I've always taken it as a given that a big reason why May dominated Marquez when they fought was because he outweighed him by a substantial amount. Thing is, I browsed a few of May's lightweight fights and YT and I noticed was that aside from him being just as tall and having a reach just long, he was at least as fast as he was in the 2009 fight. Speed, reach and height all seemed to play big roles in that fight, and he had all those things back in 2003. So maybe I'm putting too much emphasis on the weight advantage. So what do you guys think...if the 2003 Lightweight PBF was the one who fought Marquez in 2009, would the result have been the same? I'm not really just asking for conclusions, I'm interested in analysis because there are a lot of aficionados here.
I know you're just trolling and a blatant *****, but a better analysis would be a 130lb Marquez vs. 130lb Floyd. Mayweather wins either way.
Floyd back in 2003 wasn't as smart, but more agressive and more athletic. Marquez would still lose bad
The size/weight difference had a huge impact. The fight was a joke. But if you turn back the clock, Floyd still beats Marquez every time, at every weight, just maybe not as badly.
No. He beats him because of styles. He's bigger, stronger, faster and he's a counter puncher which Marquez is also.
2009 Marquez is too physically deteriorated, I think. In their primes, I can see them matching wits in a great chess-match, but without the sharp reflexes, Floyd would likely get the better of Marquez at that point.
Dial JMM back a few years and we have a good fight. A bad style matchup, but competitive. I still think May wins a decision, but without all the physical advantages he has to actually earn it.
