat Pac, then I'd be a believer. His resume still wouldn't be much to write home about IMO.

 

These days.

 

Love how everyone uses the Castillo fight or the DLH fight as examples of how to beat Floyd . One fight was eight years ago and the other was in a weight class Floyd didnt even belong in at the time. Maybe if we throw Chad Dawson in with him, he will show us the blueprint to beat Floyd?
If Floyd was injured with a rotator cuff injury in the first fight with Castillo and then swept the second fight, Castillo didnt show ****, other than Floyd is still good with one hand.
If anything guys like Corley and Judah showed some technical lapses in Mayweather, which is the only way Mosley will have a chance. If anyone thinks Mosley is going to overwhelm Mayweather, they're nuts.
Now that Ive gotten to hear Nazim Richardson on these 24/7 episodes, I believe hes the real deal. He doesnt have a lot of fighters under his belt, but he is approaching this fight correctly, only thing is, does his strategy have a realistic chance against Mayweather given Shanes abilities?

 

You're not wrong in tackling these stylistic extremities, but is it not so that tacking control of a fight involves ridding a fighter of their identity? Many fighters have been equipped to best Floyd but he un-equips them. What an opponent did not try may simply be a case of Floyd not allowing it is the simple flip-side to this.

Moreover, (this may take the argument on a few diversions) but when it comes to Floyd Mayweather, Ted Spoon feels there is an imbalance in objectivity.

For him, attaining this 'greatness' has become the battle. He is a man possibly marooned by his ability - the further he swims out, the further the life raft drifts away. Mosley is indeed a commendable choice of opponent but the backlash of a favoured Mayweather UD is already audible if we silence the babbling predictions for a moment...

It has become more a case of what could be, rather than sitting back and observing what is. No doubt, this is the unfair slant Mayweather is subject to at present.

We want to see him tested, of course, but we're not sure if that can be reasonably achieved to the extent to which it will quench our objections and give him the green light for that top shelf.

Back when Mike Tyson was not tested, blasting everyone into mush, that is when we all clasped at straws to find every accolade possible to happily adorn his infallible legacy. There are obvious differences in this comparison but the main one to which the public reaction is determined is in something you may term 'stylistic compliance'.

Politics aside, Mike Tyson was 'I'm gonna knock you out', Floyd Mayweather is 'I'm gonna perform as if the health of my bank account stops severe fluctuations between the tectonic plates'. As objective as one would like to think he or she is, empathy between the public and fighter has a great effect on how they are generally perceived. Pacquiao is not the dish of the day everyday because he smiles a lot...

Which brings Ted Spoon to something of a summary which Mayweather has himself proclaimed to be condemned to until a couple of decades elapse.

This 'greatness' may be something that is not still to be caught, but something that will have to be dug out when all the ballyhoo that distorts each chapter is no longer present. If Mayweather was a blood n' guts character, if he had to come from behind to squash his rivals then we’d intrinsically become more considerate.

When it becomes hard in the ring the counter-weight on the scales of justice becomes lighter and we find it easier to ship out the accolades. This is an applicable rule of a fans physcology.

Mayweather's ability simultaneously handcuffs his opponents and his legacy. That he dips below the waistline is no small issue for some and helps verify these unusual gripes that Mayweather attracts.

Boxing is supposed to be a tough sport but Mayweather insults it with conserved efforts. Fans feel cheated, analysts are left wanting more. The pattern has been set. Unless Floyd installs a few false equations in his calculator of a brain then we're not about to witness that greatness inducing grit.

A win is still a win mind.

 

add Duran,Ray Leonard,and Aaron Pryor,a big key to beating floyd is the jab and body work but even bigger being active and having a productive work rate,i dont know about Whitaker beating him though,he would have to be fighting his best his workrate isnt as great as the others and Floyds a little quicker, 2 similar styles but Floyds a little faster with his hands and feet,and whitaker doesent really hit hard enough,you have to be throwing against Mayweather it would be a slick fight between to defenders with Whitaker being a touch better defensively and i mean a very slight touch and floyd being qicker with better power.

 

He cant mean historywise,Hearns would destroy him,Duran and Pryor are presure fighter with boxing skills and speed and they throw from all angles,Leonard would be interresting his speed is equal and his bodypunching would give him fits and he takes a great shot,i like Currys chances to with his subperb counterpunching and handspeed but his footspeed and stamania could be a problem.Paul Williams is the only legit chance right now,but he looks to be to big for welter,maybe Berto might have a shot at beating him.

 

You forget that Floyd showed a vulnerability to southpaws and that Whitaker has a far higher workrate and would pressure Floyd. I don´t think it would be close and I don´t think Floyd´s slight speed advantage would help him here.

btw. I don´t think they are similar stylistically at all. Floyd likes his opponent to come to him, Whitaker often leads and draws his oponent in to counter them.

 

Well said. Boxing is a character sport first and a skills sport second. I haven't decided on a prediction but I know that Shane will show Floyd for what he is -stylistic problems be damned. Shane WILL test him.

 

"A win is still a win" --? A wordsmith with a grudge against simplicity as Ted Spoon should never uplift this naive little quote. A win is most assuredely not still a win when it comes to measuring boxing greatness. What matters is what and who you have faced. Mayweather has been a cherry-picker from the moment he could until the moment he couldn't -which was soon after he shucked and jived himself clear out of Pacquiao's way.

He had to face Shane or risk losing whatever credibility he had left outside of his comedically dysfunctional family.

While you are correct that many of Floyd's detractors allow their personal disdain for his person cloud their analysis with hope and hatred, it does not automatically translate that severe criticism of his career and his style are tainted with bias. I've stood up and said that regardless of what happens on May 1 aside from Shane coming in on a walker and getting dentures knocked into the 5th row, this fight will give me what I've sought for years -a test of Floyd actual, not assumed ability.

---And he doesn't have to bleed to prove himself. The caliber of his opposition must speak loudly before a great fighter earns greatness from an authority greater than his own mouth. Whose Floyd got? Mitchell? Castillo? Again, he must fight lions.... the ones with teeth.

You seem to be upholding Mayweather-Gatti as something indicative of Floyd's prowess. It is not indicative of anything except Floyd's purpose til now -to fight guys that he admitted are not even near his level. Gatti, he said, was a C-level fighter. Hell, his last fight was criminal. Coming in 2 pounds over 144 and willingly forking over $600k to little Marquez for the privilege of guaranteeing that the fight would be noncompetitive speaks volumes. And that's been more or less the story of his career for years.

You want to round it all up and pretend that he would have and could have beaten Margarito and Cotto and Pacquiao, be my guest. But if you put him anywhere near the top 75 all time, get your war-hat.

I get annoyed when posters actually uphold Jones-Pazienza as anything but a snuff film. It means nothing! Nothing! If it does, then please allow me to send you a clip of me hitting the heavybag. You'll be stunned at my connect rate.

Or perhaps you'd enjoy a clip of me sparring with the physically challenged -I mean... the physically challenging. I'm undefeated. I've built my rep on the prone bodies of the disabled -I mean... the defeated.

I'm a killer.

But don't read the fine print.

 

Or shane could choke after a few rounds of being outboxed and just go through the motions like he has in several of his big fights post Forrest 1.



Mosley does still have tools that could be interesting against this Mayweather, but i think it's a fight Floyd should win if he is to convince he is more than just a good Welter.He's really not done much around this weight.

I don't feel there is any easy blueprint to beat Mayweather.You need to have talent and good tools.Try and fight your fight as much as possible and adapt when need be.Same as when going up against any other very good to great fighter.trouble is most of the people he has fought simply haven't had many tools and most have been average physical talents...not good enough to avoid being very comfortably beaten.The better fighters like Castillo, DLH or even to an extent Hatton have had more success fighting in their own styles after all.

It's really pretty rare an inferior fighter will beat someone outright better using a strict gameplan imo, usally they get as far as making it a tougher fight than expected.Even stuff like Spinks vs qawi was more about spinks superb talent than it was just the famed gameplan.With the abilities he has left it'll be a major accomplishment for him if shane beats Floyd imo.

 

huh?????

 

The last point was intended for the fact fans have a habit of stripping a win of all its worth. The before and after, its always been unfair, but Mayweather gets extra special attention in this judgemental phenomena.

The win can never be neutrally judged because there are too many dimensions behind it with Mayweather. The Marquez victory, on its own, factoring in performance, was a decent win, a legacy builder. But, as reality would have you informed; he was picked after a lay-off, he was too small, he doesn't qualify.

Far too much is made of weight. If Marquez's nemesis can indeed be viewed as the man Mayweather has to face if he is to get universal respect then how can we just as easily dismiss his opponent, to the point of irrelevance that is?

While Ted Spoon most certainly recognizes many of the arguments against Mayweather do not stem from fairy tales they do often go further than is required to make their point and infiltrate on aspects that deserve credit.

The real problem Mayweather has is that everyone recognizes his talent. Mayweather is not allowed to win easily because it looks like he's cheating, somehow, someway - they fact Marquez could not even make a stand lessens the win. It can never be the other way around. That sacred middle ground is tossed away.

A couple of questions:

1) If Mayweather does beat Shane, easily, and condescends another big event through conserved efficiency, what say you?

And

2) Could you honestly say that if this were the case would not the detractors pick up on subjective particulars to again stain another victory?

For all the bull that Mayweather enjoys to ventilate around every room that he enters he does seem to understand his place with the media and thus does not see himself getting credit for a long time...an interesting opinion of oneself.


On a side note: He does appear convinced that a Pacquiao win would lend him little credit. Again, it can be heard as the cards are read out...

 

They're good points, and its nothing new. We saw the same crap with Roy Jones. Its a double edge sword being supremely talented and superior to your peers. The brash ego only makes it work more negatively towards the fighter in the eyes of the fans. I just try to mute the tv when the guy speaks because hes hard to take. People dont realize that Mayweather is really "that" good, as was Jones at his peak.
They will beat the ducking drum until his reflexes slow and some midland knocks him off, so they can say I told you so. Who cares??

 

I dont agree with a lot of what youve written. Also you seem to be forgetting the DLH win. Was DLH at 154 any less of a challenge to "little" Floyd, than Cotto or Margarito at 147? Not really, and dont tell me it was the same DLH that Pac walked through.